The Legal Status of Women.
1.--The Struggle for Equality Before the Law.
The social dependence of a race, class, or sex, always finds expression
in the laws and political conditions of the country in question.
The laws of a country are the formulated expression of its ruling
interests. ~Women, being the dependent and oppressed sex, find
their legal status mapped out to them accordingly.~ Laws are both
negative and positive. They are negative by failing to take notice
of the oppressed in the distribution of rights. They are positive
inasmuch as they point out his dependent position and denote whatever
exceptions there may be.
Our common law is founded on the Roman law, which considers the human
being solely in his quality as a propertied being. The old German law,
that dealt more favorably with women, has maintained its influence
only to a slight extent. In the French language, as in the English
language, human being and the male are denoted by the same word,
“l’homme”--man. In the same way, the French law only recognizes the
man as a human being, and, until a few decades ago, this was true
also of England, where women were maintained in abject dependence.
It was the same in ancient Rome. There were Roman citizens and wives
of Roman citizens, but no Roman citizenesses.
In Germany the legal status of women has been somewhat improved,
inasmuch as the great variety of existing laws have been replaced
by a uniform law, whereby rights enjoyed by women here and there
have been made general. Thereby, unmarried women were admitted to
guardianship; women were permitted to act as witnesses, to sign
contracts, and to carry on a business independently. Both husband and
wife are entitled to the common ownership of each other’s property,
unless the demands made by either party may be regarded as an abuse
of his or her rights. If there are conflicting opinions between them
on this subject, the decision rests with the ~husband~, who also
is entitled to determine the place of residence. If the husband
should abuse this right, the wife is exempt from obedience. The sole
management of the household rests with the wife. She has the so-called
power of the keys, which empowers her, within her domestic sphere,
to attend to her husband’s affairs and to represent him. The husband
is liable for his wife’s debts. But the wife’s power of the keys
may be restricted, or entirely abolished, by her husband. Should
he abuse his power, this limitation may be annulled by the courts.
The wife is obliged to do the housework and to perform tasks in her
husband’s business, but only where such occupations are customary,
in accordance with the husband’s standard of living. A demand to
establish, as the rule, separate rights of ownership by husband
and wife, was declined by the Diet. This can only be obtained by
means of the marriage contract, which is usually neglected, and may
lead to disagreements later on. Instead, community of management
was established. The husband is thereby entitled to dispose of his
wife’s property, while she is limited to her dowry. On the other
hand, the wife has unrestricted control over whatever she may earn
during marriage, by personal labor or in business. The husband has no
right to deprive the wife of her earnings or her dowry. The wife may
also demand security, in case she has good reason to fear that her
property is endangered, which she may sometimes learn too late. She
may also enter a complaint to have the common ownership abolished,
if her husband should fail to provide for her and her children. The
husband is liable for damage resulting from mismanagement.
The wife may be grievously wronged by the existing divorce laws. For,
in case of divorce, the joint earnings of husband and wife belong
to the husband, ~even if he is the guilty party~, and if most of
their common property has been earned by the wife. But the woman is
entitled to alimony, according to her station, only if it can be
shown that she is not able to maintain her standard of living by
means of her own property or earnings.
Paternal control has been replaced by the joint control of both
parents, but in case of disagreement between the parents, the decision
rests with the father. In case of the father’s death, parental
control, including the management and use of the child’s property,
devolves on the mother. A divorced woman has no right to represent
her children legally, or to control their property, even if the
children have been awarded to her, while the father continues to
enjoy full parental rights.
In England, until 1870, according to the common law, a husband was
entitled to all the personal property of his wife. Only real estate
remained her property by law, but even this the husband was entitled
to manage and to use. The English woman was a mere cipher before the
law. She could not sign any legal document, not even a will. She was
her husband’s chattel. If she committed any crime in her husband’s
presence, he was held responsible for it, since she was regarded as a
minor. In case she damaged any one’s property, the damage was viewed
as if done by a ~domestic animal~; her husband was answerable for
it. In 1888 Bishop J. N. Wood delivered a lecture in the chapel at
Westminster, in which he said, among other things, that as late as
a century ago English women had not been permitted to eat at their
husbands’ table, nor to speak until they were spoken to. As a symbol
of his marital power, a whip hung above the bed, that the husband
was permitted to wield when the wife was not as docile as her lord
desired her to be. Only her daughters were obliged to obey her. By
her sons she was regarded as a servant.
By the laws of 1870, 1882 and 1893, the woman is not only entitled to
all the property brought into marriage by her, she is also entitled
to everything she may obtain during marriage by her earnings, by
inheritance, or by gift. This legal relation can be modified only by
special agreement between husband and wife. In this respect English
legislation has followed the example set by the United States. By
the Custody of Infants’ Act, of 1886, in case of the father’s death,
parental control devolves on the mother. The Intestate Estates Act,
of 1890, still gives the man a privileged position. Both husband and
wife are free to dispose of their property by their last will and
testament. But if the wife dies intestate, all her personal property
belongs to her husband; while, if the husband dies intestate, his
widow is entitled to only one-third of his personal property and
income on real estate; the remainder belongs to his children. Many
remnants of the old mediaeval law remain in force that greatly impair
the legal status of married women. As we have seen, the divorce laws
are still highly unfavorable to women. If a man commits adultery,
that alone is no ground for divorce for the woman, but only in
connection with cruelty, bigamy, rape, etc.[173]
The civil law is especially unfavorable to women in France, and in
all those countries--mostly Romanic countries--that are strongly
influenced by the French “code civil,” or where it has been adopted
in full, with some modifications. This is the case in Belgium, Spain,
Portugal, Italy, Russian Poland, the Netherlands, and in most of
the cantons of Switzerland. There is a saying by Napoleon I. that
is characteristic of his conception of the position of women, and
that still holds true; it is: “One thing is not French, a woman who
may do as she pleases.”[174] As soon as a French woman marries she
is placed under the guardianship of her husband. According to the
Code Civil, she may not appear in court without the consent of her
husband, not even if she is connected with a lawsuit. The husband
shall protect his wife, and the wife shall obey her husband. He
controls the property brought into marriage by his wife; he may sell,
rent, or mortgage same, without being obliged to ask her consent.
The result is, that women frequently live in a condition of absolute
servitude. A man may spend his wife’s earnings on drink, or on
frivolous women; he may gamble and run into debt, leaving his wife
and children in want; he is even entitled to demand from an employer
the wages his wife has earned. Under such circumstances it is not
to be wondered at that many women prefer to desist from marriage,
as was frequently seen in France.
In most Romanic countries women cannot act as witnesses to legal
documents, contracts, wills, etc. In France this was the case until
1897. But they are permitted--by a strange inconsistency--to act
as witnesses at court in all criminal cases, where their testimony
may perhaps lead to the execution of a human being. ~In criminal
law woman is everywhere regarded as man’s equal, and crimes and
transgressions committed by her are measured by the same standard as
those committed by man.~ Our law-makers seem blissfully unconscious
of this glaring inconsistency. As a widow, a woman may make her
will, but in a great many states she is not admitted as a witness
to a will, yet she may be appointed as executrix. In Italy women
are admitted as witnesses in civil law since 1877.
