The Struggle of Women for Education.
1.--The Revolution in Domestic Life.
Although the change in the position of women is obvious to all who
go through life with open eyes, we still continue to hear the idle
talk that the home and the family are woman’s natural sphere. This
cry is most loudly raised wherever women attempt to enter the learned
professions to become teachers at higher institutions of learning,
physicians, lawyers, scientists, etc. The most ridiculous objections
are resorted to and defended in the guise of scientific arguments. In
this respect, as in many others, supposedly learned men base their
arguments on science to defend what is most ridiculous and absurd.
Their main objection is, that women are intellectually inferior to
men; that in the realm of intellectual activity they cannot attain
any noteworthy achievements. Most men are so prejudiced in regard
to the professional abilities of women, that whoever resorts to
arguments of this sort is sure to meet with approval. As long as the
general status of culture and knowledge is as low as at present,
new ideas will always be met with rigorous opposition, especially
when it is in the interest of the ruling classes to limit culture
and knowledge to their own strata. Therefore new ideas are at first
upheld only by a small minority, and this small group is subjected
to ridicule, slander and persecution. But if the new ideas are good
and rational, if they have sprung up as a natural consequence of
existing conditions, they will be disseminated, and the minority
will eventually become the majority. It was thus with every new idea
in the course of human history, and the idea of obtaining woman’s
true and complete emancipation will meet with the same success. Were
not the believers in Christian faith at one time a small minority?
Was the reformation not ushered in by a small and persecuted group?
Did not the modern bourgeoisie contend with overwhelmingly powerful
opponents? Nevertheless they were victorious. Or was Socialism
destroyed in Germany by twelve years of persecution by exceptional
laws? The victory of Socialism was never more certain than when it
was thought to be destroyed.
The assertion that housekeeping and child-rearing is woman’s natural
sphere is as intelligent as the assertion that there must always be
kings, because there have been kings as long as there has been a
history. We do not know how the first king originated, just as we do
not know where the first capitalist appeared. But we do know that
monarchy has been greatly transformed in the course of thousands of
years, that it is the tendency of evolution to diminish the power
of kings more and more and that the time will come--and that time
is not far distant--when kings will be quite superfluous. Just as
monarchy, so every institution of state and society is subjected
to changes and transformations and ultimate destruction. In the
historical expositions of this book we have seen, that the present
form of marriage and the position of woman have by no means always
been what they are to-day. We have seen that both are the product of
an historical line of development that is still in progress. About
2,350 years ago Demosthenes could assert that woman had no other
vocation but to give birth to legitimate children and to faithfully
guard the house. To-day this conception has been overcome. No one
could dare to defend this standpoint to-day without being accused of
contempt of women. Indeed there are some even to-day who secretly
share the view of the ancient Athenian, but no one would dare to
express publicly what one of the foremost men of ancient Greece
asserted freely and openly ~as a matter of course~. Herein lies the
progress.
Now, although modern development has undermined millions of marriages,
it has on the other hand influenced the evolution of marriage
favorably. Only a few decades ago it was a matter of fact in every
citizen’s and peasant’s home, that women not only sewed, knitted,
washed, cooked, etc., but that they also baked the bread, spun and
weaved, and bleached, brewed beer and manufactured tallow candles
and soap. Running water, lighting and heating by gas--not to speak
of electricity--besides numerous other modern housefurnishings were
unknown in those days. Antiquated conditions persist even to-day,
but they are exceptions. The majority of women are relieved from
many occupations that were inevitable formerly, because many things
can be made better and cheaper industrially than by the individual
housewife. Thus, within a few decades a great revolution has taken
place in our domestic life to which we pay so little heed, only
because we take it for granted. People do not notice transformations
even when they take place under their very eyes as long as they are
not sudden and disturb the accustomed order, but they resent new
ideas that threaten to interfere with their treading of the beaten
path. This revolution in our domestic life that is still going
on, has considerably changed the position of woman in the family
in still another respect. Our grandmother could not and would not
think of visiting theatres, concerts and places of amusement even on
week days. Nor would any woman in the good old days have dared to
bother about public affairs as so many do to-day. At present women
organize and join clubs pursuing the most varied, aims, they found
newspapers, subscribe to them and edit them and hold conventions.
As working women they organize industrially and attend the men’s
meetings. In some localities of Germany they even possessed the
right to elect members to courts of trade, but of this right the
reactionary majority in the diet deprived them again in the year of
the Lord, 1890. Although these altered conditions have their dark
sides too, the bright sides predominate, and not even any reactionary
would wish to abolish them again. The women themselves, regardless
of the conservative character of most of them, have no inclination
either to return to the old, patriarchal conditions.
In the United States, society is organized along bourgeois lines
also, but it is not burdened with old European prejudices and
antiquated institutions, and is therefore much more inclined to
adopt new institutions and ideas if they hold promise of advantage.
There, since quite some time, the position of woman is regarded
differently than in Europe. Among wealthy circles women have been
relieved not only of baking and brewing, but of cooking as well,
and the one kitchen of an apartment hotel replaces many individual
kitchens. Our army officers, who are no Socialists or Communists, have
a similar method. In their casinos they form a sort of housekeeping
community, appoint a manager, whose business it is to purchase the
food wholesale, and to draw up the menus, and the food is cooked by
steam in the kitchen of the barracks. They live far more cheaply than
they could in a hotel, and their food is at least as good. Thousands
of wealthy families live in boarding houses or hotels all year or
part of the year without missing their domestic cooking. They, on
the contrary, regard it as a great comfort to be relieved of the
private kitchen. The general aversion of rich and wealthy women
against kitchen work does not seem to signify that this occupation
is a part of woman’s “natural sphere.” Indeed, the fact that rich
families and large hotels employ male cooks makes it appear as if
cooking were man’s work. Let these facts be noted by men who cannot
conceive woman except surrounded by pots and pans.
Nothing could be simpler than to combine a central laundry with a
central kitchen--as has already been done in all large cities by
wealthy private residents or speculators--and to make the institution
general. With the central kitchen, central heating, hot water supply,
etc., might be connected, and much troublesome work entailing a great
waste of time and effort would be abolished. Large hotels, many private
houses, hospitals, schools, barracks and other public buildings have
these and other modern improvements, as electric light, bathing
establishments, etc. The mistake is that only public institutions and
wealthy persons profit by these improvements. If made accessible to
all, they would save a tremendous amount of time, effort, labor and
expense, and would considerably heighten the general well being. In
the summer of 1890 German newspapers published reports of progress
being made in the United States in regard to central heating and
ventilation. In these reports, among other things, the following was
stated: “Experiments that have recently been made, especially in
North America, to heat entire blocks or portions of a city from one
centrally located place, have been successful in no small degree.
The construction has been so carefully planned and so practically
applied, that the favorable results and financial advantages will
undoubtedly lead to an extension of this system. Recently further
experiments have been made to provide not only the heating but also
the ventilation of entire districts from centrally located places.”
Many of these contemplated improvements have since been realized and
further improved. Narrow-minded philistines shrug their shoulders
when such and similar plans are discussed; and yet in Germany, too,
we are in the midst of a new industrial revolution, whereby the
individual kitchen and other housework will become as superfluous
as labor by manual tools became superfluous by the introduction of
modern machinery. As late as the beginning of the nineteenth century,
even a Napoleon could deride as a crazy idea the project of moving
a vessel by steam. People who were considered intelligent, regarded
the plan of building a railroad as an absurdity; they claimed that
no one could live in a vehicle travelling at such high speed. In the
same manner many new ideas are dealt with to-day. If some one had
told our women a century ago that they should get their water from a
faucet in the kitchen instead of drawing it from the well, he would
have been accused of seeking to encourage laziness in housewives
and servants.
But the great technical revolution along all lines is in full
swing. Nothing can stay its progress. It is the historical mission
of bourgeois society that has ushered in this revolution, to lead
it to its climax, and everywhere to bring to light the germs of
transformation, which a society organized on a new basis will merely
need to generalize and to make the common property of all.
