Modern Woman

The Modern Woman Question

It follows from what has been said that the social position of woman is, from the Christian point of view, only imperfectly set forth in the expression "Woman belongs at home". On the contrary, her peculiar influence is to extend from the home over State and Church. This was maintained at the beginning of the modern era by the Spanish Humanist, Louis Vives, in his work "De institutione feminae christianae" (1523); and was brought out still more emphatically, in terms corresponding to the needs of his day, by Bishop Fénelon in his pioneerwork "Education des filles" (1687) This Christian emancipation of woman is, however, necessarily checked as soon as its fundamental principles are attacked. These principles consist, on the one hand, of the sacramental dignity of the indissoluble marriage between one pair, and in religious, voluntarily chosen virginity, both of which spring from the Christian teaching that man's true home is in a world beyond the grave and that the same sublime aim is appointed for woman as for man. The other fundamental principle consists of the firm adhesion to the natural organic intimate connection of the sexes.
As far back as Christian antiquity the Manichaean attacks on the sacredness of marriage as those of Jovinian and Vigilantius, which sought to undermine the reverence for virginity, were refuted by Augustine and Jerome. Luther's attack upon religious celibacy and against the sacramental character and indissolubility of marriage, worked permanent injury. The chief result was that woman was again brought into absolute dependence upon man, and the way was made ready for divorce, the results of which press far more heavily upon woman than upon man. After this the natural basis of society and the natural position of woman and the family were shaken to such extent by the French Revolution that the germ of the modern woman's suffrage movement is to be sought there. The anti-Christian ideas of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries led to a complete break with the medieval Christian conception of society and the state. It was no longer the family or the social principle that was regarded as the basis of the state, but the individual or the ego. Montesquieu, the "father of constitutionalism", made this theory the basis of his "L'Esprit des lois" (1784), and it was sanctioned in the French "Rights of Man". It was entirely logical that Olympe de Gouges (d. 1793) and the "citizeness" Fontenay, supported by the Marquis de Condorcet, demanded the unconditional political equality of women with men, or "the rights of women". According to these claims every human being has, as a human being, the same human rights; women, as human beings, claim like men with absolute right the same participation in parliament and admission to all public offices. As soon as the leading proposition, though it contradicts nature which knows no sexless human being, is conceded, this corollary must be accepted. Father von Holtzendorff says truly: "Whoever wishes to oppose the right of women to vote must place the principle of parliamentary representation upon another basis . . . as soon as the right to vote is connected only with the individual nature of man, the distinction of sex becomes of no consequence" ("Die Stellung der Frauen", 2nd ed., Hamburg, 1892, 41).
The men of the French Revolution forcibly suppressed the claim of the women to the rights of men, but in so doing condemned their own principle, which was the basis of the demand of the women. The conception of society as composed of individual atoms leads necessarily to the radical emancipation of women, which is sought at the present time by the German Social Democrats and a section of the women of the middle class. In her book, published in 1792, Mary Wollstonecraft advanced this demand with a certain reserve, while John Stuart Mill in his "The Subjection of Women" (1869) championed the unnatural position of women unconditionally. At the present time the English suffragettes have made a practical application of Mill's views as the standard work of radical emancipation (cf. "A Reply to John Stuart Mill on the Subjection of Women", Philadelphia, 1870).
The introduction of these ideas into practical life was promoted chiefly by the change in economic conditions, particularly as this change was used to the detriment of the people by the tendency of an egotistical Liberalism. From the beginning of the nineteenth century manufacturing by machinery changed the sphere of woman's labour and of her industries. In manufacturing countries woman can and must buy many things which were formerly produced as a matter of course by female domestic labour. Thus the traditional household labours of woman became limited, especially in the middle class. The necessity arose for many daughters of families to seek work and profit outside of the home. On the other hand, the unlimited freedom of commerce and trade furnished the opportunity of gaining control of the cheap labour of women to make it serve machinery and the covetousness of the great manufacturers. While this change relieved the woman who still sat at home, it laid upon the homeless working-woman intolerable burdens, injurious alike to soul and body. On account of smaller wages women were used for the work of men and were driven into competition with men. The system of the cheap hand led not only to a certain slavery of woman, but, in union with the religious indifference that concerned itself only with mundane things, it injured the basis of society, the family.
