.3. i4. .. "5.3:. 2, Int? 01.3.1 x ‘Jdflxylflt. . .1 A I h .b!‘ . ‘9...- 23 «O. .t. .2). ‘7": ~ , . ‘ ‘3th unfit; ‘9': {a ‘ n. 2 A 5 ’ c t .2. Li) ‘1: . 3.1.31: .3 .L 3.: 7. ‘1 viii; a. P. A. 13. 'HESiS Date Te UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES Iii lillllllllllllll I ll 3 1293 01399 6727 l ill This is to certify that the thesis entitled Antifeminism and National Differences: The German League for the Prevention of Women's Emancipation and the U. S. National Association Opposed to woman Suffrage 1911-1920 presented 6y Amy Rae Lagler has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for M.A. History degree in QWM film/920 0 “2r Major professor 3/29/95 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution LIBRARY Michigan mate University PLACE ll RETURN BOXto romovo thb chookoutfrom your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or baton duo duo. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE D MSU In An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Imtltulon was. I ANTIFEMINISM AND NATIONAL DIFFERENCES: THE GERMAN LEAGUE FOR THE PREVENTION OF WOMEN'S EMANCIPATION AND THE U. S. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OPPOSED TO WOMAN SUFFRAGE, 1911-1920 BY Amy Rae Lagler A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of History 1995 ABSTRACT ANTIFEMINISM AND NATIONAL DIFFERENCES: THE GERMAN LEAGUE FOR THE PREVENTION OF WOMEN’S EMANCIPATION AND THE U. S. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OPPOSED TO WOMAN SUFFRAGE, 1911-1920 BY Amy Rae Lagler This comparative analysis of early twentieth—century organized antifeminist movements in the U.S. and Germany utilizes close readings of both movements’ journals and polemical pamphlets to demonstrate the affinities between the two groups. The case study is placed in the broader context of historiographical controversy about Germany's purported problematic divergence from the Anglo-American model of a liberal modernity (the so-called Sonderweg debate) . The thesis not only documents in detail the similarities between German and.American antifeminists’ rhetoric and strategies, but also the actual exchanges of information and support across the Atlantic. At the same time, the thesis moves the Sonderweg debate to new ground by examining the historically specific intersections between antifeminism and racism and antisemitism in the two national contexts. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It is my pleasure to acknowledge the indispensable assistance of my committee members, Professors Dagmar Herzog, Lisa Fine, and Richard Laurence, in the development and completion of this thesis. I owe special thanks to my major professor, Dagmar Herzog, who has been instrumental in pushing me to work theoretically and to analyze and historicize race and gender within my own work. I also am deeply indebted to Lisa Fine for providing me with both critical scholarly insight and personal encouragement throughout my master's program and in conjunction with this thesis. I am also very thankful for the support of Richard Laurence, who pushed me to clarify my ideas and helped me to think about liberalism in a broader context. In addition, I am grateful to Professor John Fout of Bard College, who provided me with a copy of the Monatsblatt des deutschen Bundes zur Bekaempfung der Frauenemanzipation, an act of generosity which made this analysis possible in the first place. At Michigan State, I have also received immeasurable assistance from Professors Darlene Clark Hine and Lewis Siegelbaum who have given me a great deal of scholarly guidance and have provided me with the intellectual space within their seminars to work comparatively. I also owe a deep debt of gratitude to my mother, Celine Pacyna LePere, for iii iv a lifetime of encouragement, for the openness of heerind, and for always having time to sit up until the wee hours of the morning discussing my work. My deepest thanks go to my husband, Karl, who has spent innumerable hours walking with me in the woods in all kinds of inclement weather while I tried to work out the details of this thesis. Without his continuous questioning and his never-failing ability to make me laugh this thesis would not have been possible. In 1912 a group of Germans, organized by a professor from Weimar, formed the German League for the Prevention of Women’ s Emancipation. The League, through the publication of pamphlets and a newletter, argued vehemently against women’s advancement in education, employment, and.politics, stressing instead the need for them to remain in their proper place, in the world of "Kinder, Kueche, und Kirche." The League, in both its organization and -rhetoric, presents historians with an opportunity to investigate the connections between antifeminism, feminism, racism, and nationalism.in the modern world.1 Unfortunately, an examination of the League has not been utilized to historicize and analyze the connections between racism, sexism, nationalism and "modernity". It has, instead, been harnessed to theories of Germany’s "uniqueness" — theories which posit that the sexism, racism, and nationalism found in the League’s rhetoric and writing are evidence of a uniquely German pattern of illiberalism which ultimately culminated in Nazism. A comparison between this German league and the National 1Too often, for example, scholars assume an intrinsic and transhistorical connection.between.antifeminisnland/or sexism and racism and/or antisemitism. A classic recent example if provided by Silke Beinssen-Hesse "Weininger and the Time— Honored Analogy between the Inferiority of Women and Jews," in John Milful (ed.), Why Germany? : national socialist anti- semitism and the European context (Providence: Berg Publishers, 1993): 9-28. 