The privileged position of men is especially manifest in the divorce
laws. According to the “Code Civil,” in France a man might obtain a
divorce if his wife committed adultery; but a woman could not obtain
it, unless her husband had brought his concubine into their home.
This article has been changed by the divorce law of July 27, 1884,
but in French criminal law the distinction has been maintained, which
is very characteristic of the French law-makers. If a woman has been
convicted of adultery she is punishable by imprisonment of from
three months to two years. But the man is punishable only if he has
maintained a concubine in his own household, as per the former article
of the “Code Civil.” If found guilty, his only punishment is a fine
of from 100 to 2000 francs. Such inequality before the law would be
impossible if there were women in the parliament of France. Similar
laws are in force in Belgium. The penalty for adultery when committed
by a woman is the same as in France. The man goes unpunished, unless
adultery has been committed by him in his and his wife’s domicile;
in that event he may be punished by imprisonment of from one month
to one year. In Belgium the injustice is not quite as glaring as in
France, but in both countries we find one standard of law for the
man and another one for the woman. Under the influence of French law
similar provisions have been made in Spain and Portugal. According
to the civil law of Italy, enacted in 1865, a woman cannot obtain
a divorce on the ground of adultery, unless her husband maintains
his concubine in his own home, or in a place where her presence
appears as a particular insult to the wife. In 1907, together with
the enactment of June 21, which has modified a number of articles
of the Code Civil in regard to marriage, both chambers finally
adopted the law of July 13, whereby the wife became the sole owner
of property earned by her, or obtained by inheritance or gift. The
husband has been deprived of his former control over the personal
property of his wife. That is the first breach in French law, and
thereby French women have obtained the same legal status that was
obtained for English women by the law of 1870.
Much more advanced than the “Code Civil” and more advanced also
than German civil law, is the new civil law of Switzerland that was
adopted on December 10, 1907, and will come into force on January 1,
1912. Until now the various cantons of Switzerland had their own
laws. In Geneva, Waadt, and Italian Switzerland they were partly
founded on the “Code Civil.” In Bern and Lucerne they were founded
on Austrian law, and in Schwytz, Uri, Unterwalden, etc., the old
common law prevailed. Now Switzerland is to have a uniform code of
laws. The freedom of the wife and the children is assured. The new
law provides that the wife is entitled to one-third of her husband’s
income, even if she is only occupied as his assistant or housekeeper.
In regard to inheritance, also, the laws are more favorable to
women than the German laws. When a man dies, his wife is not only
entitled to one-half of his property, but also, together with the
man’s parents, to the lifelong use of the income from the other half.
If people owe money to a man who fails to provide for his wife and
children, the judge may instruct them to pay these debts, not to the
man himself, but to his wife. The law no longer forbids a divorced
person to marry the person with whom he has committed adultery. The
property rights of married persons are mainly determined by the
marriage contract that may be drawn up by both before and during
marriage. Illegitimate children--in cases where the mother had been
given a promise of marriage--are not only entitled to alimony from
their father, as according to the new German law, but they are also
entitled to their father’s name, and thereby obtain the full rights
of legitimate children.
Swedish women are given full control over their own earnings by a
law of Dec. 11, 1874. In Denmark a similar law was enacted in 1880.
According to Danish law no claims may be made on a woman’s property
for the payment of her husband’s debts. The Norwegian law of 1888
and the Finnish law of 1889 are quite similar. The married woman
has the same control over her property as the unmarried woman; only
some exceptions are provided for that are stated in the law. In
the Norwegian law it is clearly stated, ~that the woman becomes a
dependent by marriage~.
“In the Scandinavian countries, as elsewhere, this universal movement
to extend the property rights of women originated in the same way as
it did in England: through the ~gainful employment~ of married women.
The ruling classes were far more willing to abandon the patriarchal
superiority of the common man over his working wife, than that of
the man from their own ranks over his propertied wife.”[175]
In the law of May 27, 1908, Danish legislation advanced still another
step. If a husband and father fails to provide for his family, the wife
and children may have the sum, awarded to them by the authorities,
advanced out of the public funds.
In most countries the father has the sole control over the children
and the right to determine their education. Only in some countries
the mother is given joint control with the father in a more or less
subordinate way. The old Roman principle, whereby the father had
complete power over his children, everywhere forms the key-note of
legislation.
In Russia married women have some control over their property, but as
bread-winners they remain utterly subservient to their husbands. No
pass--which is absolutely essential for any change of residence--is
ever issued to a married woman without her husband’s consent. In
order to accept a position or to practice any trade or profession,
she must also have her husband’s permission. Divorce is made so
difficult, that it can be obtained only in very rare cases. The
position of Russian women was much more independent formerly in the
old peasant communities, which was due to the remaining communistic
institutions or to the reminiscences of these institutions. The
peasant woman was the manager of her own estate. Communism is the
most favorable social condition for women. We have seen this from
our exposition of the matriarchal period.[176]
In the United States the women have succeeded in winning almost
complete equality before the law; they have also prevented the
introduction of English and other laws regulating prostitution.
[173] A. Chapman and M. Chapman--The Status of Women under the
English Law. London, 1909.
[174] L. Bridel--La puissance maritale. Lausanne, 1879.
[175] Marianne Weber--Wife and Mother in the Evolution of Law.
Tubingen, 1907.
[176] The correctness of this conception may be seen from the comedy
by Aristophanes, “The Popular Assembly of Women.” In this comedy
Aristophanes depicts how the Athenian state was so mismanaged that
no one knew what to do. In the popular assembly of the citizens of
Athens the prytanes submit the question how the state is to be saved.
A woman, disguised as a man, moves to entrust the government to the
women, and this motion is carried without resistance, “because it was
the only thing not yet tried in Athens.” The women proceed to steer
the ship of state and immediately introduce communism. Of course,
Aristophanes ridicules this condition, but the characteristic part
of his play is, that he has the women introduce communism as the
only rational social organization from their point of view, as soon
as they come into power. Aristophanes had no idea of how much truth
was in his jest.
2.--The Struggle for Political Equality.
The evident inequality of women before the law has caused the more
advanced among them to demand political rights, in order to attain
their equality by means of legislation. The same thought has also
led the working class to direct their agitation toward the conquest
of political power. What is right for the working class, cannot be
wrong for the women. Being oppressed, devoid of rights and, in many
instances, disregarded, it is not only their right, but their duty
to defend themselves and to adopt any method that appears good to
them, so that they may win an independent position. Of course these
endeavors are opposed by the usual reactionary croakings. Let us
see to what extent these are justified.