In this way the actual modern woman question, which is connected at the same time with the livelihood, education, and legal position of woman, arose. In most European countries, on account of the emigration arising from the conditions of traffic and occupation, the number of women exceeds that of men to a considerable degree; for instance in Germany in 1911 there were 900,000 more women than men. In addition, the difficulties of existence cause a considerable number of men to marry at all or too late to found a family, while many are kept from marriage by an unchristian morality. The number of unmarried women, or of women who notwithstanding marriage are not cared for and who are double burdened by the cares of the home and of earning a livelihood, is therefore constantly increasing. The last census of occupations in Germany, that of 1907, gave 8,243,498 women who were earning a living in the principal occupations; this number shows an increase of 3,000,000 over 1895. The statistics of the other countries give proportionate results, although there are hardly two countries in which the woman movement has had exactly the same development. The southern countries of Europe are coming only gradually under the influence of the movement. A regulation of this movement was and is one of the positive necessities of the times. The methodical and energetic attempts to accomplish this date from the year 1848, although the beginnings in England and North America go back much farther. The attempts to solve the woman question varied with the point of view. Three main parties may be distinguished in the movement for the emancipation of women in the present day:
the radical emancipation which is divided into a middle-class and a Social-Democratic party;
the moderate or interconfessional conciliatory party;
the Christian party.The radical, middle-class emancipation party regards the Women's Rights Convention held 14 July, 1848, at Seneca Falls, U.S., as the date of its birth. Complete parity of the sexes in every direction with contempt for former tradition is the aim of this party. Unlimited participation in the administration of the country, or the right to the political vote, therefore, holds the first place in its efforts. The questions of education and livelihood are made to depend upon the right to vote. This effort reached its height in the founding of the "International Council of Women", from which sprang in 1904 at Berlin the "International Confederation for Woman's Suffrage". "The Woman's Bible", by Mrs. Stanton, seeks to bring this party into harmony with the Bible. The party has attained its end in the United States in the states of Wyoming (1869), Colorado, Utah (1895), Idaho (1896, South Dakota (1909), and Washington (1910), and also in South Australia, New Zealand (1895), and in Finland. In Norway there has been a limited suffrage for women since 1907. In 1911 Iceland, Denmark, Victoria, California, and Portugal decided to introduce it. In England the suffragists and the suffragettes are battling over it (cf. Mrs. Fawcett, "Women's Suffrage. A short History of a Great Movement", London, 1912.)
In Germany in 1847 Luise Otto-Peters (1819-1895) headed the movement, in order at first with generous courage to aid the suffering women of the working classes. Her efforts resulted in the "Allgemeiner deutscher Frauenverein" (General Union of German Women), which was founded in 1865, and from which in 1899 the radical "Fortschrittlicher Frauenverein" (Progressive Women's Union) separated, while the Luise Otto party remained moderately liberal. In France it was not until the Third Republic that an actual women's movement arose, a radical section of which, "La Fronde", took part in the first revolution. From the start the Social-Democratic party incorporated in its programme the "equality of all rights". Consequently the Social-Democratic women regard themselves as forming one body with the men of their party, while, on the other hand, they keep contemptuously separated from the radical movement among the middle-class women. August Bebel's book, "Die Frau und der Sozialismus", went through fifty editions in the period 1879-1910, and was translated into fourteen languages. In this work the position of woman in the Socialistic state of the future is described. In general the radical middle-class emancipation agrees with the Social-Democratic both in the political and in the ethical spheres. A proof of this is furnished by the works of the Swedish writer Ellen Key, especially by her book "Über Ehe und Liebe", which enjoy a very large circulation throughout the world.
This tendency is not compatible with the standard of nature and of the Gospel. It is, however, a logical consequence of the one-sided principle of individualism which, without regard for God, came into vogue in what is called the "Rights of Man". If woman is to submit to the laws the authoritative determination of which is assigned to man, she has the right to demand a guarantee that man as legislator will not misuse his right. This essential guarantee, however, is only to be found in the unchangeable authoritative rule of Divine justice that binds man's conscience. This guarantee is given to women in every form of government that is based on Christianity. On the contrary, the proclamation of the "Rights of Man" without regard to God set aside this guarantee and opposed man to woman as the absolute master. Woman's resistance to this was and is an instinctive impulse of moral self-preservation. The "autonomous morality" of Kant and Hegel's state has made justice dependent upon men or man alone far more than the French "Rights of Man". The relativity and mutability of right and morality have been madea fundamental principle in dechristianized society. "The principles of morals, religion, and laware only what they are, so long as they are universally recognized. Should the conscience of the sum total of individuals reject some of these principles and feel itself bound by other principles, then a change has taken place in morals, law, and religion" (Oppenheim, "Das Gewissen". Basle, 1898, 47).
Woman is defenceless against such teaching when only men are understood under the "totality of individuals". Up to now as a matter of fact only men have been eligible in legislative bodies. On the basis of the so-called autonomous morality, however, woman cannot be denied the right to claim this autonomy for herself. Christianity, which lays the obligation upon both sexes to observe an unalterable and like morality, is powerless to give protection to woman in a dechristianized and churchless country. Consequently, it is only by the restoration of Christianity in society that the rightful and natural relations of man and woman can be once more restored. This Christian reform of society, however, cannot be expected from the radical woman movement, notwithstanding its valuable services for social reform. Besides what has been said, the "movement for the protection of the mother" promoted by it contradicts completely the Christian conception of marriage. (Cf. Mausbach, "Der christliche Familiengedanke im Gegensatz zur modernen Mutterschutzbewegung", Munster, 1908).

(new advent)