2 Association Opposed to WOman Suffrage in America will show this conclusion is exceptionally problematic. In addition to sharing common assumptions regarding gender and race, the two groups were similar in composition, utilized similar tactics, and exchanged information and theories across their national boundaries. The presence of two anti—feminist groups, one on each side of the .Atlantic, who jperceived themselves as participating in similar struggles against a similar enemy should not only serve as a cautionary sign to historians trying tijosit a separate (racist and sexist) path for German development, it should also demonstrate some of the complex ways in which gender and race can be, have been, and are used in the modern world. Historicizing gender, for example, has become a fruitful endeavor for scholars seeking to reveal both its complexity and its artificiality. The resulting analyses demonstrate that rather than being a biological fact which exists a priori of and distant from power relations, gender both constructs and is constructed. by cultural, economic, and. political forces.2 It is, in other words, constantly contested and central to power relations. Biddy Martin expresses this relationship when, in her analysis of "Femininity, Modernity, and Feminism", she asserts that: The so-called woman question was at the heart of the development and legitimation of a range of 2For a theoretical analysis of gender see Joan Scott, Gender and the Politics of History (New York:Columbia University Press, 1988). 3 knowledge and social practice in Wilhelminian Germany. It was posed in many diverse discursive and institutional fields and answered legally, politically, aesthetically, and medically by antifeminist politicians, scholars, and doctors in ways that situated the identity of woman at the center of political struggles over sexuality, economics, governance, and national identity.3 The processes of social, cultural, and economic change which brought gender into the ideological forefront were not confined to Wilhelminian Germany. The changes themselves and the resulting contests over gender identity were, rather, enmeshed in the process of modernity itself, affecting other "modern" nation-states as well.4 What is remarkable about Martin’s analysis is her application of this gendered modernity thesis to Germany, a country typically viewed by many historians as plagued by anti-modernism. The impulse to brand aspects of German ideological and political development as anti-modern and to argue that Germany’s path to "modernization" was flawed is understandable. It isolates the phenomenon of National Socialism and the Holocaust outside modernity. In effect it reassures us that it could not happen in any of the "modern", "liberal" countries and, presumably, could.not happen again in 3Biddy Martin, Woman and Modernitszhe (Life)Styles of Lou Andreas-Salome (Ithaca:Cornell University Press, 1991), 141. 4Much of the groundbreaking scholarship on the workings of gender within the modern nation—state has been carried out by scholars working with Britain. See, for instance, Mary ,Poovey, Uneven.Development§:The Ideological Work of Gender in Mid-Victorian England (Chicago:The University of Chicago Press, 1988). 4 Germany as it is seen as having reached a "safe" level of "modernization". The alternative, best posed by Detlev Peukert, that Nazism rose out of contradictions inherent in modernity itself, is truly frightening.5 This idea that Germany followed a special path of development, a "Sonderweg", has held a powerful sway in the field of German history since it emerged in the 19605, becoming what one historian called as early as 1976 the "new orthodoxy".6 This Sonderweg thesis which.holds that Germany’s development was stunted by continuing traditions of militarism, authoritarianism, and illiberalism.argues against the association of Germany and modernity. Instead it asserts that Germany's "modernization" was incomplete and hopelessly flawed. It also assumes that the emergence of Nazism in Germany was the product of long-term continuities in Germany’s supposedly 'uniquely' authoritarian..and. illiberal tradition (rather than the product of a particular conjunction of circumstances in the Weimar era). Ultimately, however, this thesis obscures more than it clarifies. Increasingly SSee Detlev Peukert, The Weimar Republic:The Crisis of Classical Modernity (New Yorszill and Wang, 1992). Peukert argues that the "non-democratic tendencies in Germany" which led to the Third Reich "did not so much go back to a persisting reactionary tradition as arise quite functionally out of the structures and problems of modern civilisation." This conclusion, in turn, leads Peukert to argue for a "de- coupling" of progress (particularly' with regard to humanitarianism. and emancipation) and ‘modernity (social, economic, and technological advancement.) 6James Sheehan, in a review in Journal of Modern History, Vol. 48, no. 3 (1976), 566-7. 5 problematic is the tendency ‘merely to take its existence for granted and, through one’s research, to carve out another aspect of German ideology, social development, or politics that demonstrates this "uniqueness". In most cases this is done with little or no analysis of the "liberal" countries, usually France, Britain or the United States, which provide the model for "modernization".7 One major problem with the Sonderweg thesis is that it assumes that the much-vaunted "bourgeois liberalism" of Britain and the United States is, in fact, "liberal" in its belief in individualism, human rights, equality, and tolerance. 