Women possessing eminent intellectual abilities have influenced
politics at all times and among all peoples, even where they were
not endowed with the power of sovereigns. Even the papal court was
not exempt from this. If they could not exert any influence by means
of the rights conceded to them, they did so by their intellectual
superiority, even by intrigues. For many centuries their influence was
particularly strong at the court of France, as also at the Spanish and
Italian courts. At the close of the seventeenth century, at the court
of Philip V. of Spain, Marie of Trémonille, Countess of Bracciano
and Princess of Ursins, was the prime-minister of Spain for thirteen
years, and during this time very ably conducted Spanish politics. As
the mistresses of rulers, many women have succeeded in obtaining a
great political influence; we need but mention the well-known names
of Maintenon, the mistress of Louis XIV., and Pompadour, the mistress
of Louis XV. The great intellectual awakening of the eighteenth
century, that produced men like Montesquieu, Voltaire, d’Allembert,
Holbach, Helvetius, La Mettrie, Rousseau, and many others, did not
fail to affect the women. This great movement, which questioned the
justification of the fundamental principles of the state and feudal
society and helped to undermine them, may have been joined by some
women to follow the fashion, to satisfy their love of intrigue, or for
other unworthy motives. But a great many women were impelled to take
part in this movement by their profound interest and enthusiasm for
its noble aims. Decades before the outbreak of the great revolution,
which swept over France like a purifying cloud-burst, tore the old
order asunder and cast it down, causing jubilation among the most
advanced minds of the age, women had thronged into the scientific
and political clubs, where philosophical, scientific, religious,
social and political problems were discussed with unwonted daring,
and had taken part in the discussions. When at length, in July, 1789,
the storming of the Bastille ushered in the great revolution, women
of the upper classes and women of the common people participated
actively and exerted a very noticeable influence both for and against
it. They participated excessively in both good and evil wherever an
opportunity presented itself. The majority of historians have taken
more notice of the excesses of the revolution than of its great and
noble deeds. These excesses, by the way, were only too natural, for
they were the result of tremendous exasperation at the unspeakable
corruption, the exploitation, the imposition, the baseness and
villany of the ruling classes. Under the influence of these biased
descriptions, Schiller wrote the lines: “And women there become hyenas
and mock at horror and despair.” And yet in those years women have
set so many noble examples of heroism, magnanimity, and admirable
self-sacrifice, that to write an impartial book on “the women in
the great revolution,” would mean the erection of a noble monument
in their honor.[177] According to Michelet, women even were the
van-guard of the revolution. The general poverty and want from which
the French people suffered under the predatory and disgraceful rule
of the Bourbon kings, especially affected the women, as is always
the case under similar conditions. Being excluded from almost every
decent means of support, tens of thousands of them fell victims to
prostitution. To this was added the famine of 1789, which increased
the suffering of women and children to the utmost. This famine led
them to storm the town-hall in October and to march in masses to
Versailles, the seat of the court. It also caused a number of them
to petition the national assembly “that the equality between man and
woman be reinstated, that work and employment be opened to them and
that they be given positions suited to their abilities.” As the women
recognized that they needed power to win their rights, but that they
could attain power only by organizing and by standing together in
great numbers, they organized women’s clubs throughout France, some
of which had a surprisingly large membership, and also took part
in the men’s meetings. While brilliant Madame Roland preferred to
play a leading political part among the “statesmen” of the French
Revolution, the Girondistes, passionate and eloquent Olympe de Gouges
took the leadership of the women of the people and espoused their
cause with all the enthusiasm of her fervent temperament.
When the assembly proclaimed “the rights of man” (les droits de
l’homme), in 1793, she promptly recognized that they were only rights
of men. In opposition to these, Olympe de Gouges, together with
Rose Lacombe and others, wrote “The rights of Women,” in seventeen
articles. On the 28 Brumaire (November 20, 1793), she defended the
rights before the Paris Commune, with arguments that are still fully
justified. In her argumentation the following sentence, characteristic
of the situation, was contained: “If a woman has the right to mount
the scaffold she must also have the right to mount the platform.”
Her demands remained unfulfilled. But her reference to the right of
woman to mount a scaffold met with bloody confirmation. Her defence
of the rights of women on the one hand, and her struggle against the
atrocities of the assembly on the other, made her appear ripe for the
scaffold to the assembly. She was beheaded on the 3d of November, of
the same year. Five days later Madame Roland was beheaded, also. Both
went to their death heroically. Shortly before these executions, on
October 17, 1793, the assembly had shown its attitude of hostility
toward women by deciding to suppress all the women’s clubs. Later on,
when the women continued to protest against the wrong perpetrated
against them, they were even forbidden to attend the assembly and
the public meetings, and were treated as rebels.
When monarchical Europe marched against France, and the assembly
declared “the fatherland to be in danger,” Parisian women offered to
do what was done twenty years later by enthusiastic Prussian women,
to bear arms in defence of the fatherland, thereby hoping to prove
their right to equality. But they were opposed in the commune by the
radical Chaumette, who addressed them thus: “Since when are women
permitted to deny their sex and to make men of themselves? Since
when is it customary for them to neglect the tender care of their
households, to forsake the cradles of their children, to come into
public places, to speak from platforms, to enter the ranks of the
army, with one word, to perform those duties which nature has destined
man to perform? Nature has said to the man: ‘Be a man! The races, the
hunt, agriculture, politics, all exertions are your ~privilege~.’
She has said to the woman: ‘Be a woman! The care of your children,
the details of the household, the sweet restlessness of motherhood,
these are your ~tasks~.’ Foolish women, why do you seek to become
men? Are human beings not properly divided? What more do you ask? In
the name of Nature, remain what you are, and far from envying us our
stormy lives, make us forget them in the midst of our families by
letting our eyes rest upon the lovely sight of our children, happy in
your tender care.” Undoubtedly the radical Chaumette expressed the
opinion held by most men. It is generally considered an appropriate
division of labor that men defend the country and women care for
hearth and home. For the rest the oratorical effusion of Chaumette
consists of mere phrases. It is not true that man has borne the
burdens of agriculture. From primeval days down to the present woman
has contributed a large share to agriculture. The exertions of the
hunt and the races are no “exertions,” but a pleasure to men, and
politics entails dangers only for those who combat current opinions,
while to others it offers at least as much pleasure as exertion.
Nothing but the egotism of man finds expression in this speech.
Aims similar to those pursued by the Encyclopedists and the great
revolution in France found expression in the United States, when,
during the seventies and eighties of the eighteenth century, the
colonists won their struggle for independence from England and
established a democratic constitution. At that time, Mercy Ottis
Warren and the wife of the second president of the United States,
Mrs. Adams, together with a few other women, favored political
equality. It was due to their influence that the State of New Jersey
bestowed the right of suffrage upon women, of which it deprived them
again in 1807. In France, even before the outbreak of the revolution,
Condorcet, later a Girondist, published a brilliantly written essay
in favor of woman’s suffrage and the political equality of both
sexes.
Inspired by the great events in the neighboring country, it was
brave Mary Wollstonecraft, born in 1759, who proclaimed woman’s
cause at the other side of the channel. In 1790 she wrote a book in
opposition to Burke, one of the most vehement opponents of the French
Revolution, in which she defended the rights of man. Soon after
she proceeded to demand the rights of man for her own sex. In her
book, published in 1792, “A Vindication of the Rights of Women,” she
severely criticised her own sex, but demanded and bravely defended
complete equality for women in behalf of the common welfare. She
met with vehement opposition and was subjected to severe and unjust
attacks. Heart-broken by bitter inward struggles, she died in 1797,
misunderstood and ridiculed by her contemporaries.