The development of our social life does not tend to lead woman back
to the home and hearth, a state that fanatics on domesticity desire,
and for which they clamor as the Jews in the desert clamored for
the lost flesh-pots of Egypt. ~It demands the release of woman from
her narrow sphere of domestic life, and her full participation in
public life and the missions of civilization.~ Laveleye is right when
he says[147]: “With the growth of what we call civilization, the
feelings of piety toward family life decrease and its bonds become
looser and have less influence on the actions of men. This fact is so
general that it may be regarded as a law of social development.” Not
only has the position of woman in the family changed, but also the
position of son and daughter in their relation to the family. They
have gradually obtained a degree of independence that was unheard of
formerly. This is especially so in the United States, where young
persons are educated to become self-reliant and independent to a far
greater extent than in Europe. The dark sides that are incidental
to this form of development also are not necessarily connected with
it, but are rooted in the social conditions of our time. Bourgeois
society does not produce any new and pleasing phenomena that do
not have a dark side as well. As Fourier already pointed out with
much perspicacity, all its progress is double-edged. Like Laveleye,
Dr. Schaeffle also recognizes the changed nature of the modern family
as a result of social development. He says:[148] “Thruout history we
find the tendency of the family to return to its ~specific~ functions.
The family abandons one provisionally and temporarily maintained
function after another and, inasmuch as it only filled out the gaps
in social functions, it yields to the independent institutions of
law, order, power, divine service, teaching, industry, etc., as soon
as such institutions are developed.”
[147] Original Property. Chap. XX, Household Community. Leipsic,
1879.
[148] Structure and Life of the Body Social. Vol. I. Tuebingen, 1878.
2.--The Intellectual Abilities of Women.
Women are advancing, tho at present only a small minority strives to
advance, and of these again only a few are fully conscious of their
aims. They not only wish to measure their strength with that of men
industrially and commercially, they not only wish to hold a more
independent position in the family, they also wish to employ their
intellectual abilities in higher positions and in public life. They
are met time and again with the argument that they are unfit by nature
for intellectual occupations. The question of the practice of learned
professions only concerns a small number of women in present-day
society, but it is important as a matter of principle. The majority
of men seriously believe that women must remain subjected to them
intellectually also and that they have no right to seek equality;
therefore they are vehemently opposed to the intellectual ambitions
of women. The same men who do not object to women being employed in
difficult and dangerous occupations that threaten their womanliness
and injure their maternity, would bar them from professions that
are far less difficult and dangerous and far better suited to
their physical abilities. In Germany, the lively agitation for the
admission of women to universities, has called forth a great number
of opponents who especially oppose the admission of women to the
study of medicine. Among these are Pochhammer, Fehling, Binder,
Hegar, and others. J. Beerenbach seeks to prove that women are not
qualified for scientific study, by pointing out that no genius had
as yet sprung up among women. This argument is neither valid nor
convincing. Geniuses do not drop from the sky; they must have an
opportunity for development, and such opportunity women have been
lacking, for since thousands of years they have been oppressed and
deprived of opportunity for intellectual development, and thereby
their mental abilities have become atrophied. A considerable number
of distinguished women exist even to-day, and if one denies the
existence of potential geniuses among them, that is as far from
being true as the belief that there were no more geniuses among men
than those that were recognized as such. Every country schoolteacher
knows how many able minds among his pupils are never developed
because they lack opportunity for development. Indeed we all have in
our day met persons in whom we recognized rare ability and who, we
felt, would have become a credit to the community, if circumstances
had been more favorable to them. The number of talents and geniuses
among men is far greater than could be revealed until now. The same
is true of the abilities of women that have for thousands of years
been far more hampered, repressed and cramped than those of men. We
have no standard whereby we can measure the amount of intellectual
strength and ability among men and women, that would unfold if they
could develop under natural conditions.
To-day it is in human life as in plant life. Millions of precious
seeds never achieve development because the ground on which they are
cast is unfertile or is already occupied, and the young plant is thus
deprived of air, light and nourishment. The same laws that apply
to nature apply to human life. If a gardener or farmer would claim
that a plant could not be perfected without having made an attempt
to perfect it, his more enlightened neighbors would consider him a
fool. They would hold the same opinion of him if he would refuse to
interbreed one of his female domestic animals with a male of more
perfect breed to obtain more perfect stock.
There is no peasant to-day who is so ignorant not to recognize the
advantage of a rational treatment of his vegetables, fruit, and
cattle; whether his means allow the application of advanced methods
is another question. Only in regard to humanity even educated people
will not admit what they regard as an irrefutable law with the rest
of the organic world. Yet one need not be a scientist to derive
instructive observations from life. How is it that peasant children
differ from city children? How is it that children of the wealthier
classes are, as a rule, distinguishable from the children of the
poor by facial and bodily traits and by mental qualities? It is due
to the difference in their conditions of living and education.
The one-sidedness of training for a certain profession leaves its
particular imprint upon a person. As a rule a minister or a school
teacher can easily be recognized by his bearing and the expression of
his face, as also a military man, even in plain clothes. A cobbler
is easily distinguished from a tailor, a carpenter from a locksmith.
Twin brothers who greatly resembled each other in their youth, will
show marked differences in a more advanced age if their occupations
have been very different from one another; if, for instance, one
is a manual laborer, say a blacksmith, and the other has studied
philosophy. Heredity on the one hand and adaptation on the other,
are decisive factors in human development as well as in the animal
kingdom, and man, moreover, is the most adaptive of all creatures.
Sometimes a few years of a different mode of life and a different
occupation suffice to alter a person completely. External changes
are never more clearly seen than when a person is transplanted from
poor and narrow circumstances to greatly improved ones. His past
can perhaps be disavowed least in his mental culture. When people
have attained a certain age, they frequently have no ambition for
intellectual improvement, and often they do not need it either. A
parvenu rarely suffers from this shortcoming. In our day money is
the chief asset, and people bow far more readily before the ~man
with a great fortune than before the man of knowledge and great
intellectual abilities, especially if it is his ill fortune to be
poor~. The worship of Mammon was never greater than in our day. Yet
we are living in the “best of worlds.”
Our industrial districts furnish a striking example of the influence
of decidedly different conditions of life and education. Even
externally, workers and capitalists differ to such an extent as if
they were members of two different races. These differences were
brought home to us in an almost startling manner at the occasion of a
campaign meeting during the winter of 1877 in an industrial town of
Saxony. The meeting, in which a discussion with a liberal professor
was to take place, had been so arranged that an equal number of
both parties were present. The front of the hall was occupied by
our opponents, almost without exception healthy, strong, and some
stately figures. In the rear of the hall and on the galleries were
the workingmen and small traders, nine-tenths of them weavers, mostly
small, narrow-chested, hollow-cheeked figures whose faces bore the
imprints of care and need. The one group represented the well-fed
virtue and morality of the bourgeois world, the other represented
the worker--bees and beasts of burden on whose labor the gentlemen
waxed strong. If one generation were reared under equally favorable
conditions of life the differences would be greatly decreased and
would quite disappear among their progeny.
It is usually more difficult to determine the social position among
women than among men. They easily accustom themselves to altered
conditions and readily adopt more refined habits of life. Their
adaptability is greater than that of the more clumsy man.
What good soil, air and light are to the plant, that to man are
healthful social conditions, which enable him to develop his physical
and mental qualities. The saying that “man is what he eats” expresses
a similar thought somewhat too narrowly. Not only what a man eats,
but his entire standard of life and his social environment advance
or hamper his physical and mental development, and influence his
feelings, his thoughts and his actions favorably or unfavorably,
as the case may be. We see every day that persons living in good
financial circumstances go to ruin mentally and morally, because
outside of the narrow sphere of their domestic and personal relations,
unfavorable influences, ~social~ in character, were brought to bear
upon them and gained such control over them that they were driven into
evil ways. The social conditions under which we live are even more
important than the conditions of family life. But when the social
conditions of development will be the same for both sexes, when
there will be no restriction for either, and when the general state
of society will be a healthful one, ~woman will rise to a height of
perfection that we can hardly conceive to-day, because until now no
such conditions have existed in human evolution~. The achievements of
individual women justify our highest expectations, for these tower
above the mass of their sex just as male geniuses tower above the
mass of men. If we apply the standard of rulership, for instance, we
find that women have shown even greater talent for ruling than men.
To mention just a few examples: There were Isabella and Blanche of
Castilia, Elizabeth of Hungary, Katherine Sforza, Countess of Milan
and Imola, Elizabeth of England, Katherine of Russia, Maria Theresa,
and others. Basing his assertion on the fact that women have ruled
well among all nations and in all parts of the globe, even over the
wildest and most turbulent hordes, Burbach is led to remark that
~according to all probability women would be better qualified for
politics than men~[149]. When in 1901 Queen Victoria of England died,
a large English newspaper made the suggestion to introduce female
succession exclusively in England, because the history of England
showed that its queens ruled better than its kings.