'This assumption, however, fails to acknowledge the critique of American liberalism recently being carried out by a variety of historians. A number of these scholars have particularly worked to show how problematic American liberalism’s relationship to "race" and racism has been. The racism of many American liberals reveals a critical flaw in Sonderweg theories which tend to see liberalism. as an inoculation against racism. Liberal individuals may have believed in the equality of "individuals" but this recognition co-existed in many cases with the acceptance of inequality for certain groups whose individual identities were perpetually subsumed under their racial or ethnic status. As Evelyn Higginbotham makes clear, race serves as a "metalanguage" in 7Many of the problems with utilizing the "Sonderweg" thesis were analyzed by David Blackbourn and Geoff Eley in their Peculiarities of German History (Oxford:0xford University Press, 1984). 6 America, masking real differences among both individual whites and individual African Americans. The result is a situation in which "the collective image of the race" has come to be the filter through which each individual African American is viewed.8 .As Carroll Smith—Rosenberg persuasively argues in her analysis of the production of an "American" identity (male, white, and middle-class) following the Revolutionary War, the always unstable terrain. on. which identity is formulated depends on the construction of the racial and gendered "other" for its own coherence. This need perpetually to shore up the self by continually re-generating "others" may help explain why it has been so difficult for liberalism’s promise of equality between all individuals to be extended to members of those gendered and racial categories.9 Also in the later nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the production of individual and group identities continued to rely on ideological constructions of race and gender. Gail Bederman’s analySis of the construction of masculinity in the period from 1880-1917, for example, demonstrates that producing and manipulating ideas regarding masculinity, gender and race was a strategy utilized by political actors across the political 8See Higginbotham, "African-American Women’s History and the Metalanguage of Race," Signs Vol. 17, no. 2 (1992), 352. 9See Smith-Rosenberg, "Dis-covering the Subject of the ’Great Constitutional Discussion,’ 1786-1789," The Journal of American History Vol. 79, no. 3 (December 1992), 846. 7 spectrunn1° Bederman’s analysis is particularly insightful for her recognition of the complex interplay between race and gender in political strategies, an interplay that I would argue limited the liberal vision of a variety of self-styled reformers and stunted liberalism’s ability to work toward the goal of true racial and.gender equality; Even movements which are often touted as successes of America’s expansive liberal philosophy such as the abolitionist movement and the suffrage movement were not free from racism and can hardly be used as evidence of "liberal" victories.11 In addition to being extremely problematic with regard to race, liberalism in America has also had serious shortcomings with regard to women’s rights. This is because the notion of "universal" human rights on which liberalism claimed to be 1L0See Gail Bederman, "Manhood and ’Civilization: ’ American Debates About Race and Gender, 1880-1917", PhD Diss. (Brown University, 1993). See also, Bederman, " ’Civilization,’ the Decline of Middle-Class Manliness, and Ida B. Wells’s Antilynching Campaign (1892-92)," Radical History Review 52 (Winter 1992): 5~32. 11For an analysis of the racism in the suffrage movement see Angela Y. Davis, Women, Race and Claes (New York:Vintage Books, 1981), Barbara Hilkery Andolsen, "Daughters of Jefferson, Daughters of Boetblack":Recism and American Feminism (MaconzMercer University Press, 1986) and Nancie Caraway, Segregated Sisterhood:Racism and the Politics of American Feminism (Knoxville:University of Tennessee Press, 1991). For an analysis of the ways in which anti-slavery ideology was used in support of racist imperialisnlsee Michael Salman, "The United States and the End of Slavery in the Philippines, 1898—1914:A Study of Imperialism, Ideology and Nationalism" Vol. 1 and 2, PhD diss. (Stanford University, 1993). For an analysis of the racism of antiimperialists and "progressive" liberals in early twentieth-century.America see George Fredrickson, The Black Image in the White MindzThe Debate on Afro—American Character and Destiny, 1817-1914 (New York:Harper and Row, 1971), 283-319. 8 based was, and in many ways still is, a gendered concept constructed.on ideas of sexual difference and the exclusion of women.12 What the "model" Western countries against which Germany is so often compared and found wanting demonstrate is that "modernization" and.liberalisnlmay themselves produceiand institutionalize gender inequality. Susan Kent argues, for example, that liberal ideology in Britain actually rested on the unequal sexual order the suffragettes were fighting, an assertion which makes positive connections between liberalism and feminism difficult at best.13 Given this, gender studies may, ultimately, emerge as a powerful tool for undermining the hegemony of the Sonderweg thesis. It is, therefore, ironic that early forays into gender issues were merely grafted onto that thesis. Early historians of feminism in Germany, such as Richard Evans, rooted their discussions in the theory of the German Sonderweg, describing 12’For an analysis of the ways in which the bourgeois public sphere and liberal political theory were based on, and constructed on, the exclusion of women see Joan Landes, Women and the Public Sphere in the Age of the French Revolution (Ithaca:Cornell University Press, 1988) and Joan Wallach Scott, "French Feminists and the Rights of ’Man’:Olympe de Gouges’s Declarations," History Workshop. Issue 28 (Autumn, 1989), 1-21. See also Carole Pateman, The Sexual Contract (Stanford University Press, 1988). 13See, for instance, Susan.Kent’s analysis of the suffrage movement in Britain in Sex and Suffrage in Britain, 1860-1914 (Princeton:Princeton.