At the same time, when the first serious endeavors to obtain political
equality for women were being made in France, England, and the United
States, even in Germany, which was particularly retrogressive then,
a German writer--Th. G. v. Hippel--anonymously published a book
in Berlin, in 1792, on the “Civic Improvement in the Condition of
Women,” in which he defended the equal rights of women. At that time
a book on the civic improvement in the condition of men would have
been equally justified. We must therefore doubly admire the courage
of this man, who, in his book, ventured to draw all the logical
conclusions from social and political sex equality and defended same
very ably and intelligently.
Since then the demand for political rights of women has remained
dormant for a long time; but gradually it has been taken up again
by the woman’s movement in all countries and has become realized
in a number of states. In France the St. Simonists and Fourierists
favored sex equality, and, in 1848, the Fourierist Considérant moved
in the constitutional committee of the French parliament to bestow
equal political rights upon women. In 1851, Pierre Leroux repeated
the motion in the chamber, but likewise unsuccessfully.
At present matters have an entirely different aspect. The development
of our social conditions and all social relations have undergone a
tremendous transformation and have at the same time transformed
the position of women. In all civilized states we find hundreds
of thousands and millions of women employed in the most varied
professions, just like men, and every year the number of women
increases, who must rely on their own strength and ability in the
struggle for existence. The nature of our social and political
conditions, therefore, can no longer remain a matter of indifference
to women. They must be interested in questions like the following:
Whether or not the control of domestic and foreign affairs favor
war; whether or not the state should annually keep hundreds of
thousands of healthy men in the army and drive tens of thousands
from the country; whether or not the necessities of life should be
raised in price by taxes and duties at a time when the means of
subsistence are very scarce to a great majority, etc. Women also pay
direct and indirect taxes from their property and their earnings.
The educational system is of the greatest interest to women, for
the manner of education is a determining factor in the position of
their sex; it is of special importance to mothers.
The hundreds of thousands and millions of women employed in hundreds
of trades and professions are personally and vitally concerned in
the nature of our social legislation. Laws relating to the length
of the work-day, night-work, child labor, wages, safety appliances
in factories and workshops, in one word, all labor laws, as also
insurance laws, etc., are of the greatest interest to working
women. Workingmen are only very insufficiently informed about the
conditions existing in many branches of industry in which women
are chiefly or exclusively employed. It is to the interest of the
employers to conceal existing evils that they have caused; and in
many instances factory inspection does not include trades in which
women are exclusively employed; yet in these very branches of industry
protection is most needful. We need but point to the workshops in
our large cities, where seamstresses, dressmakers, milliners, etc.,
are crowded together. We hardly ever hear a complaint from their
midst, and there is no investigation of their condition. Women as
bread-winners are also interested in the commerce and custom-laws
and in all civil laws. There can no longer be any doubt, that it is
as important to women as it is to men, to influence the nature of
our conditions by means of legislation. The participation of women
in public life would give it a new impetus and open new vistas.
Demands of this sort are briefly set aside, with the reply: “Women
don’t understand politics; most of them do not wish to have a vote
and would not know how to use it.” That is both true and false. It
is true that until now, in Germany, at least, not very many women
have demanded political equality. The first German woman to proclaim
the rights of women, as early as the sixties of the last century,
was Hedwig Dohm. Recently the Socialist working women have been the
chief supporters of woman’s suffrage and have undertaken an active
agitation for the winning of the ballot.
The argument that women have until now shown only a very moderate
interest in politics, does not prove anything at all. If women have
failed to care about politics formerly, that does not signify that
they ~ought~ not to care about them now. The same arguments that
are advanced against woman suffrage were, during the first half of
the sixties, advanced against universal manhood suffrage. In 1863
the writer of this book himself was among those who ~opposed~ it.
Four years later it made possible his election to the Diet. Tens
of thousands experienced a similar development. Nevertheless there
still are many men who either fail to make use of their political
right, or do not know how to use it. Yet that would be no reason to
deprive them of it. During the parliamentary elections usually from
25 to 30 per cent. of the voters fail to vote, and among these are
members of all classes. While among the 70 to 75 per cent. who do
vote, the majority, in our opinion, vote as they ought not to vote
if they understood their own advantage. That they do not understand
is due to a lack of political education. But political education is
not obtained by withholding political rights from the masses. It is
obtained only by the practice of political rights. Practice alone
makes perfect. The ruling classes have always known it to be in their
own interest to keep the great majority of the people in political
dependence. Therefore it has been the task of a determined, class
conscious minority to struggle for the common good with energy and
enthusiasm, and to arouse the masses from their indifference and
inertia. It has been thus in all the great movements of history,
and therefore it need not surprise or discourage us that it is the
same with the woman’s movement. The success that has been obtained
so far shows, that work and sacrifice are not in vain and that the
future will bring victory.
As soon as women shall have obtained equal rights with men, the
consciousness of their duties will be awakened in them. When asked
to vote they will begin to question “why” and “for whom.”
Thereby a new source of interest will be established between man and
woman that, far from harming their mutual relation, will considerably
improve it. The inexperienced woman will naturally turn to the more
experienced man. Therefrom an exchange of ideas and mutual instruction
will result, a relation that until now has been very rare between man
and woman. This will give their life a new charm. The unfortunate
differences in education and conception between the sexes that
frequently lead to disputes, breed discord in regard to the various
duties of the man and injure the public welfare, will be adjusted
more and more. A congenial and like-minded wife will support a man
in his endeavors, instead of hindering him. If other tasks should
prevent her from being active herself, she will encourage the man
to do his duty. She will also be willing to sacrifice a fraction of
the income for a newspaper and for purposes of agitation, because
the newspaper will mean instruction and entertainment to her, and
because she will understand that by the sacrifices for purposes of
agitation, a more worthy human existence can be won for herself,
her husband and her children.
Thus the common service of the public welfare, that is closely linked
with the individual welfare, will elevate both man and woman. The
opposite of that will be attained which is claimed by short-sighted
persons or by the enemies of equal rights, and this relation between
the sexes will develop and become more beautiful as improved social
conditions will liberate both man and woman from material care and
excessive burdens of toil. Here, as in other cases, practice and
education will help along. If I do not go into the water I will never
learn to swim; if I do not study and practice a foreign language, I
will never learn to speak it. That is readily understood by everyone;
but many fail to understand that the same holds true of the affairs of
the state and society. Are our women less capable than the inferior
Negro race that was given political equality in North America? Or
shall a highly cultured, educated woman be entitled to fewer rights
than the most coarse and ignorant man, only because blind chance
brought the latter into the world as a male being? Has the son a
greater right than the mother from whom he has perhaps inherited
his best qualities and who made him what he is? Such “justice” is
strange, indeed.
Moreover, we are no longer risking a leap into the dark and unknown.
North America, New Zealand, and Finland have paved the way. On the
effects of woman suffrage in Wyoming, Justice Kingman, from Laramie,
wrote to “The Woman’s Journal,” on November 12, 1872, as follows: “It
is three years to-day that women were enfranchised in our territory
and were also given the right to be elected to office, as all other
voters. During this time they have taken part in the elections and
have been elected to various offices; they have acted as jurors and
as justices of the peace. Although there probably still are some
among us who oppose the participation of women, on principle, I do
not believe any one can deny that the participation of women in our
elections has exerted an ~educational~ influence. The elections
became more quiet and orderly, and at the same time our courts were
enabled to punish various kinds of criminals who had been allowed
to go unpunished until then. When the territory was organized, for
instance, there was hardly a person who did not carry a revolver and
make use of same upon the slightest provocation. I do not remember
a single case where a person had been convicted of shooting by a
jury composed entirely of men; but, with two or three women among
the jurors, they always followed the instructions of the judge.”