Many a great man of history would shrivel considerably if we always
knew how much was due to his own efforts and how much he owed to
others. As one of the greatest geniuses of the French Revolution,
German historians regard Count Mirabeau. Yet research has revealed the
fact, that he owed the preparation of almost all his speeches to the
willing assistance of a few learned men who worked for him secretly
and whose labor he skillfully made use of. On the other hand, women
like Sappho, Diotima, at the time of Socrates, Hypatia of Alexandria,
Madame Roland, Mary Wollstonecraft, Olympe de Gouges, Madame de Staël,
George Sand, and others, merit our highest admiration. Many a male
star pales beside them. The influence of women as mothers of great
men is also well known. Women have accomplished as much as they could
accomplish under ~exceedingly unfavorable~ circumstances, and that
entitles us to great expectations for the future. As a matter of
fact, women were admitted to competition with men in various realms
of activity only during the second half of the nineteenth century.
The results obtained are very satisfactory.
But even should we take for granted that women, as a rule, are not
as capable of development as men, that there are no geniuses and
philosophers among them, we are nevertheless led to ask whether this
factor was considered among men when they, according to the wording
of the laws, were given complete equality with the geniuses and
philosophers. The learned men who deny the intellectual ability of
women, are inclined to do the same in the case of workingmen. When
persons of nobility pride themselves on their “blue” blood and their
pedigree, they smile and contemptuously shrug their shoulders; but in
the presence of the man of lowly birth they consider themselves an
aristocracy that have achieved their favored position, not through
their more advantageous circumstances, but only by their own peculiar
talents. The same men, who are unprejudiced in one respect and have a
poor opinion of persons who are not as liberal-minded as they, become
incredibly narrow-minded and fanatical when their class interests
or personal conceit are involved. Men of the upper classes judge
men of the lower classes unfavorably, and in the same way almost
all men judge women unfavorably. The majority of men regard women
only as a means to their comfort and enjoyment. To regard them as
beings endowed with equal rights is repugnant to their prejudiced
minds. Woman should be modest and submissive; she should confine her
interests to the home, and leave all other domains to the “lords of
creation.” Woman should check every thought and inclination, and
wait patiently for what her earthly providence, father or husband,
may decide. If she lives up to this standard she is praised for her
good sense, modesty and virtue, even tho she may break down under
the burden of physical and moral suffering. But if we speak of the
equality of all human beings, it is preposterous to wish to exclude
half of humanity.
Woman has the same right as man to develop her abilities and to
employ them freely. She is a human being as well as man and should
have the freedom of disposing of her own body and mind and be her
own master. The chance of having been born a woman, must not affect
her human rights. To exclude woman from equal rights because she
has been born a woman and not a man--a fact of which both man and
woman are innocent--is as unfair, as to make rights and privileges
depend upon religious or political opinion; and it is as irrational
as the belief that two persons are innate enemies because, by the
chance of birth, they belong to different races or nationalities.
Such views are unworthy of a free human being. Progress of humanity
consists in removing whatever keeps one human being, one class or
one sex in slavery and dependence upon another. ~No difference is
justified except those differences established by nature to fulfill
its purpose. But no sex will overstep the natural limits, because
it would thereby destroy its own purpose in nature.~
[149] Dr. Havelock Ellis.--Man and Woman.
3.--Differences in Physical and Mental Qualities of Man and Woman.
One of the chief arguments of the opponents of equal rights is, that
woman has a smaller brain than man and is less developed in other
respects, and that therefore her lasting inferiority is proven. It
is certain that man and woman are two human beings of different
sex, that each has different organs adapted to the sexual purpose,
and that, owing to the fulfillment of the sexual function, a number
of differences in their physiological and psychological conditions
exist. These are facts that no one can nor will deny; ~but they do
not furnish any cause for social or political inequality between man
and woman~. Humanity and society consist of ~both~ sexes; ~both~
are ~indispensable~ to their maintenance and development. Even
the greatest man was born by a mother to whom he may owe his best
qualities and abilities. By what right, then, can woman be denied
equality with man?
According to the opinion of eminent authorities, the most marked
differences in physical and mental qualities between man and woman
are the following: In regard to stature, Havelock Ellis considers
170 centimeters the average height for men and 160 centimeters for
women. According to Vierordt, it is 172 and 160, and in northern
Germany, according to Krause, 173 and 163 centimeters. The proportion
of man’s stature to woman’s is as 100 to 93. The average weight of
adult persons is 65 kilograms for men and 54 for women. The greater
length of the trunk in a woman’s body is a well-known difference;
yet this difference is not as great as has been generally assumed,
as careful measurements have shown. The legs of a woman of medium
size are only by 15 millimeters shorter than those of a man of medium
size, and Pfitzner doubts that this difference is noticeable. “The
differences in the lengths of body and legs are influenced by the
stature, and are independent of sex.” But the female arm is decidedly
shorter than the male arm (as 100 to 91.5). The male hand is broader
and larger than the female hand, and with men the ring-finger is
usually longer than the index, while the opposite is the case with
women. By this the male hand becomes more ape-like, as the long arm
also is a pithecoid (ape-like) characteristic.
In regard to the size of the head, the proportion of the absolute
height of male and female heads may be set down as 100 to 94. But
the relative sizes (in proportion to the size of the body) are
100 to 100.8. So actually woman’s head is somewhat smaller, but
in proportion to the size of her body, it is somewhat larger than
man’s. The bones of woman are smaller, finer, and more delicate in
form and have a smoother surface, for the weaker muscles require
less rough surface to fasten upon. The weaker muscular development
is one of the most striking characteristics of woman. Each separate
muscle of a woman’s body is finer, softer, and contains more water.
(According to v. Bibra the quantity of water contained in the
muscles is 72.5 per cent. with man, and 74.4 per cent. with woman.)
In regard to the adipose membrane the opposite proportion exists;
it is much more amply developed with woman than with man. The chest
is relatively shorter and narrower. Other differences are directly
connected with the sexual purpose. The statements of various authors
in regard to relative and absolute weight of the intestines, are very
contradictory. According to Vierordt the proportion of the weight of
the heart to the weight of the body is as 1 to 215 with men, and
as 1 to 206 with women. According to Clendinning it is as 1 to 158
and as 1 to 149. Taken all in all, we may assume that the female
intestines are absolutely smaller, but relatively, in proportion to
the weight of the body, heavier than the male.
The blood of women shows a larger percentage of water, a smaller
quantity of blood-globules, and a smaller quantity of hemachrome.
With woman the smaller size of the heart, the narrower vascular
system, and probably also the larger percentage of water in the
blood, cause a less intense assimilation of matter and an inferior
nutrition. This may also account for the weaker jaws. “It may thus be
explained that even civilized man in many respects is more closely
connected with the animal world, especially the ape, than woman,
that he possesses pithecoid traits which may be seen in the shape
of the skull and the length of the limbs.”
In regard to the differences of the skull of both sexes, let it be
stated that, according to Bartels, there is no absolute indication
whereby we could determine whether a skull belonged to a male or
female person. Absolute comparison shows that the skulls of men are
larger in all dimensions. Accordingly the weight is greater, too,
and the interior space is larger.
As a medium weight of normally developed brains of adult persons,
Grosser states 1388 grammes for the man and 1252 grammes for the
woman.[150] The great majority of male brains (34 per cent.) weigh
between 1250 and 1550 grammes, and the great majority of female
brains (91 per cent.) weigh between 1100 and 1450 grammes. But
these weights are not subject to direct comparison since woman is
smaller than man. It is, accordingly, necessary to determine the
weight of the brain in proportion to the body. When we compare the
weight of the brain with the weight of the body we find that with
the man there are 21.6 grammes of the brain for every kilogram of
the weight of the body, and with the woman there are 23.6 grammes.