‘University' Press, 1987). ZLiberalism could also prove problematic to feminist activity in other ways. See, for instance, Steven Hause’s Women’s Suffrage and Social Politics in the French Third Republic (PrincetonzPrinceton.'University' Press, 1984) in. which. he argues that the French feminists’ commitment to the Third Republic led them.to narrow their feminist vision so as not to threaten and potentially topple the Republic. 9 German bourgeois feminism as a conservative, "illiberal" movement which argued for women’s rights on the basis of gender difference, utilized eugenic arguments and was "in general so backward.and so unsuccessful compared to its Anglo- Saxon counterparts".14 While other historians are utilizing feminist theory and comparative history to break down the idea of a German feminist Sonderweg,15 both Evans’ theories and 1“Richard Evans, "Feminism and Female Emancipation in Germany 1870—1945 :Sources, Methods, and Problems of Research, " Central European History Vol. 9, no. 4 (1976), 336. Ironically, Evans’ own comparative feminist history, The Feminists:Women's Emancipation Movements in Europe, America and Australasia. 1840-1920 (Beverly Hills:Sage Publication Inc., 1976), provides the best evidence that a feminist "Sonderweg" is untenable for he is unable to get Britain or the United States to fit his developmental model. The model posits a movement from moderate feminism (focused on economic, educational and legal reform) to radical feminism (focused exclusively on suffrage), a thesis which forces him to write off all the efforts to obtain suffrage which pre-date the later 18903 as a "premature radicalisation" (66). That both the United States and Britain underwent this "premature radicalisation" does not, surprisingly, lead Evans to question his thesis. 15For a corrective to Evans’ analysis see Ann Taylor Allen, Feminism and Motherhood in Germany, 1800-1914 (New Brunswicszutger University Press, 1991) which argues, through comparison with the'United States, that the bourgeois feminist movement in Germany was not alone in its use of maternalist arguments or its use of eugenics. Allen’s analysis is particularly useful for demonstrating the ways that feminists have historically used "equality" and "difference" arguments as complementary (rather than competing) elements within.their ideology and practice. Historians in other areas are also battling back the "Sonderweg". See for instance, Tom Taylor, "Images of Youth and the Family in Wilhelmine Germany:Toward a. Reconsideration. of the: German ’Sonderweg’," in. German Studies Review (Winter, 1992):55-74. Taylor argues that it is modernization itself, rather than stunted modernization, that produced such things as youth suicide in Wilhelmine Germany and that the middle-class family in Imperial Germany was not any more patriarchal than its counterparts in other countries. Taylor’s analysis is particularly important as the presumed authoritarianism of the middle—class family has been blamed 10 the idea of a Sonderweg continue to be uncritically utilized by historians working in other areas of gender studies, such as anti-feminism. The continued use of this paradigm, particularly in areas Such as anti-feminism (not to mention the study of racism or antisemitism), has implications beyond the national history of Germany. The implicit assumption among historians utilizing or accepting the Sonderweg thesis and its counterpart, "modernization" theory, is that gender inequality is fundamentally incompatible with "progressive", "liberal" development.16 Anti-feminism in this paradigm becomes an aberration. The constitutive centrality of gender and gender inequality to modernity is thus obscured, marginalizing the formative role that discourses over gender play both historically and within historical analysis. The implicit assumptions regarding gender in the Sonderweg thesis are not, therefore, merely an issue for German history or for feminist history. By using gender analysis to battle back the Sonderweg thesis, historians are not merely rescuing Germany from historical misdevelopment, they are also rescuing anti- feminism and gender inequality from marginalization within the discourse on modernity. Like the discourse on modernity, however, the development of the discourse on anti-feminism is for perpetuating and adding to the authoritarianism of German society at large. 16It also assumes that equality can (and will) be achieved without a major reworking of capitalist society and the industrial class relations it produces. 11 not without its problems. The latest addition to the study of German anti—feminism, Diane Trosino’s "Anti-Feminism. in. Germany, 1912-1920:The German League for the Prevention of Women’s Emancipation", demonstrates the pitfalls of positioning discussions of anti- feminism within a body of scholarship attempting to show Germany’s peculiarities. Trosino’s general conclusion, that the German League for the Prevention of Women’s Emancipation (the Anti-League, for short) was not marginal to gender discourse but, rather, operated as a countermovement which influenced the process and construction. of the feminist discourse, is sound” It is, in fact, advanced in its recognition that gender discourse emerges through a process of contestation” The problemwwith.her analysis is that while she is attempting to rescue the Anti-League from marginalization she fails to question Evans’ notion that German feminism was "so backward". In short, Trosino does not merge her argument that the anti-feminists helped push the feminists rightward with a critique of the Sonderweg. In her introduction, Trosino asserts that "in light of the ’uniqueness’ of German history," she will attempt to answer the question "was German anti-feminism unique?".1" She does, in fact, address this question and even includes a sporadic comparison of anti-feminism in Germany, Britain and 17Diane Joan Trosino, "Anti-feminism in Germany, 1912- 1920:The German League for the Prevention of Women's Emancipation," PhD Dissertation (Claremont Graduate School, 1992), ix. 12 