The prevailing sentiment in regard to woman suffrage in Wyoming,
twenty-five years after its introduction, was expressed in a
proclamation by the legislature of that state to all the legislatures
of the country. It read:
“~Whereas~, Wyoming was the first State to adopt woman suffrage,
which has been in operation since 1869, and was adopted in the
constitution of the State in 1890; during which time women have
exercised the privilege as generally as men, with the result that
better candidates have been elected for office, methods of election
purified, the character of legislation improved, civic intelligence
increased, and womanhood developed to a greater usefulness by
political responsibility; therefore,
“~Resolved~, by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring,
that, in view of these results, the enfranchisement of women in every
State and Territory of the American Union is hereby recommended
as a measure tending to the advancement of a higher and better
social order.”
It is certain that the enfranchisement of women has shown many
advantageous results for Wyoming, and not one single disadvantage.
That is the most splendid vindication of its introduction. The example
set by Wyoming was followed by other states. Women were given full
parliamentary suffrage in Colorado in 1894, in Utah in 1895, in
Idaho in 1896. Women have municipal suffrage in Kansas, and school
suffrage, tax-paying suffrage, etc., in a number of other states
in the Union. In 1899, after the innovation had been in force in
Colorado for five years, the legislature decided upon the following
resolution, by 45 against 3 votes:
“~Whereas~, equal suffrage has been in operation in Colorado for
five years, during which time women have exercised the privilege as
generally as men, with the result that better candidates have been
selected for office, methods of election have been purified, the
character of legislation improved, civic intelligence increased
and womanhood developed to greater usefulness by political
responsibility; therefore,
“~Resolved~, by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring,
that, in view of these results, the enfranchisement of women in every
State and Territory of the American Union is hereby recommended
as a measure tending to the advancement of a higher and better
social order.”
In a number of states the legislatures have passed woman suffrage
bills, but these decisions were annulled by the vote of the people.
This was the case in Kansas, Oregon, Nebraska, Indiana, and Oklahoma.
In Kansas and Oklahoma this proceeding has been twice repeated, and
in Oregon even three times. The noteworthy fact is that each time
the majorities against the political emancipation of women became
smaller.[178]
“The municipal rights obtained by women are very varied, but, taken
all in all, do not amount to much. As a matter of course, women
enjoy the full municipal rights of citizenship in those four states
in which they have been given national suffrage. But only one other
state, Kansas, has given women municipal suffrage, which also includes
school and tax-paying suffrage and makes them eligible to school
boards. A limited municipal suffrage, founded upon an educational
qualification, has been exercised by the women of Michigan since
1893. Louisiana, Montana, Iowa, and New York give women the right to
vote on municipal questions of taxation. The women have not obtained
as much influence in the general administration of municipal affairs
as they have in regard to the administration of schools. They have
school suffrage and are eligible to school boards in the following
states: Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York,
New Jersey, Delaware, Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North and
South Dakota, Nebraska, Montana, Arizona, Oregon and Washington. In
Kentucky and Oklahoma they have school suffrage, but are not eligible
to office; in Kentucky the school suffrage is limited by certain
restrictions. In Maine, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Iowa
and California, women are eligible to school boards, but only to
certain offices.”[179]
In New Zealand, women have had full parliamentary suffrage since
1893. They have actively participated in the parliamentary elections,
more actively than the men, but they are not eligible to office. Only
men may be elected. In 1893, of 139,915 women of voting age no less
than 109,461 registered; 785 for each 1000; 90,290--645 for each
1000--took part in the elections. In 1896 108,783 (68 per cent.) of
the women voted; in 1902, 138,565; in 1905, 175,046.
In Tasmania, women were given municipal suffrage in 1884 and national
suffrage in 1903. In South Australia, women have had national suffrage
since 1895, in West Australia since 1900, in New South Wales since
1902, in Queensland since 1905, in Victoria since 1908. Federated
Australia introduced parliamentary woman’s suffrage in 1902. The
parliamentary suffrage implies the eligibility of women to parliament,
but until now no woman has been elected. Women who are of age may
vote for members of parliament and be voted for on the same terms as
men. The municipal administration is less democratic. The right of
participation in the administration of municipal affairs is connected
with military service. Since 1889, tax-paying women are eligible
to the charity-boards of town and rural communities. They may also
be elected as directors of charitable institutions and members of
school boards.
The grand general strike of October, 1905, and the victory of the
Russian revolution made possible the restoration of the constitution
in Finland. The working class, by bringing pressure to bear upon
the National Diet, succeeded in obtaining the passage of a law that
provided for the introduction of universal suffrage, including the
women. Only such persons were excluded who received aid from public
funds, or who owed their personal tax to the state, 50 cents for men
and 25 cents for women. In 1907, 19 women, and in 1908, 25 women
were elected to the parliament of Finland.
In Norway, women participate in the administration of schools since
1889. In cities, the city councils may appoint them to school boards,
and women having children of school age take part in the election of
school inspectors. In the rural districts all who pay school taxes,
regardless of sex, are entitled to take part in the school meetings
of the communities. Women may hold the office of school inspector.
Gradually women were given a voice in other municipal matters also.
In 1901, municipal suffrage was extended to all Norwegian women who
had attained their twenty-fifth year, who were Norwegian citizens,
having been in the country at least five years, and who paid taxes
on an income of at least 300 crowns, in the rural districts, and
400 crowns in the cities, or whose husbands paid the required amount
of taxes. Women answering these requirements were also made eligible
to municipal offices. By this law 200,000 women were enfranchised,
30,000 of them in Christiania alone. During the first election in
which the women participated, 90 women were elected as members of
town and city councils, and 160 as alternates. In Christiana, 6
women councillors and one alternate were elected. On July 1, 1907,
the Norwegian women were given parliamentary suffrage, but not upon
the same terms as men. Parliamentary suffrage was extended to women
on the same terms on which they had been given municipal suffrage;
250,000 proletarian women still remain excluded from political rights.
In Sweden, unmarried women take part in municipal elections since
1862, on the same terms as men; that is, they must be of age and must
pay taxes on an income of at least 140 dollars. In 1887 only 4000
women among 62,000 voted. At first, women were not eligible to any
municipal office, but in 1889 a law was enacted which declared them
eligible to school boards and boards of charity. In February, 1909,
Swedish women were declared eligible to all town and city councils.
In 1902 parliamentary woman suffrage was rejected by the lower
house by 114 against 64 votes; in 1905 by 109 against 88 votes.
In Denmark, after many years of agitation, women were given municipal
suffrage in April, 1908, and were also made eligible to municipal
offices. All those women are enfranchised who have attained their
twenty-fifth year and who have an annual income of at least 225 dollars
in the cities (less in rural districts), or whose husbands pay the
required amount of taxes. Moreover, servant girls are enfranchised,
in whose case board and lodging are added to the wages they receive.