This outweighing is explained by the fact that woman’s stature is
smaller.[151]
Different results are obtained by a comparison of equally large
individuals of both sexes. According to Marchand the weight of the
female brain is, without exception, lighter than that of men of the
same size. But this method is as incorrect as a comparison with the
size of the body. It takes for granted what remains to be proven: a
direct relation between the size of the body and the weight of the
brain. Blakeman, Alice Lee and Karl Pearson have determined on the
basis of English data and measurements, that there is no noticeable
relative difference in the weight of the brain between man and woman;
that is, a man of the same age, stature and skull measurements as
the average woman, would not differ from her in regard to the weight
of his brain.[152]
Even Marchand points out that the smaller size of woman’s brain may
be due to the greater fineness of her nerves. Grosser says: “Indeed,
this has not yet been determined by means of the microscope, and
would be difficult to determine. But we must point to the analogy
that the eye-ball and the cavity of the ear are also somewhat smaller
with woman than with man, yet these organs are no less fine and
serviceable. Another, perhaps the chief reason, for the lighter
weight of the woman’s brain may be found in her weaker muscular
development.”[153]
Inasmuch as the differences are rooted in the nature of sex, they
can, of course, not be altered. But to what extent these differences
in blood and brain can be changed by a different mode of life
(nourishment, physical and mental culture, occupation, etc.) cannot
be definitely determined for the time being. ~That modern woman
differs from man to a greater extent than primitive woman or the woman
of inferior races, seems to be established, and when we consider
the social development of woman’s position among civilized nations
during the past 1000 or 1500 years, it seems only too obvious.~
The following shows the capacity of the female skull according to
Havelock Ellis (assuming the capacity of the male skull to be 1000):
Negro 984
Hottentot 951
Hindu 944
Eskimo 931
Dutch 913
Russian 884
German 838 to 897[154]
Chinese 870
English 860 to 862
Parisian, 19 yrs. 858
[154] According to five different authors: 838, 864, 878, 883, 897.
For Prussia (Kupfer), 918; for Bavaria (Rause), 893.
The conflicting statements among the Germans show that the measurements
have been taken among greatly differing material, both in regard to
quality and quantity, and that therefore they are not absolutely
reliable. But the figures clearly show one thing: that Negroes,
Hottentots and Hindu women have a considerably larger capacity of
the skull than the German, English and Parisian women; and yet the
latter are far more intelligent.
A comparison of the brain-weights of well-known deceased men
shows similar contradictions and peculiarities. According to
Professor Reclam, the brain of the scientist Cuvier weighed
1830 grammes; that of Byron, 1807; that of the famous mathematician
Gauss, 1492; of the philologist Hermann, 1358; of the Parisian prefect
Hausmann, 1226. It is said that the weight of Dante’s brain also was
below the average weight of the male brains. Havelock Ellis gives us
similar information. He reports that the brain of an unknown person,
weighed by Bischoff, had a weight of 2222 grammes, while the brain
of the poet Turgeniew weighed only 2012 grammes; the third largest
brain was that of an imbecile; the brain of a plain workingman that
was also examined by Bischoff, weighed 1325 grammes. The heaviest
female brains weighed between 1742 and 1580 grammes; two of these
were taken from women who had suffered from mental derangement. On
the congress of German anthropologists, which was held in Dortmund
in August, 1902, Professor Waldeyer stated that an examination
of the skull of the philosopher Leibnitz, who died in 1716, had
shown that its contents only measured 1450 cubic centimeters,
which corresponds to a brain weight of 1300 grammes. According to
Hausemann, who examined the brains of Mommsen, Bunsen and Adolph
v. Menzel, Mommsen’s brain weighed 1429.4 grammes; it accordingly did
not exceed the average brainweight of an adult man. Menzel’s brain
weighed only 1298 grammes and Bunsen’s less still--1295 grammes,
below the average male brainweight and not much above the brainweight
of a woman. Those are striking facts that completely overthrow
the old assumption that intellectual abilities could be measured
by the capacity of the skull. After an examination of the English
data, Raymond Pearl comes to the following conclusion: “There are
no proofs of a close relation between intellectual abilities and
brainweight.”[155] The English anthropologist, W. Duckworth, says:
“There is no proof that a heavy brainweight is accompanied by great
intellectual ability. Neither the brainweight, nor the capacity
of the skull, nor the circumference of the head, where they could
be determined, have been of any use as a measure of intellectual
abilities.”[156] Kohlbruegge, who has during recent years published
the results of the examinations of human brains of many races, says:
“Intelligence and brainweight are entirely independent of one another.
Even the greater brainweight of famous men is not sufficient proof,
since it exceeds the general medium weight, but not that of the
upper classes to which these men belonged. But by these statements
I do not seek to deny that brainweight can be increased, especially
by excessive study during youth, which may account for the heavier
brainweights and the greater skull capacity of the upper classes
and of scholarly persons, especially when--as is usually the case
among the well-to-do--excessive nourishment is added. This increase
in weight by mental over-exertion has its dark sides also, as is
well known. Lunatics often have very heavy brains. The main point
is that it cannot be proven that intelligence (something entirely
different from productiveness) has any relation to weight. It is
true of the external formation also, that until now, no connection
could be shown between certain forms and higher mental development,
intelligence, or genius.”[157]
It is established, then, that we cannot draw conclusions from
the brainweight as to mental qualities, as little as we can draw
conclusions from the size of the body as to physical strength.
The large mammals, such as elephant, whale, etc., have larger and
heavier brains; yet in regard to proportional brainweight they are
excelled by most birds and small mammals. We have some very small
animals (ant, bee) that are far more intelligent than much larger
ones (for instance, sheep, cow), just as people of large stature
often are mentally inferior to persons of small and insignificant
appearance. According to all probability the mass of the brain is
not the determining factor, ~but its organization and the practice
and use of its powers~.
“In my opinion,” says Professor L. Stieda, “the difference in
psychic functions can doubtlessly be accounted for by the finer
construction of the gray matter, the nerve cells, the white matter,
the arrangement of the blood-vessels, the construction, form, size
and number of nerve-cells, and last but not least, their nutrition,
their metabolic assimilation.”[158]
If the brain is to attain the full development of its faculties,
it must be exercised regularly, and the brain must be properly
nourished, just as every other organ; if this is left undone, or
if the training is a faulty one, the normal development will be
hampered, even crippled. One faculty is developed at the expense of
another.
There are some anthropologists, as Manouvrier and others, who even
seek to prove that woman is morphologically more highly developed
than man. That is an exaggeration. Duckworth says: “When we compare
the two sexes, we find that there is no constant difference that
lets one sex appear morphologically superior to the other.”[159]
Havelock Ellis only admits of one limitation. He believes that female
characteristics show fewer variations than the male. But, in an
anticritique, Karl Pearson has explicitly shown that this is only
a pseudo-scientific superstition.[160]
No one who is acquainted with the history of the development of woman
can deny, that woman has been sinned against. If Professor Bischoff
asserts that woman was enabled to develop her brain and her
intelligence as well as man, this assertion merely shows an incredible
degree of ignorance upon the subject. The description we have
given in this book of the position of woman during the course of
civilization, makes it appear quite natural, that thousands of years
of male rule have brought about the difference in the physical and
mental development of the sexes.
Our scientists ought to recognize that the laws of their sciences
apply fully to man also. Heredity and adaptation prevail with man as
with every other living creature. But if man constitutes no exception
in nature, the law of evolution must apply to him also, whereby that
becomes clear what otherwise remains wrapped in darkness, and then
becomes an object of scientific mysticism or mystic science.
The brain formation of the sexes has developed in accordance with
their different educations. Indeed during a great portion of the
past, the word education could not be applied to woman at all.
Physiologists are agreed that those parts of the brain which influence
the intellect are situated in the fore-part of the head, while
those that specially influence feeling and sentiment, are situated
in the middle part. ~The conception of beauty for man and woman has
developed accordingly.~ According to the Greek conception, which
still prevails, ~woman is supposed to have a low forehead, while man
is supposed to have a high and broad forehead~. This conception of
beauty, which is a symptom of her degradation, has been so impressed
upon our women, that they consider a high forehead unbeautiful and
seek to improve upon nature by combing their hair over their forehead
to make it appear lower.
[150] The following average weights of male and female brains have
been determined by the following scientists:
Male brain. Female brain.
Bischoff (Bavaria) 1362 1219
Boyd (England) 1325 1183
Marchand (Hessia) 1399 1248
Retzius (Sweden) 1388 1252
[151] “Men of genius as a rule are small of stature with a massy
brain. These are also the chief characteristics of the child, and
their general facial expression as also their temperament resemble
the child’s.”--Havelock Ellis, Man and Woman.
[152] J. Blakeman, Alice Lee & K. Pearson--A Study of the biometric
constants of English Brainweights. Biometrica, 1905.
[153] Dr. Otto Grosser--The structure of the female body in “Man
and Woman.” Stuttgart, 1907.
[155] Raymond Pearl--Variation or Correlation in Brainweight.
Biometrika, vol. IV. June, 1905.
[156] W. Duckworth--Morphology and Anthropology. Cambridge, 1904.
[157] Kohlbruegge--Investigations of the furrows of the brain of
human races. Journal of Morphology and Anthropology. Stuttgart, 1908.