the United States. Trosino’s comparisons, however, are too superficial and, consequently, lead her to a very tenuous conclusion regarding German anti-feminism. Trosino thus asserts that.German.anti-feminisnlduring the period under consideration was indeed "unique", distinct from both the British and American models, and (again in classic Sonderweg mode) that there was a strong continuity of anti- feminist thought between this early anti-feminist league and subsequent National Socialism. Tellingly, the aspects of German anti-feminism that Trosino finds "unique" are its racism (anti-semitism), nationalism, and concern over the birthrate, elements critical to the National Socialist ideology.18 In sum” by' positing’ both. "peculiarity" and continuity Trosino develops her own version of the Sonderweg thesis which sees in the Anti-League’s ideology a uniquely German phenomenon, at once anti—feminist, racist, nationalist, and "anti-modern".19 A deeper comparison between the rhetoric of the German Anti—League and the National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage in America will show that this conclusion is untenable and that these anti-feminist movements were 18Trosino, 210-211. Trosino claims that German anti— feminists differed in their anti-socialism in the abstract of her dissertation but does not argue this in her dissertation perhaps because her own sources on American feminism demonstrate that American antis utilized anti-socialist arguments as a critical part of their discourse. 19On the Anti-League’s supposed "anti-modernism", see Trosino, 205. 13 surprisingly similar in composition, tactics, and ideology.20 This was so in spite of the fact that the American organization was expressly organized to prevent woman’s suffrage, while the German group sought to combat a wider range of feminist reforms (all of which, however, they feared would culminate in suffrage). While this is not to deny national peculiarities in both cases, the two groups shared common assumptions regarding' gender, race, and the incompatibility of individualism.and the modern nation-state. The similarities between these two movements, which also swapped information and theories across the Atlantic, should reveal that German anti-feminism was neither unique, nor even anti-modern, in its merging of sexism and racism, and in its appeals to nationalism. This, in turn, should lead us to ponder what the relationship is between modernity and these simultaneously national and international discourses. 20The discourses that emerged in both these anti movements could often be internally contradictory and argue on all sides of one issue, for‘ instance, arguing' that suffrage ‘would "unsex" women while simultaneously arguing it would cause a "sex war" or simultaneously arguing that women would duplicate their husband’s votes and that women would vote as one threatening bloc. The most compelling explanation for this contradictory rhetoric is that it was a tactical maneuver by the antis who were aware of, and sought to mobilize, numerous arguments against women’ s emancipation. See Anne M. Benjamin, A History of the Anti—Suffrage Movement in the United States From. 1895 to 1920:Women..Against Egpality, (Lewistoandwin Mellen Press, 1991), 192-200. For additional analyses of American anti-suffragism see Jane Jerome Camhi, Women.Against Women:American Anti-Suffragism, 1880-1920 (New York:Carlson Publishing, Inc., 1994) and Thomas J. Jablonsky, The Homer Heaven, and Mother Party:Female Anti-Suffragists in the United States 1868-1920 (New York:Carlson Publishing Co. , Inc. , 1994). 14 The German Anti-League was founded in 1912 by Friedreich Sigismund, a professor from Weimar, who unified a group of like—minded individuals, both male and female, under his leadership.21 Trosino estimates that during the life span of the Anti-League women composed approximately 22.5% of the total membership and that 18.8% of the league officers were women.22 By 1914, seventeen local branches had been established with membership numbers which ranged from the required ten to possibly one hundred” 'The executive committee also grew in size from an initial 7 to 40 within a year.23 The committee was regularly composed.of both men and.women.but the presidency was typically held by a man. On only one occasion did a woman, Baroness Ida von Meerheimb of Rostock, hold the post of President in the Anti-League, and then only for a five-month period between February to July 1919.“ Overall, Trosino estimates that while the exact size of the German Anti-League is impossible to determine, it may have reached membership numbers in the range of 2,500 to 5,000.25 The Anti-League itself lasted through 1919 when, after the granting of woman suffrage by the Weimar Republic, it was reorganized into "The League for the Renewal of the 21Trosino, 26. 22Ibid., 122—127. 23Ibid., 73-74. 2“Ibid. , 128 . 25Ibid., 78-79. 15 German Race" which aimed at preserving gender divisions and the German family; The new league appears to have lasted only a few months into 1920.26 The American Anti-League was founded in November of 1911 and, unlike the German Anti-League, had a membership composed exclusively of women. American men organized themselves in several other’ anti-suffrage organizations;“The appeal to anti-suffrage women was, in the American case, highly successful and by 1916 there were 25 state affiliates with a claimed membership of 350,000, a membership figure 70 times higher than Trosino’s top estimate for membership in the German Anti-League.28 Like the German Anti-League, the American Anti-League ceased to exist, as such, shortly after the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment by the House of Representatives. Its journal was transformed into a weekly periodical, The Woman Patriot, which was aimed at defending 26Ibid., 196-199. Trosino argues the reorganized League failed to survive because they could not weather the "incredible political pressures which they faced nor the economic damage done by inflation and high employment." 