During the first election in which women participated, which took
place in 1909, seven women were elected to the city council of
Copenhagen. In Iceland, women have municipal suffrage and are eligible
to municipal offices since 1907.
The struggle for woman suffrage in England has a considerable history.
According to an old law, in the mediaeval ages, ladies of the manors
had the right of suffrage and also exercised judicial power. In the
course of time they were deprived of these rights. In the election
reform acts of 1832, the word “person” had been employed, which
includes members of both sexes. Yet the law was construed not to
refer to women, and they were barred from voting wherever they made
an attempt to do so. In the election reform bill of 1867, the word
“person” had been replaced by the word “man.” John Stuart Mill moved
to reintroduce the word “person” instead of “man,” explicitly stating
as the object of his motion that thereby women would be given the
suffrage on the same terms as men. The motion was voted down by 194
against 73 votes. Sixteen years later, in 1883, another attempt was
made in the house of commons to introduce woman suffrage. The bill
was rejected by a majority of only 16 votes. Another attempt failed
in 1884, when a much larger membership of the house voted down a
suffrage bill by a majority of 136 votes. But the minority were not
discouraged. In 1886 they succeeded in having a bill providing for
the introduction of parliamentary woman suffrage passed in two
readings. The dissolving of parliament prevented a final decision.
On November 29, 1888, Lord Salisbury delivered an address in
Edinburgh, in which he said, among other things: “I sincerely hope
that the day may not be distant when women will participate in
parliamentary elections and will help to determine the course of the
government.” Alfred Russell Wallace, the well-known scientist and
follower of Darwin, expressed himself upon the same question in the
following manner: “When men and women shall be free to follow their
best impulses, when no human being shall be hampered by unnatural
restrictions owing to the chance of sex, when public opinion will
be controlled by the wisest and best and will be systematically
impressed upon the young, then we will find that a system of human
selection will manifest itself that will result in a transformed
humanity. As long as women are compelled to regard marriage as a
means whereby they may escape poverty and neglect, they are and
remain at a disadvantage compared to men. Therefore the first step
in the emancipation of women is to remove all the restrictions which
prevent them from competing with men in all branches of industry and
in all occupations. But we must advance beyond this point and permit
women to exercise their ~political rights~. Many of the restrictions
from which women have hitherto suffered would have been spared them
if they had had a direct representation in parliament.”
On April 27, 1892, the second reading of a bill by Sir A. Rollit
was again rejected by 175 against 152 votes. On February 3, 1897,
the house of commons passed a suffrage bill, but, owing to various
manœuvres of the opponents, the bill did not come up for the third
reading. In 1904 the same scene was re-enacted. Of the members of
parliament elected to the house of commons in 1906, a large majority
had declared themselves in favor of woman suffrage prior to their
election. On June 21, 1908, a grand demonstration was held in Hyde
Park. On February 28, a bill providing that women should be given
parliamentary suffrage on the same terms as men, had been passed by
271 against 92 votes.[180]
In regard to municipal administration, woman suffrage in Great Britain
is constantly expanding. In the parish councils tax-paying women have
a voice and vote as well as men. Since 1899, women in England have
the right to vote for town, district and county councils. In the
rural districts all proprietors and lodgers--including the female
ones--who reside in the parish or district are entitled to vote. All
inhabitants who are of age may be elected to the above-named bodies,
regardless of sex. Women vote for members of school boards, and,
since 1870, are eligible to same on the same terms as men. But in
1903 the reactionary English school law has deprived women of the
right of being elected to the school board in the county of London.
Since 1869 independent and unmarried women have the right to vote for
the privy councils. Two laws enacted in 1907 made unmarried women
in England and Scotland eligible to district and county councils.
But a woman who may be elected as chairman of such a council, shall
thereby not hold the office of justice of peace that is connected
with it. Women are also eligible to parish councils and as overseers
of the poor. The first woman mayor was elected in Aldeburgh on
November 9, 1908. In 1908 there were 1162 women on English boards
of charity and 615 women on school boards. In Ireland, tax-paying
women have had municipal suffrage since 1887, and since 1896 they
may vote for members of boards of charity and be elected to same.
In the British colony of North America, most of the provinces have
introduced municipal woman suffrage on similar terms as in England.
In the African colonies of England, municipal woman suffrage has
likewise been introduced.
In France the first slight progress was brought about by a law
enacted on February 27, 1880. By this law a school board was
created consisting of women school principals, school inspectors,
and inspectors of asylums. Another law of January 23, 1898, gave
women engaged in commerce the right to vote for members of courts of
trade, and, since November 25, 1908, women may be elected as members
of courts of trade themselves.
In Italy women may vote for members of courts of trade and be elected
as such since 1893. They are also eligible to boards of supervisors
of hospitals, orphan asylums, foundling asylums, and to school boards.
In Austria women belonging to the class of great landowners may vote
for members of the Diet and the imperial council, either personally
or by proxy. Taxpaying women, over 24, may vote for town and city
councillors; married women exercise the suffrage indirectly through
their husbands, others through some other authorized agent. All the
women belonging to the class of great land-owners have the right
to vote for members of the Diet, but, with the exception of Lower
Austria, they do not exercise it personally. Only in the one domain
referred to, the law of 1896 provides that the great landowners,
regardless of sex, must cast their vote in person. Women may also
vote for members of courts of trade, but may not be elected to same.
In Germany women are explicitly excluded from voting for any
law-making bodies. In some parts of the country women may vote for
town-councillors. In no city or rural community are women eligible to
municipal offices. In the cities they are also excluded from the right
to vote for any office. The exceptions to this rule are some cities
in the Grand-duchy of Saxony-Weimar-Eisenach, in the principalities
of Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt, and Schwarzburg-Sondershausen, in Bavaria,
and the little town of Travemuende, in Lubeck.
In the Bavarian cities all women who are house-owners, and in the
cities of Saxony-Weimar and Schwarzburg, all women citizens are given
the suffrage, but only in Travemuende are they permitted to exercise
it in person.[181] In most of the rural communities where the right
of suffrage depends upon a property or tax-paying qualification,
women are included in this right. But they must vote by proxy and are
not eligible to any office themselves. This is the case in Prussia,
Brunswick, Schleswig-Holstein, Saxony-Weimar, Hamburg, and Lubeck.
In the Kingdom of Saxony a woman may exercise the suffrage if she be
a landowner and ~unmarried~. When she becomes married, her suffrage
devolves upon her husband. In those states in which municipal suffrage
depends upon citizenship, women are generally excluded. This is the
case in Wurtemberg, in the Bavarian Palatinate, in Baden, Hessia,
Oldenburg, Anhalt, Gotha, and Reuss. In Saxony-Weimar-Eisenach,
Coburg, Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt, and Schwarzburg-Sondershausen, women
can become citizens on the same terms as men, and they have the
suffrage, not limited by any property qualification. But here, too,
they are prohibited from exercising this right in person.
In those Prussian districts where a limited form of woman suffrage
exists, the enfranchised women participate directly or indirectly in
the elections for members of the dietines. In the electoral groups of
great landowners and the representatives of mining and manufacturing
establishments, the women vote for members of the dietines directly;
but in the rural communities they vote indirectly, since here the
town council does not elect the representatives themselves, but
only their electors. As the local dietines elect representatives to
the provincial diets, the small number of enfranchised women are
enabled to exert a very modest influence on the administration of
the provinces.