[158] L. Stieda--The Brain of the Philologist. Journal of Morphology
and Anthropology, 1907.
[159] Duckworth (as above).
[160] K. Pearson--Variation in Man and Woman in Chances of Death.
London, 1897.
4.--Darwinism and the Condition of Society.
It has accordingly not been proven, that women are inferior to
men as a result of the quantity of their brain; yet the present
intellectual status of women is not surprising. Darwin is surely
right in saying, that if a list of the ablest men on the subjects
of poetry, painting, sculpture, music, science and philosophy were
placed beside a list of the ablest women on the same subjects, the
two could not compare with one another. But could it be otherwise?
~It would be surprising if it were not so.~ Very correctly Dr. Dodel
(Zurich)[161] says, that it would be different if for a number of
generations men and women would be similarly educated. As a rule,
woman is physically weaker than man also, which is by no means the
case among many uncivilized peoples.[162] How much can be attained
by practice and training from childhood on, may, for instance, be
seen with ladies of the circus and female acrobats, who achieve most
astounding things in regard to courage, daring, skill and strength.
As all these things are conditioned by the mode of life and education,
as they are--to use a scientific term--due to “breeding,” it may
be assumed as certain that the physical and intellectual life of
man will lead to the best results, as soon as man will ~consciously
and expediently influence his development~.
As plants and animals depend upon conditions of existence, as they
are fostered by favorable and hampered by unfavorable ones, and
as compulsory conditions force them to change their nature and
character--provided that their influence does not destroy them--thus
it is also with man. The manner in which a human being obtains his
means of subsistence not only affects his external appearance, but
also his feelings, his thoughts and his actions. If unfavorable
conditions of existence--that is, unfavorable social conditions--are
the cause of insufficient individual development, then it follows
that by a change of his conditions of existence--that is, his social
condition--man himself will be changed. The point in question, then,
is, so to organize social conditions that every human being will
be given an opportunity for the untrammelled development of his
nature; that the laws of development and adaptation--called Darwinism
after Darwin--may be consciously and expediently applied to all
human beings. But that will only be possible under Socialism. As a
rational being, capable of judgment, man must so alter his social
conditions and everything in connection with them, that equally
favorable conditions of existence prevail for all. Every individual
shall be enabled to develop his talents and abilities to his own
advantage as well as to the advantage of society, but he must not
have the power to harm other individuals or society at large. His
own advantage and the advantage of all shall coincide. Harmony of
interests must supercede the conflict of interests that dominate
present-day society.
Darwinism, like every true science, is an eminently democratic
science.[163] If some of its representatives claim that the opposite
is true, they fail to recognize the range of their own science. Its
opponents, especially the clergy, who are always quick to perceive
any advantage or disadvantage to themselves, have recognized this,
and therefore denounce Darwinism as being Socialistic or atheistic.
In this respect Professor Virchow agrees with his most vehement
opponents, for at the congress of Scientists, held in Munich in 1877,
he asserted in opposition to Professor ~Haeckel~: “The Darwinian
theory leads to Socialism.”[164] Virchow tried to discredit Darwinism
because Haeckel demanded, that the theory of evolution should be
introduced into the school curriculum. The suggestion to teach
science in the schools according to Darwin, and the results of modern
scientific investigations, is vehemently opposed by all those who
wish to maintain the present order. The revolutionary effect of these
doctrines is well known; therefore it is deemed ~wiser to propagate~
them only among the chosen few. But we contend that if the Darwinian
theories lead to Socialism, as Virchow claims, that is no argument
against these theories, but an argument in favor of Socialism.
Men of science should not question whether the consequences of a
science lead to one form of the state or another, whether one social
condition or another is justified by them; it is their sole duty to
investigate whether the theories are in accordance with truth, ~and
if they are, to accept them with all their consequences~. Whoever
acts otherwise, be it for personal gain or favor or to serve class
or party interest, commits a despicable action and is no credit to
science. The representatives of corporate science, especially at
our universities, can indeed only rarely lay claim to independence
of character. The fear of financial loss, or the fear of being
discredited with the powers that be and of being thereby deprived
of title and rank and the opportunity of advancement, causes most
of these representatives to bow down and either to conceal their
conviction, or to say publicly the opposite of what they believe and
know. At a ceremony of homage to the ruler held at the University
of Berlin in 1870, Dubois-Reymond exclaimed: “The universities are
institutions where the intellectual body-guards of the Hohenzollern
are trained.” If a Dubois-Reymond could express himself in this
manner, we can imagine what conceptions in regard to the object of
science are held by the majority of the others, who are very inferior
to this eminent scientist.[165] Science is degraded to serve the
purposes of the ruling powers.
It is only natural that Professor Haeckel and his adherents,
Professor O. Schmidt, v. Hellwald and others, remonstrate energetically
against the terrible accusation that Darwinism leads to Socialism.
They claim that the opposite is true, that Darwinism is aristocratic,
since it teaches that everywhere in nature the more highly organized
and stronger living beings suppress the inferior ones; and since,
according to their conception, the propertied and educated classes
constitute these more highly organized and stronger living beings
in human society, they consider the rule of these classes a matter
of course, since it is justified by the laws of nature.
These, among our evolutionists, are ignorant of the economic laws
which dominate bourgeois society. Otherwise they would know that
the blind rule of these laws does not raise to social pre-eminence
either the best or the ablest or the most competent, but frequently
the worst and the most cunning, who thereby are placed in a position
of making the conditions of life and development most favorable
to their progeny, without the least effort on their part. Under
no economic system did persons, possessing good and noble human
qualities, have so little opportunity of attaining and maintaining
an elevated position, as under the capitalistic system. Without fear
of exaggeration it may be said, that this state of affairs increases
with the development of this system. Lack of consideration for
others and unscrupulousness in the choice and application of means
to attain one’s end, prove far more effective than all human virtues
combined. Only one who is ignorant of the nature of this society or
who is so dominated by bourgeois prejudices that he cannot reason
properly or draw correct conclusions, could regard a social system
based upon such conditions as a society of the “fittest and best.”
The struggle for existence is always present with all organisms. It
goes on without any knowledge on their part of the laws and conditions
that shape it. This struggle for existence prevails among men also
and among the members of each social group from which solidarity has
disappeared, or where it has not yet been developed. This struggle
for existence changes its form according to the various relations of
men to one another in the course of human development. It assumes
the character of class struggles on an ever higher scale. But these
struggles--and thereby man is distinguished from all other human
beings--lead to a growing understanding of the nature of society, and
finally to a recognition of the laws which determine its development.
~Eventually man will but need to apply these laws to his social
and political institutions and to transform them accordingly.~ The
difference is that man may be called a reasoning animal, but the
animal is not a reasoning human being. This many Darwinists fail
to see, owing to their biased conceptions, and therefore arrive at
false conclusions.[166]
Professor Haeckel and his adherents also deny that Darwinism leads to
atheism. Thus, after they have done away with the “creator” by all
their scientific arguments and proofs, they make desperate efforts
to re-introduce him. To attain this purpose a new sort of individual
“religion” is formed, that has been termed “higher morality,”
“moral principles,” etc. In 1882 at the congress of scientists
in Eisenach, in the presence of the Grand-duke of Weimar and his
family, Professor Haeckel endeavored not only to save religion but
also to represent his master, Darwin, as being a religious man. The
attempt failed, as anyone can affirm who read the lecture and the
letter from Darwin that was quoted in it. Darwin’s letter expresses,
though in careful terms, the opposite of what Professor Haeckel
claimed it to express. Darwin was obliged to consider the piety of
his fellow-countrymen, the English, therefore he never dared to
express publicly his true views in regard to religion. But he did so
privately, as became known shortly after the congress in Weimar, for
he told Dr. L. Buechner ~that he had not believed since his fortieth
year--since 1849--because he had not been able to obtain proofs
to justify belief~. During the last years of his life Darwin also
supported an atheistic newspaper, which was published in New York.
[161] The Newer History of the Creation.
[162] Proofs of this may be found in the previously quoted book by
Dr. Havelock Ellis. He relates that among many savage and semi-savage
tribes woman is not only man’s equal in regard to size and strength,
but even his superior. Ellis is agreed with others that the differences
of brain between the sexes have increased with the development of
civilization.
[163] “The hall of science is the temple of democracy.” Buckle--History
of Civilization in England. Vol. II.