27Men’s organizations were formed in Massachusetts, Columbus, and.Mi1waukee and the Woman’s Protest called for the forming of similar leagues in other locations. See Woman’s Protest 1/4 (August 1912), 5. See also Susan E. Marshall, "In Defense of Separate Spheres:Class and Status Politics in the Antisuffrage Movement," Social Forces Vol. 65, no. 2 (December, 1986), 330—331. 28Marshall, "In Defense of Separate Spheres," 330. Population statistics indicate that in 1911 Germany had a total population of 63,886,000 and America had a population approximately one and a half times as large with 93,471,648 people. See The World Almanac and Book of Facts (Press Pub. Co., 1911), 557. 16 the home and the nation from woman suffrage, feminism and socialism. The mean Petriot lasted until 1932.29 The two) movements were remarkably similar in their bourgeois and upper—class composition and historians of both groups have stressed the class and status concerns of both the male and female members of the groupsfi3o Trosino’s analysis of partial membership rosters for the German Anti-League demonstrate that 57.9% of members with listed.occupations were in the services and.professions, 8.8% in industry, and 6.1% in commercef31 The status analysis is more revealing as women are grouped in the appropriate categories. This analysis demonstrates that 81.3% of the members were of either high- level or mid-level status, levels which include the traditional middle-class categories.32 Historians working with the American Anti-League, 29Susan Marshall, "Ladies Against Women:Mobilization Dilemmas of Antifeminist.Movements," Social Prpblems, Vol. 32, no. 4 (April 1985), 354—355. 30See Trosino, 31 and 143-146 and Marshall, "In Defense of Separate Spheres" for an analysis of the class and status motivations of the German and American antis. The bourgeois feminists’ groups had similar class memberships. 31Trosino, 234. The majority of women participants are not included in these figures as they occupy the traditional position. of 'middle-class women in, occupational lists as "others" (16.7%). 32Trosino, 235. These categories include:officers, officials, teachers, jprofessionals, lawyers, ‘managers, merchants, and mid-level salaried employees. Another 14.6% were drawn from individuals of elite status, which includes top officers, officials, business elites, estate holders, and high nobility. Only 0.6% was drawn from artisans, workers, peasants, and lower officials (3.5% unknown). l7 unfortunately, do not even have the benefit of partially reconstructed.membership lists and have, consequently, had to rely on the rhetoric and activities, along with the names of top officials, to attempt to reconstruct a class analysis of the Anti-League. The conclusion has, however, been that "the bulk of antisuffrage participants were drawn from middle-class communities.“33 This is not particularly surprising as many middle-class and upper-class women saw both their class and gender identity as resting on their roles as homemakers or society matrons, positions which they perceived as threatened by the blurring of the separate spheres ideology inherent in women’s suffrage and other feminist reforms.“ The greatest difference between the memberships of the two groups was in their gender composition. The rhetorical and tactical outcomes wrought by this difference can, however, be overstated. Critically, in Sigismund’s brochure "Women’s Suffrage", which he claims played an important role in the founding of the German Anti-League, he expressed his regret that German women were not organizing themselves into anti- suffrage leagues like American. women were.35 Sigismund believed.that female leadership>of the Anti-League, modeled.on the American anti-suffrage leagues’ strategy, would increase the possibility of mobilizing other women in support of the 33Marshall, "In Defense of Separate Spheres," 331. 34Ibid. 35Trosino, 26-27. 18 Anti-League. Ultimately, however, he attributed the inability to find a female leader to the "reserved nature of German women" and the German Anti-League resorted to using the American antis for propaganda purposesfi36 Thus, for instance, Professor Ludwig Langemann, another founding member of the Anti-League, remarked that: What is not known, for example, in Germany-- or which the largest part of the press stubbornly suppresses--is the fact that in the United States there are already women’s associations with about 100,000 members which only pursue one purpose: to hinder the right of women to vote.37 In light of this inability to organize an all-female group in Germany, Sigismund claims to have patterned the German Anti- League after the English League for Opposing Woman Suffrage, which included both sexes.38 The comparison to, and use of, American and English models in the founding of the German Anti-League is revealing as it establishes that, appeals to German uniqueness aside, German antis saw their own movement as situated within, and as part of, a larger, international 36Sigismund quoted in Trosino, 32. 37Langemann,"Bewaehrt sich das Frauenstimmrecht im Auslande?," Monatsblatt 3/11 (November 1915), 1. The .American..Anti—League also ‘used. their' all-female status as a weapon, making the question, "Why is it after 65 years of constant agitation, the woman suffrage cause is opposed by women themselves more vigorously than ever?" the number one question the women’s suffrage associations need to answer. "Nineteen Questions for Suffragists to Answer," Woman’s Protest 6/1 (November 1914), 8. 38Ibid. , 33 . 19 movement against feminism and suffrage in particular.” The all-female composition of the American Anti-League can also be deceiving as mobilizing women for a number of key tasks remained difficult.