During recent years women have been admitted to boards of charity,
and have been made overseers of the poor and of orphan asylums in
growing numbers and with marked success. (Bavaria constitutes the only
exception.) In some cities (in Prussia, Baden, Wurtemberg, Bavaria
and Saxony), they have also been admitted to school boards, and in
one city (Mannheim), they have been made members of a commission for
the inspection of dwellings. Insurance against sickness is the only
public institution in connection with which women may vote and be
voted for. They remain excluded from voting for members of courts
of trade.
The above-quoted instances show that suffrage in Germany and Austria
is determined, almost without exception, not by the person, but by
property. Politically, human beings are mere ciphers if they have no
money and no possessions. Neither intellect nor ability, but property
is the determining factor. It is very instructive to note this fact
in regard to the morality and justice of the present state.
We see that a number of exceptions have already been made to the theory
that women are in the same class with minors and that the franchise
must accordingly be withheld from them. And yet people vehemently
oppose the endeavor to give women full political equality. Even
progressive people argue that it would be dangerous to enfranchise
women because they are conservative by nature and are susceptible to
religious prejudices. But these arguments are true to some extent
only, so long as women are maintained in ignorance. Our object must
therefore be to educate them and to teach them where their true
interest lies. Incidentally it may be stated that the religious
influence on elections has been overestimated. The ultramontane
agitation was so successful in Germany only because it wisely combined
the religious interests with social interests. For a long time the
ultramontane chaplains vied with the Socialists in revealing social
deterioration. It was this that caused them to become so influential
with the masses. But with the end of the struggle between church and
state this influence gradually declines. The clergy are obliged to
abandon their struggle against the power of the state; at the same
time the increasing class differences compel them to show greater
consideration for the Catholic bourgeoisie and the Catholic nobility
and to be more reticent in regard to social questions. Thereby they
lose their influence upon workingmen, especially if consideration
for the ruling classes compels them to favor or to tolerate actions
and laws that are directed against the interests of the working
class. The same reasons will eventually also destroy the influence
of the clergy upon women. When women learn in meetings, or from
newspapers, or by personal experience, where their true interests
lie, they will emancipate themselves from clerical influence just
as men.[182]
In Belgium, where ultramontanism still predominates among large
circles of the population, a number of the Catholic clergy favor
woman suffrage because they deem it an effective weapon against
Socialism. In Germany, too, a number of conservative members of the
Diet have declared themselves in favor of the woman suffrage bills
introduced by Socialist members and have explained their position
by asserting that they consider woman suffrage a weapon against
Socialism. Undoubtedly there is some truth in these opinions, taking
into consideration the present political ignorance of women and the
strong influence exerted over them by the clergy. But still this is
no reason to disfranchise them. There are millions of workingmen,
too, who vote for candidates of bourgeois and religious parties
against their own class interest and thereby prove their political
ignorance, yet no one would propose to disfranchise them for this
reason. The withholding or the rape of the franchise is not practiced
because the ignorance of the masses--including the ignorance of
women--is feared; for what these masses are, the ruling classes have
made them. It is practiced because the ruling classes fear that
the masses will gradually become wise and pursue their own course.
Until recently the various German states were so reactionary that
they even withheld from women the right of political organization.
In Prussia, Bavaria, Brunswick, and a number of other German states,
they were not permitted to form political clubs. In Prussia they
were not even permitted to participate in entertainments arranged
by political clubs, as was distinctly set down by the supreme court
in 1901. The rector of the Berlin University even went so far as to
forbid a woman to lecture before a social science club of students.
In the same year the police authorities of Brunswick forbade women to
take part in the proceedings of the social congress of Evangelists.
In 1902 the Prussian secretary of state condescended to give women
the permission to attend the meetings of political clubs, but under
the condition that they had to take their seats in a part of the
hall specially set aside for them, like the Jewish women in their
synagogues. Nothing could have better characterized the pettiness
of our conditions. As late as February, 1904, Pasadowsky solemnly
declared in the Diet: “Women shall keep their hands off politics.”
But eventually this state of affairs became unbearable even to the
bourgeois parties. The new national law on assembly and organization
of April 19, 1908, brought the only marked improvement by establishing
equal rights of women in regard to political organization and public
assembly.
The right to vote must of course be combined with the right to be
elected to office. We hear the cry: “How ridiculous it would be to
behold a woman on the platform of the Diet!” Yet there are other
states where women have ascended to the platforms of parliaments, and
we, too, have long since become accustomed to see women on platforms
in their meetings and conventions. In North America women appear on
the pulpit and in the jury-box; why not on the platform of the Diet?
The first woman to be elected to the Diet will know how to impress
the other members. When the first workingmen were elected to the
Diet they, too, were the objects of cheap wit, and it was asserted
that workingmen would soon recognize the folly of electing men of
their type. But the working-class representatives quickly succeeded
in winning respect, and at present their opponents fear that there
may be too many of them. Frivolous jesters exclaim: “But picture a
pregnant woman on the platform of the Diet; how shocking!” Yet the
same gentlemen consider it quite proper that pregnant women should
be employed at occupations which shockingly degrade their womanly
dignity and decency and undermine their health. That man is a wretch,
indeed, who dares to ridicule a pregnant woman. The very thought
that his mother was in the same condition before she gave him birth
must drive the blood to his cheeks in shame, and the other thought,
that his wife’s being in the same condition may mean the fulfillment
of his fondest hopes, must silence him.[183]
~The woman who gives birth to children is serving the community
at least as well as the man who risks his life in defence of the
country.~ For she gives birth to and educates the future soldiers,
far too many of whom must sacrifice their lives on the battlefield.
Moreover, every woman ~risks her life~ in becoming a mother. All
our mothers have faced death in giving us life, and many of them
have perished. In Prussia, for instance, the number of deaths in
child-birth--including the victims of puerperal fever--by far exceeds
the number of deaths from typhoid. During 1905 and 1906 0.73 and
0.62 per cent. of typhoid patients died. But among 10,000 women 2.13
and 1.97 per cent. died in child-birth. “How would conditions have
developed,” Professor Herff rightly remarks, “if men were subjected
to these sufferings to the same extent? Would not the utmost measures
be resorted to?”[184] ~The number of women who die in child-birth, or
are left sickly as a result of same, is far greater than the number of
men who die or are wounded on the battlefield.~ From 1816 to 1876, in
Prussia alone, no less than 321,791 women fell victims of puerperal
fever; that is an annual average of 5363. In England, from 1847 to
1901, 213,533 women died in child-birth, and still, notwithstanding
all hygienic measures, no less than 4000 die annually.[185]
That is a far greater number than the number of men killed in the
various wars during the same time. To this tremendous number of
women who die in child-birth must furthermore be added the still
greater number of those who become sickly as a result of child-birth
and die young.[186] This is another reason why woman is entitled
to full equality with man. Let these facts be especially noted by
those persons who advance the military service of men as an argument
against the equal rights of women. Moreover, our military institutions
enable a great many men to escape the performance of this duty.