[164] Ziegler denies that this was the sense of Virchow’s remarks, but
his own report of Virchow’s speech only confirms it. Virchow said:
“Now, just picture how the theory of evolution is conceived even
to-day by the brain of a Socialist! (Laughter) Yes, gentlemen, that
may seem amusing to some of you, but it is a very serious matter, and
I only hope the theory of evolution may not bring us such horrors
as similar theories have brought about in our neighboring country.
If this theory is consistently followed out it is very hazardous,
and you cannot have failed to observe that Socialism is in sympathy
with it. We should make this perfectly clear.”--Well, we have done
what Virchow feared, we have drawn the conclusions of the Darwinian
theories that Darwin himself and many of his followers either failed
to draw or drew incorrectly, and Virchow warned against the dangers
of these doctrines because he perceived that Socialism would draw
and would have to draw the conclusions that are involved in them.
[165] In reference to former attacks upon him, Dubois Reymond repeated
the sentence quoted above in February, 1883, during the commemoration
of the birthday of Frederick the Great.
[166] Enrico Ferri published a book on “Socialism and Modern Science,
Darwin--Spencer--Marx,” in which he proves, especially in answer
to Haeckel, that Darwinism and Socialism are in complete harmony
and that it is a grave error on Haeckel’s part to characterize
Darwinism as being #aristocratic#. We do not agree with Ferri’s book
in every respect. We especially do not share his point of view in
judging the qualities of women, which is, in the main, the point of
Lombroso and Ferrero. Ellis has shown in “Man and Woman” that an
existing difference in the qualities of man and woman does not imply
the inferiority of one--a confirmation of Kant’s utterance, that
only man and woman #together# constitute the complete human being.
Nevertheless Ferri’s book is a welcome one.
5.--Woman and the Learned Professions.
Women are justified in entering into intellectual competition with
men, instead of waiting until it pleases the men to develop their
intellectual faculties and to clear the path for them. The woman’s
movement is providing for this. Already women have removed many
barriers and have entered the intellectual arena--in some countries
with marked success. The movement to obtain admission to the higher
institutions of learning and to the practice of learned professions
is, in accordance with the nature of our conditions, limited to the
circles of bourgeois women. The proletarian women are not directly
concerned since, for the time being, these studies and the resulting
positions are closed to them. Nevertheless, this movement and its
success is an object of general interest. In the first place, it
is a matter of principle, since it affects the general position
of woman; in the second place, it is destined to show what women
can accomplish even at present, under conditions that are highly
unfavorable to their development. Moreover, all women are interested,
for instance, in being able, in case of sickness, to be treated by
physicians of their own sex, if they so choose, since many feel that
they can confide with less reserve in a woman than in a man. To a
great many of our women female physicians are a blessing, for the
fact that they must turn to male physicians in the case of diseases
or ailments connected with their sex functions, frequently prevents
them from seeking medical aid in time. This leads to many troubles
and serious results, not only to the women themselves, but to their
husbands also. There is hardly a physician who has not had some
experience with this reticence of women, that may sometimes be called
almost criminal, and their aversion against confessing to their
ailments. That is readily understood. But it is inconceivable that
the men, and especially many physicians also, will not recognize
how justifiable it is, therefore--indeed how necessary--for women
to study medicine.
Female physicians are no novel factor. Among most of the ancients,
especially among the ancient Germans, women practiced the art of
healing. There were female physicians and surgeons of note during the
ninth and tenth centuries in the kingdom of the Arabs, especially
in Spain, under the rule of the Arabs (Moors), where they studied
at the University of Cordova. The study of women at various Italian
universities, as Bologna and Palermo, was also due to Moorish
influence. When the “heathen” influence ceased in Italy, these
studies were prohibited. In 1377 the faculty of the University of
Bologna issued the following decree: “As woman is the source of
sin, the devil’s tool, the cause of the expulsion from paradise,
and the cause of corruption of the old law, and as therefore every
conversation with her should be carefully avoided, we distinctly
forbid and interdict any one to venture to introduce any woman, no
matter how respectable she may be, into this college. Should some
one do so nevertheless, the rector shall punish him severely.”
One good result of the study of women is, that female competition has
a very stimulating influence on the studiousness of the male students,
which has left much to be wished for, as has been affirmed by various
sources. That alone would be a great gain. It would furthermore
considerably improve their habits. The drunkenness, pugnacity, and
beer-saloon habit of our students would become greatly checked.
Those places from which our statesmen, judges, public attorneys,
police officials, ministers, representatives of the people, etc.,
are chiefly recruited, would become more worthy of the objects for
which they were founded and are being maintained. According to the
impartial opinions of those competent to judge, such an improvement
is exceedingly needful.
The number of states that admit women to their high-schools and
universities are rapidly increasing since a few decades. None that
lays claim to being a civilized state can offer continued resistance
to this demand. The United States took the lead and Russia followed,
two states that are diametrically opposed to one another in every
respect. In the North American Union women have been admitted to
high-schools and universities in all the states; in Utah since 1850;
in Iowa since 1860; in Kansas since 1866; in Wisconsin since 1868;
in Minnesota since 1869; in California and Missouri since 1870, and
in Ohio, Illinois and Nebraska since 1871. Since then all the other
states followed. Quite in accordance with their opportunity for
study, the women in the United States have achieved their positions.
According to the census of 1900 there were: 7399 female physicians
and surgeons, 5989 writers, 1041 architects, 3405 ministers, 1010
lawyers, and 327,905 teachers.
In Europe, Switzerland took the lead in opening its universities to
women. The following shows the number of male and female students
at Swiss universities:
Enrolled Total number of
Total female women attending
students courses
1896–1897 7676 1502 2757
1900–1901 8521 1904 3156
1905–1906 4181 391 728
1906–1907 5301 854 1429
During the term 1906 to 1907 the female students were distributed
as follows among the various faculties: law, 75; medicine, 1181;
philosophy, 648. According to nationality there were 172 Swiss women,
and 1732 foreigners. The number of German women students in Switzerland
has decreased, since they are admitted to German universities now,
although not without restrictions. During the term 1906 to 1907
the number of regularly enrolled female students constituted about
30 per cent. of all the students. In England women are admitted
to lecture at the universities, but at Oxford and Cambridge they
are still barred from taking degrees. In France in 1905 there were
33,168 students, among these 1922 women (774 foreigners). They were
distributed as follows: Law, 57; medicine, 386; sciences, 259;
literature, 838; miscellaneous, 382. The following are the countries
in which women have been admitted to universities: United States,
England, Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Russia, Germany,
Austria, Hungary, Italy, Switzerland, France, Turkey and Australia.
Female physicians are admitted to the practice of their profession
in India, Abyssinia, Persia, Morocco, China, etc. Especially in the
Oriental countries female physicians are constantly gaining ground.
The restrictions that custom and religion place upon women in these
countries make female physicians an especially great boon.
After long struggles and great exertions, Germany, too, has at last
taken a new course, though timidly at first. By a decision passed
by the Federal Council on April 24, 1899, women have been admitted
to examinations for the practice of medicine and dentistry, as well
as pharmacy, upon the same terms as men. By another decision of
the Federal Council of July 28, 1900, German women physicians who
studied abroad are admitted to practice in Germany, and studies
commenced abroad were accredited to them. Even since 1898 some German
universities, as Heidelberg and Goettingen, had opened their doors
to women. During the term 1901 to 1902, 1270 women attending courses
were already enumerated in the registers of the universities. In
a number of German cities girls’ high-schools and colleges were
founded; thus in Karlsruhe, Stuttgart, Hannover, Koenigsberg, Hamburg,
Frankfort on the Main, Breslau, Berlin, Schoeneberg, Mannheim, etc.