“o Just as the German antis only asked men to participate in trying to sway legislators on 39On the issue of the German antis’ appeals to nationalism and to Germany’s national specificity it should be noted that it is not enough to take these at face value as they were a politically motivated rhetorical strategy (a strategy which was, and is, employed by other countries as well). As Margaret Anderson points out in her analysis of the voting habits in Imperial Germany, the Germans regularly billed themselves as a-political and yet eligible voters were extremely active in both voting and in party politics. See Margaret Anderson, "Voter, JUnker, Landrat, Priest:The Old Authorities and the INew Franchise in. Imperial Germany," American Historical Review 98, IN). 5 (December 1993):1448- 1474. Separating the rhetorical strategies of the antis, which stressed their national uniqueness, from their actions raises the possibility that their motivation was not as much rooted in the deep—seated belief that Germany was different from other modern nations but rather may have arisen from the fear that, with respect to woman’s suffrage, Germany might not be so unique at all. “Both groups were also having general problems with regard to mobilization and complained of the indifference of the majority of women. Dr. Helene Hummel, speaking on behalf of the German Anti-League, summed up the sentiment when she tried to motivate women out of this "great indifference" by stating "Wake up! Do not let the great currents of life rush past you unheard! Participate and help us" Hummel quoted in, "Die freie Aussprache," Monatsblatt 1/11 (November 1913), 14. Grace D. Goodwin, speaking for the American antis, went so far as to blame suffrage victories on the indifference of women saying: "it is the States where the women have been too indifferent to organize that suffrage has carried." Goodwin, "Fundamentals of the Opposition to Suffrage for Women-Theory and Practice," Woman’s Protest 2/5 (March 1913), 3. Nonetheless, the indifference of the majority of women to the debate over suffrage was not as big a problem for the antis as it was for the suffragists. As the antis were claiming that the majority of women had no interest in politics and did not want to be involved, the silence of the vast majority lent weight to their claim that they represented, at least tacitly, the viewpoint of the women who preferred to remain silent on political questions. 20 suffrage,41 so the American league found it hard to mobilize women to speak at the House debates on a federal suffrage amendment, ultimately recruiting only five women for the task.42 Men were also frequent contributors of both articles and money to the American league and its publications, and, more importantly, male anti-suffrage organizations were often put in charge of the campaigns prior to state referenda and elections.43 The two groups were also similar in terms of their aims and tactics, although.the differenceein.gender composition led to an increased use of "social" functions such as balls and banquets among the American women. The tactics of the German Anti-League, detailed in Langemann’s "The German League for the Prevention of women’s Emancipationzlts Purpose and its 41InanAnti—League pamphlet written by Ludwig Langemann, who also edited the League’s monthly newsletter, he states: "The male members of the association have to influence the political parties and they must form better communication systems with the members of parliament." See Langemann, "Der Deutsche Bund zur Bekampfung der Frauenemanzipation:Seine Aufgaben und seine Arbeit, " Schriften des Deutschen Bundes zur Bekampfung der Frauenemanzipation Nr. 1, 14. See also'Trosino, 85. ‘“For a 'more detailed analysis of the mobilization problems facing female antis in.America see Marshall, "Ladies Against Women." This particular example is drawn from.p. 353. ‘“For instance, in a listing of activities carried out by the state organizations during 1916, it is noted that the Massachusetts Anti—League raised money "to meet the preliminary expenses of organizing a Men’s National Association to assume political activities impossible for women to bear." See Woman’s Protest 10/2 (December 1916), 15. The men’s organizations against suffrage in Milwaukee and Columbus were also both formed in light of the pending state referenda. Woman’s Protest 1/4 (August 1912), 5. See also Marshall, "Ladies Against Women," 349-354. 21 Work", includedzlobbying by male members, reading feminist tracts for information, entering the fight in the newspapers by writing letters, only supporting political candidates who opposed women’s suffrage, recruiting members and raising money.“ The German Anti-League also held annual meetings which served as public forums for debate.45 The ultimate aim of most of their endeavors was education through propaganda published in their pamphlets and newsletter, Monatsblatt des Deutschen Bundes zur Bekaempfung der Frauenemanzipation. The same aim guided the tactics of the American Anti— League. The activities listed in the 1916 "Notes on the Year’s Work" include:gathering data, circulating literature to libraries and county fairs, banquets, balls, recruiting members, forming junior leagues, and raising money.“ In 1916 the league members also began holding public annual conventions to serve as education forums showcasing "prominent speakers".“7 Their monthly publication, The Woman’s Protest, was also similar to the German Monateblatt in function, as it served to inform the public on the "views" of the women’s “Langemann, "Der Deutsche Bund," 13—15. Langemann uses the English Anti-Suffrage organization to demonstrate how much money can be raised, saying they raised the equivalent of 260,000 marks before they even put out a public appeal. “Trosino, 80-84. 