All these superficial objections to the public activity of women would
be impossible if the relation of the sexes was natural, instead of
there being an artificially stimulated antagonism between them. From
their early childhood on the sexes are separated in their education
and their social intercourse. It is especially the antagonism we
owe to Christianity that keeps the sexes apart and maintains one in
ignorance about the other, whereby free social intercourse, mutual
confidence and the ability to supplement each other’s traits of
character are prevented.
One of the first and most important tasks of a rationally organized
society must be to remove this detrimental discord and to restore
the rights of nature. We begin by making even the little children in
school unnatural, firstly, by separating the sexes, and secondly,
by failing to instruct our children as to the sex nature of human
beings. In every fairly good school natural history is being taught
at present. The child learns that birds lay eggs and hatch them.
He learns when birds mate and that both the male and female bird
build the nest, hatch the eggs and feed the young. He also learns
that mammals bring forth their young alive. He hears of the mating
season and that the male animals fight one another for possession of
the females. Perhaps he even learns how many young one or another
species of animal usually brings forth and how long the female is
pregnant. But profoundest secrecy is maintained in regard to the
origin and development of the human being. When the child seeks to
satisfy its natural curiosity by questioning his parents, especially
his mother--he rarely ventures to question the teacher--he is told
the most ridiculous fairy tales that cannot satisfy his thirst for
knowledge and that must exert an all the more harmful influence
when, some day, he nevertheless learns the true nature of his
origin. There are few children who have not learned of it by the
time they are twelve years old. In every small town, and especially
in the country, even very young children have occasion to observe
the pairing of poultry and domestic animals at close range in the
yards, in the streets and on pasture. They hear that the pairing of
domestic animals and the birth of the young is discussed without a
sense of shame by their parents, their elder brothers and sisters
and the servants. All this causes the child to doubt the truth of
what his parents told him in regard to his own coming into the world.
Finally the child learns the truth, but not in the manner in which
he ought to learn it if his education were a natural and rational
one. The fact that the child keeps his knowledge a secret leads to
an estrangement between him and his parents, especially between him
and his mother. The parents have accomplished the opposite of what
they sought to accomplish in their ignorance and short-sightedness.
Those who recall their own childhood and the childhood of their
playmates know to what this may lead.
An American woman[187] tells us that in order to satisfactorily
answer the constant questions of her eight-year-old son as to his
origin, and because she did not wish to tell him fairy tales, she
revealed to him the truth about his birth. The child, she says,
listened to her with utmost attention, and from the day upon which he
had learned how much suffering he caused his mother, he had treated
her with unwonted tenderness and respect and had also transferred
these feelings to other women. The writer upholds the correct view
that only by means of a natural education men can be led to treat
women with more respect and self-control. Every unprejudiced person
is bound to agree with her.
Whatever starting-point one may choose in the criticism of present-day
conditions, one is bound always to reiterate the following: ~A
thorough reorganization of our social conditions~, and thereby a
thorough transformation in the relation of the sexes, is needful.
Woman, in order to attain her aim more quickly, must look about
for allies, and she naturally finds such allies in the proletarian
movement. The class-conscious proletariat has long since commenced
to storm the fortress of the state that is founded on class rule,
which includes the rule of one sex over the other. The fortress must
be surrounded on all sides, and, by arms of all calibers, it must
be forced to surrender. The beleaguering army finds its officers
and suitable arms on all sides. The social sciences, the natural
sciences, historical research, pedagogics, hygiene and statistics
furnish the movement with arms and munition. Philosophy comes forward,
too, and, in Mainlaender’s “Philosophy of Deliverance,” proclaims
the early realization of the “ideal state.”
The conquest of the class-state and its transformation is made easier
by dissension in the ranks of its defenders, who, notwithstanding
their community of interests against the common enemy, fight one
another in the struggle for the spoils. The interest of one group is
opposed to the interest of another. Another point in our favor is the
growing mutiny in the ranks of the enemy. To a great extent their
soldiers are blood of our blood and flesh of our flesh, but, owing to
ignorance, they, until now, fought against us and against themselves.
More and more of these join our ranks. We are, furthermore, helped
by the desertion of honest men of intellect, who were hostile to us
at first, but whose superior knowledge and profound insight impels
them to rise above their narrow class interest, to follow their ideal
desire for justice, and to espouse the cause of the masses that are
longing for liberation.
Many still fail to recognize that state and society are already in a
state of decay. Therefore an exposition of this subject also becomes
necessary.
[177] Emma Adler--Famous Women of the French Revolution. Vienna,
1906.
[178] At present suffrage amendments are pending in Washington and
Oklahoma. (Tr.)
[179] Clara Zetkin--Woman Suffrage. Berlin, 1907.
[180] A similar bill, known as the “conciliation bill,” drawn up by
a committee consisting of members of all parties, passed its second
reading in July 1910 by 299 against 189 votes. Prime Minister Asquith
prevented the third reading and final vote upon the bill during that
session of Parliament. (Tr.)
[181] Political Manual for Women. Berlin, 1909.
[182] That this danger exists the clergy themselves have soon
recognized. Since the woman movement has grown and developed even
in bourgeois circles, the leaders of the Catholic party recognized
that they could no longer oppose it, and they accordingly completely
reversed their attitude. With that subtlety which has always
characterized the servants of the church, they favor at present
what they opposed until quite recently. They not only favor higher
education for women, they also declare themselves in favor of
unrestricted right of assembly and organization for women. Some of
the more far-sighted even support woman suffrage, hoping that the
church may derive the greatest gain from the introduction of same.
In the same way the industrial organization of women is supported
by the Catholic clergy, even the organization of servant girls. But
all these social endeavors are fostered, not from an innate sense
of justice, but to prevent the women from flocking to the camp of
religious and political opponents.
[183] “Half of the women members of Parliament in Finland are wives
and mothers. Three of the Socialist married women members became
mothers during their parliamentary activity without any other
disturbing results except that they remained away from the sessions
for a few weeks. Their pregnant condition was regarded as something
natural that was neither wonderful nor noteworthy. It may rather
be said that this factor was of educational value to the assembly.
In regard to the parliamentary activity of these women members it
should be noted that their parties elected them to the special
committees also, which proves that they were convinced of their
ability. The committee on labor where the laws for workingmen’s
protection, workingmen’s insurance, and the new trade laws were
drawn up, consisted of twelve men and four women, and three women
had been chosen as alternates. The legislative and constitutional
committees each had two women members, and for each there was one
woman alternate, and the women have ably maintained their place
in these committees.”--Miss Hilda Paerssinen, member of the diet
of Finland--“Woman Suffrage and the Participation of Women in the
Parliamentary Work of Finland.”--Documents of Progress. July, 1909.
[184] Professor Dr. Otto v. Herff--The struggle against puerperal
fever. Leipsig, 1908.
[185] W. Williams--Deaths in Child-bed. London, 1904.
[186] “For every woman who dies in child-birth we must assume from
fifteen to twenty who are more or less seriously infected with
resulting diseases of the abdominal organs and general debility from
which they frequently suffer for the remainder of their lives.”
Dr. Mrs. H. B. Adams--The Book of Woman. Stuttgart, 1894.
[187] Womanhood, Its Sanctities and Fidelities by Isabella
Beecher Hooker. New York, 1874. Lee, Shepard & Dillingham.
The State and Society.