But in the spring of 1902, the senate of the University of Berlin
again declined a request by female students, to be matriculated upon
presentation of a certificate of admission from a German college. The
opposition by very influential circles in Germany against the study of
women had not yet been overcome. During March of 1902, the Prussian
minister of public instruction delivered a speech in the Prussian
diet, in which he said among other things, that the girls’ colleges
are an experiment that must be declined by the ministry of public
instruction. He feared, so he said, that the differences between man
and woman established by nature and developed by civilization, would
be impaired by the study of girls at colleges and universities, and
that the characteristics of the German woman ought to be maintained
for the welfare of the German family. That is quite in keeping with
the old conception. Many German professors also continue to oppose
study for women, though others admit that many of the female students
are well, some even excellently qualified, to meet the demands
made upon them. What some of the students, perhaps a majority of
them, thought in regard to the study of women, may be seen from the
following protest of the clinical students at Halle, addressed to the
medical students of Germany generally during March of 1902. After it
states that the protest has been caused by the agitation, carried on
by the “Society for Furthering the Education of Women in Berlin,”
to admit women to the study of medicine, it goes on to say: “Since
this question has been called to public attention, the clinical
students of Halle turn to those circles to whom the decision is of
prime importance, the clinical students and physicians at German
universities. They either know the resulting unpleasantness from
personal experience, or can picture to ~what unwholesome situations,
devoid of all modesty, this common clinical instruction must lead,
situations that are too revolting to be described~. The medical
faculty of the university of Halle was one of the first to admit
women to the study of medicine, and the innovation may be regarded as
a complete failure. ~Into these halls of earnest endeavor cynicism
has entered with the women~, and scenes frequently occur that are
equally obnoxious to instructors, students and patients. ~Here the
emancipation of woman becomes a calamity, conflicting with morality,
and should be checked.~ Colleagues, who would dare, in the face of
these facts, to oppose our just demands? ~We demand the exclusion
of women from clinical instruction~, because experience has taught
us that a common clinical instruction of male and female students
is incompatible with a thoroughgoing study of medicine, as well as
~with the principles of decency and morality~. This question taken
up by us is no longer a local one. Already it has been stated in
government circles, that women are to be definitely admitted to the
study of medicine. You all now are equally interested in our cause,
and therefore we appeal to you: Express your opinion on this question
and join with us in a common protest!”
This protest is a striking proof of the narrow-mindedness of the
clinical students and also of their envy, for petty envy is at the
bottom of most of their moral considerations. How can an institution
that has existed for years in other civilized countries, without
injuring the morals and the sense of decency of male and female
students, be considered a peril to Germany? The German students are
not famed for their morality and ought to refrain from a moral
outburst that seems like a jest.[167] If it is not incompatible with
decency and morality for female nurses to be present and to render
assistance to the physicians during all kinds of operations upon
male and female patients, if it is decent and proper for dozens
of young men to surround, for the purpose of study, the bed of a
woman in the throes of child-birth, and to witness operations upon
female patients, then it is ridiculous to seek to exclude the female
students.
Very different from the reasons given by the clinical students of
Halle, was an argument advanced against the admission of women to the
study of medicine by the late Professor Bischoff. The reason he gave
was ~the brutality of the male students~, which he was well qualified
to judge. But, regardless of the narrow-mindedness or envy of men,
the question has been decided in favor of the women. On August 18,
1908, an edict was published, decreeing the regular enrollment of
female students at the universities of Prussia, where until then
they had been admitted to the lectures. The only restriction is,
that for the purpose of immatriculation German women require the
consent of the minister in one case, and foreigners require it in all
cases.[168] The entire number of women students enrolled at German
universities was, during the term of 1908–1909, 1077, as against 377
during the summer of 1908, and 254 in 1906. They were distributed
among the various universities as follows: Berlin, 400; Bonn, 69;
Breslau, 50; Erlangen, 11; Freiburg, 67; Giessen, 23; Goettingen,
71; Greifswald, 5; Halle, 22; Heidelberg, 109; Jena, 13; Kiel, 2;
Koenigsberg, 17; Leipsic, 44; Marburg, 27; Munich, 134; Tuebingen,
6; Wuerzburg, 7. Only the universities of Strassburg, Rostock and
Muenster had no female students. The entire number of women attending
courses was 1787 during the summer of 1908, and 1767 during the
term 1908 to 1909. They were distributed as follows: Berlin, 313;
Strassburg, 249; Breslau, 168; Munich, 131; Bonn, 120; Koenigsberg,
116; Leipsic, 95; Giessen, 93; Goettingen, 73; Tuebingen, 67; Halle,
54; Freiburg, 50, and in all others less than 50. Of the regularly
enrolled women students 3 studied theology; 31, law; 334, medicine,
and 709, philosophy.
The admission of women to the universities necessitated a thoroughgoing
reform of girls’ high-schools. According to the provisions of May 31,
1899, a nine years’ course had been set down as the rule for girls’
high-schools, while a ten years’ course was the exception. But
development necessitated the regular introduction of a tenth class.
According to statistics there were in 1901, 213 public high-schools
for girls; among these 90 had a nine years’ course and 54 a ten
years’ course. In October, 1907, the number of schools having a nine
years’ course had decreased from 90 to 69, and the number of schools
having a ten years’ course had increased from 54 to 132. Among the
private schools for girls, too, there were, besides 110 with a nine
years’ course, 138 with a ten years’ course. It only remained to add
the bureaucratic seal to this actual development, and to preserve as
much as possible of the “characteristics of German women.” According
to the reform of August 18, 1908, girls’ high schools shall consist
of ten grades. To “complete her education in regard to the future
life’s work of a German woman,” it is planned to found a lyceum with
a course from one to two years. In order to prepare young girls of
the upper classes for academic training, colleges are being planned,
which are to be under the same management as the girls’ high-schools.
Thereby an experiment, which the board of education still refused to
consider in March 1902, is now, six years later, under the pressure
of economic development, being introduced by that same board on a
national scale. Let us consider the official argumentation! It reads
as follows:
“The rapid development of our civilization and the resulting changes
in social, economic and educational conditions, have brought about
that, especially in the middle and upper classes, many girls remain
unprovided for, and much ability reposing in woman, that may be
valuable to the community, remains unapplied. The numerical superiority
of the female population and the increasing bachelorhood of men of
the upper classes, compel a large percentage of educated girls to
renounce their natural profession of wifehood and motherhood. It
becomes necessary to open professions to them that are suited to their
education, and to give them an opportunity to earn their living,
not only by teaching, but also by other professions attainable by
a university education.” This almost reads like an extract from my
book!
Be this as it may, the higher education of women can no longer be
halted. There are female physicians in all civilized countries of the
world, and even in some that are not yet regarded as civilized. The
late Li Hung Chang had appointed as his family physician a Chinese
woman doctor who practiced at the woman’s hospital of her native
town, Futchang. The late Sonia Kowalewska, the noted mathematician,
was professor of mathematics at the University of Stockholm from
1889 until her death in 1891. There are many women professors in
the United States, and some also in Italy, Switzerland, England
and France. In France the famous Marie Curie, who together with
her husband discovered radium and polonium, was, after the death
of her husband in 1906, appointed his successor at the university.
We see women acting as physicians, dentists, lawyers, chemists,
physicists, geologists, botanists, teachers at higher institutions
of learning, etc., and it is up to the women themselves to prove by
their achievements, that they are as competent to fill the positions
entrusted to them as men. In Switzerland, during the summer of 1899,
a majority of voters in the Canton of Zurich, favored the admission
of women to the practice of law. The decision was passed by 21,717
against 20,046 votes. In the United States women are admitted to
the bar in 34 states. They are also admitted in France, Holland,
Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Russia, Canada and Australia.
Many men, especially learned men, are opposed to the higher education
of women, because they believe that the sciences will become degraded
if even women can practice them. They regard scientific study as a
privilege reserved for the chosen few of the male sex.
Unfortunately our universities, as our entire educational system,
still leave much to be wished for. As the children in the public
schools are frequently robbed of the most valuable time to cram
their brains with a lot of things that are not in conformity with
reason and scientific knowledge, as they are burdened with a lot of
learning that will prove useless in life and will rather hamper than
help their development, thus it is also with our higher institutions
of learning. In the preparatory schools the pupils are crammed with
a lot of useless stuff, mostly learned by rote, that absorbs most
of their time and strength, and in the universities the same method
is generally pursued. Besides good and useful things, many that are
antiquated and superfluous continue to be taught. Most professors
repeat the same lectures term after term even down to the interspersed
jokes. To many the noble profession of teaching becomes a mere trade,
and it does not require much intelligence on the part of the students
to perceive this. The prevailing conceptions concerning college
life also prevent the young people from taking their studies too
seriously, and some who would like to take them seriously are repulsed
by the pedantic and uninteresting methods of many professors. It is
generally admitted that students at high-schools and universities
are becoming less studious, a fact that has caused some alarm among
the authorities. Alongside of this we find toadyism and patronage
playing an important part at our institutions of learning in this
age, which is marked by a lack of character. To be of good family
and to have “sound principles,” is regarded as being of greater
importance than knowledge and ability. A patriot--that is, one who
has no convictions of his own, but takes his cue from his superiors
and fawns upon them--is considered more than a man of character,
wisdom and ability. When examinations come around, men of this type
cram for a few months what is needful to attain the passing mark,
and when the examinations have been passed successfully, and they
have attained an official or professional position, many of these
“scholars” merely continue to work in a mechanical way. Yet they are
very insulted if a man, who is not a “scholar”, does not treat them
with utmost respect and fails to regard them as a superior species of
human being. The majority of our professional men, lawyers, judges,
physicians, professors, public officials, artists, etc., ~are merely
mechanics in their line, and their sole object is personal gain~.
Only the industrious man discovers later on how much superfluous
knowledge he assimilated and how often he failed to learn that which
he requires most, and then begins to learn anew. During the best
part of his life he has been bothered with much that was useless
or harmful; he requires a second part of his life to cast what is
useless or harmful aside and to attain the heights of the views of
his time, and then only can he become a useful member of society.
Many do not surpass the first stage, others come to a standstill
in the second, and only few have the energy to struggle on to the
third.
But decorum demands that the mediæval trash and superfluous learning
should be maintained, and as women have been until now, and in many
cases still are, excluded from the preparatory institutions, this fact
furnishes a convenient excuse for excluding them from the lecture
halls of the universities. In Leipsic, during the seventies, one
of the most noted professors of medicine made the following frank
confession to a lady: “~A classical education is not essential to
an understanding of medicine, but it must be made a condition of
entrance to maintain the dignity of science.~”
Opposition against an obligatory, classical education as being
essential to the study of medicine, is gradually manifesting itself
in Germany also. The tremendous advance of the sciences and their
great importance to life in general, necessitates a scientific
training. But the classical education, with its special preference of
Greek and Latin, considers science unimportant and neglects it. It
therefore frequently happens that young students are wanting in the
most elementary scientific knowledge, that is of decisive importance
for a study like medicine. Even teachers themselves are beginning to
oppose this one-sided method of education. In other countries, for
instance, in Switzerland, the study of science has long since been
held as being of prime importance, and all who possess sufficient
preliminary knowledge in the natural sciences and mathematics are
admitted to the study of medicine, even without having had a so-called
classical education. The same is true of Russia, the United States,
and other countries.
In Russia, where suppression and persecution of the Jews is
considered one of the maxims of government, an imperial ukase, in
1907, prescribed that in the newly established school of medicine
for women, only 5 per cent. of the students might be of other than
Christian faith. Of these only 3 per cent. might be Jewesses, and
the remaining 2 per cent. were to be reserved for students of Moslem
origin. This is one of the retrogressive measures which are daily
occurrences in Russia. The Russian government certainly had no cause
for such provisions, because there is quite a dearth of physicians in
that tremendous realm, and because the Russian women practitioners,
regardless of their faith or origin, have been noted for the most
unselfish devotion in the practice of their profession. Dr. Erismann,
who practiced in Russia for many years, delivered a lecture at the
54th annual convention of the Medical Society in Olten, in which
he said: “Very favorable were the experiences gathered during the
first years in regard to the activity of the female physicians. From
the very beginning they were enabled to win the confidence of the
people. In the noble competition with their male colleagues they
even carried off the laurels. It was soon observed that the female
physicians, on an average, treated more patients annually than the
male physicians, although the latter proved very efficient and
unselfish, likewise. Female patients especially, in great numbers,
sought aid with the women doctors.”[169]
On the other hand, female competition, so much feared by men,
especially in regard to the practice of medicine, has not been in
evidence. It seems that female physicians obtain a circle of patients
from their own sex who apply to male physicians rarely, or only in
cases of extreme necessity. It has, moreover, been observed that
a great many women physicians abandon their profession as soon as
they enter into marriage. It seems that in present-day society the
domestic duties of married women are so numerous, especially where
there are children, that many women find it impossible to have two
professions simultaneously. A physician must be constantly prepared,
by day and by night, to practice her profession, and to many that
becomes impossible.[170]
After England,[171] the United States and France took lead in employing
women as factory inspectors--an innovation that has become all the
more necessary because, as has been shown, the number of women in
industry is rapidly increasing, and the industries employing women,
chiefly or exclusively, are increasing likewise--a number of German
states have also followed their example. Baden, Bavaria, Hessia,
the Kingdom of Saxony, Weimar, Wurtemberg, and others have added
women assistants to their factory inspectors, and some of these have
already achieved much recognition by their activity. In Prussia
there are three women factory inspectors in Berlin, and one each
in Duesseldorf, Breslau and Wiesbaden. This proves again how the
progress of Prussia has been retarded compared with other German
states. There is not a single woman assistant in districts like
Potsdam (with 32,299 working women), Frankfort on the Oder (with
31,371), Liegnitz (with 31,798), and others, where their presence is
extremely needful. Here, too, it has been seen that working women
confide more readily in members of their own sex, and that female
factory inspectors have been able to obtain much information that was
denied to their male colleagues. One shortcoming of this institution
is that the assistants frequently are not given the autonomy that
is needful in their position, and their pay is not what it ought to
be, either. The new institution is being tried out carefully and
hesitatingly.[172]
In Germany the prejudice and aversion against employing women in public
offices is particularly strong, because so many retired military men
annually seek appointments to all kinds of offices in the state and
municipal administrations, that there is hardly any room left for
applicants from other circles. When women are employed, nevertheless,
their salary is considerably lower, whereby they immediately appear
as being worth less than men, and whereby they also become a means
to keep down wages and salaries.
The great variety of female ability could be observed especially well
at the World’s Fair in Chicago, in 1893. The splendid woman’s building
had been entirely planned by female architects, and the articles
displayed that had been designed and made by women exclusively,
were much admired for their tasty and artistic execution. In the
realm of invention, too, women have achieved much and will achieve
still more. An American trade-journal published a list of inventions
by women; among them were: An improved spinning machine; a rotary
loom, which produces three times as much as the usual kind; a chain
elevator; a connecting-rod for a propeller; a fire-escape; an
apparatus for weighing wool, one of the most delicate machines that
have ever been invented, of immeasurable value to the wool industry;
a fire extinguisher; a process of employing petroleum as a fuel for
steam-engines instead of wood or coal; an improved spark-catcher for
locomotives; a signal for grade-crossings; a system of heating cars
without fire; a lubricating felt to diminish friction (on railroads);
a typewriter; a signal-rocket for the navy; a deep-sea telescope; a
system for subduing the noise of the elevated trains; a smoke-consumer;
a machine for folding paper bags, etc. Many improvements on sewing
machines have been made by women; for instance, an appliance for
sewing canvas and coarse cloth; an apparatus for threading the needle
while the machine is running; an improvement of machines for sewing
leather, etc. The last-named invention was made by a woman who was
a harness-maker in New York. The deep-sea telescope, invented by
Mrs. Mather and improved by her daughter, is an invention of great
importance, since it makes it possible to examine the keel of the
largest vessel without bringing same into a dry-dock. With the aid
of this telescope sunken wrecks may be examined from ship-board,
obstacles to navigation and torpedoes may be located, and so forth.
A machine famed in America and Europe for its complicated and ingenious
construction, is one for the manufacture of paper bags. Many men,
among them noted mechanicians, had tried in vain to construct a
machine of this sort. It was invented by a woman, Miss Maggie Knight.
The same lady has since invented a machine for the folding of paper
bags, which performs the labor of thirty persons. She personally
conducted the construction of this machine in Amherst, Massachusetts.
[167] A statistic compiled by Blaschko gives the following information
in regard to the extension of sexual diseases among the various
occupations. First come the secret prostitutes with 30 per cent; then
the students with ~25~ per cent; merchants with 16, and workingmen
with 9 per cent.
[168] In special cases women may be excluded from certain lectures
with the consent of the minister of education.
[169] The organization of free clinical treatment of patients in
the large cities of Russia.--German Quarterly of Public Hygiene.
[170] What difficulties are entailed for women who have a family
and at the same time wish to, or have to, practice a trade or
profession, has been ably shown in the book by Adele Gerhard and
Helen Simon: “Maternity and Intellectual Occupations” (Berlin, 1901,
George Reimer). It contains the personal experiences and opinions
of writers, artists, singers, actresses, etc., and these opinions
prove that society must be completely reorganized to give full play
to the great amount of female intelligence that exists and strives
for expression, since it is in the interest of society itself that
it should be given full play.
[171] According to the last report for 1908, England has 16 female
factory inspectors, Miss A. M. Anderson and 15 assistants.
[172] The first woman factory inspector was appointed in Bavaria in
1897. From then until 1909 the number of woman factory inspectors
rose to 26. Fourteen states had until then not appointed any.