46"Notes on the Year’s Work," Woman’s Protest 10/2 (December 1916), 14-15. “"Our First National Convention," Woman’s Pretest 9/6 (October 1916), 3. Prior to this their regular annual meetings were closed meetings designed for business such as the reading of reports and electing officers. 22 suffrage organizations, advertise jpamphlets and. books .by members or authors with anti positions, update readers on the ongoing and.pending struggles, and to convey their own reasons for“ opposing' women’s suffrage and/or changes in. women’s opportunities. Both organizations also stressed the need for a "positive" program in spite of their "anti" labels. As Manuela Thurner has effectively argued in the case of the American anti-suffragists, they were not advocating the traditional public/private gender division in which women were not publicly or politically active. The anti—suffragists were, in fact, dedicated.to women’s public activisnland social reform. Charitable, philanthropic and educational activities were considered acceptable and necessary endeavors for women in the public sphere. What was not considered acceptable was women’s involvement in partisan politics which the antis believed would undermine the moral authority on which their public activism was based.“ The Woman’s Protest described the women leading the anti “Manuela Thurner, " ’Better Citizens without the Ballot' : American AntiSuffrage Women and Their Rationale During the Progressive Era," Journal of Women’s History Vol. 5, no. 1 (Spring, 1993): 33-60. See also Paula Baker, "The Domestication of Politics: Women and .American Political Society, 1780-1920," in Ellen Carol DuBois and Vicki L. Ruiz (eds.), Unegpal Sisters:A.Multicultura1.Reeder*in U.S.'Women’s History (New York:Routledge, Chapman and Hall, Inc., 1990): 66-91. Baker argues that separate political spheres and cultures were crucial towmany 19th—century women.reformers and remained so for the antis into the 20th century. As these women.perceived.both the legitimation.and the success of their political activity as being based on a non-partisan moral imperative, suffrage ‘was seen. as ‘undermining the entire structure on which.women’s political participation was based. 23 movement as "well known for their work in municipal, civic, educational, and philanthropic lines.“9 Similarly, Baroness Ida von Meerheimb, one-time President of the German Anti- League, was an orphanage matron and active in leading charitable organizations!50 One of the founding vice- presidents of the German League, Hermine Schneider, was also publicly active, writing books and founding a horticultural school for girls.51 Efforts to establish a "positive" program along the lines drawn out in the Monatsblatt involved: promoting a genuine life for women, furthering women’s education and the truly feminine occupations for earning a living, and participating in charitable efforts, and. work. projects of a social-ethical nature.$2 That the need for a "positive" program was a concern of the American antis can be seen in their invitation to members to join their first annual convention which: will not be devoted exclusively to antisuffrage propaganda. The speakers have been asked to bring out constructive and.practical ideas...with.special regard to the aspirations and achievements of woman.53 ”The Woman’s Protest 1/1 (May 1912), 3. 50Trosino, 127. 51Ibid., 128. $2"ZumGeleit," Monatsblatt 1/1 (January 1913), 1. Among the acceptable occupations were teaching (presumably teaching females "female" subjects) and doctoring. See: "Frauenbewegung ‘und Frauenbildungsfrage," Monatsblett 1/1 (January 1913), 1. The concern over the need for a positive program can also be seen in Langemann’s "Der Deutsche Bund" (4) where he encourages social welfare work and gainful "feminine occupations" for single girls. 53"Our First National Convention," 3. 24 Tactics and programs aside, the most striking similarity between the two movements is to be found in their rhetorical arguments. First and foremost they shared a similar conception of women’s nature, where it came from and what it meant in terms of what was appropriate for "normal" women. For both.groups of antis, women’s nature was overdetermined.by God, nature, and biology. In some cases ethics and morality were also singled out as factors defining womanhood.54 Typically, these "sources" of womanhood were used simultaneously or in conjunction with one another. Professor Dr. Woltersdorff, the chairman of the Schleswig Local Branch of the German Anti-League, summed it up when he stated, "religious morality, human ethics and the biological-natural 54While women, particularly married women, were usually portrayed as highly ‘moral and altruistic they were, on occasion, portrayed as overindulgent women who ruined their families by chasing their husbands out of the house ("Schlusswort von Pfarrer Julius Werner," Monatsblatt 1/11 (November 1913), 14-15) or as not deserving of the moral high ground (Langemann, "Was ist Frauenemanzipation, und in welchem Verhaeltnis steht sie zur Frauenbewegung?," Monatsblatt 2/7 and 8 (July, 1914),4). The latter charge was aimed specifically at undermining the German feminists’ arguments (similar to those made by American feminists) that the more moral women would clean up the political corruption. This claim was actively refuted in both journals. In the American journals this was done through the use of comparisons of laws passed by the American western suffrage states and the non- suffrage states in the east which aimed to show that politics in woman suffrage states was as, if not more, immoral than in non—woman suffrage states. In the German journal this claim was refuted by summarizing these American anti "findings" . For American examples see The Woman’s Protest 1/6 (October 1912), 13-14 and "Laws of Suffrage and Non-Suffrage States are Compared," The Woman’s Protest 2/2 (December 1912), 8-9. For German examples see Sigismund, "Frauenstimmrecht im Ausland," Monetsblatt 1/2 (February 1913), 2-3 and Langemann, "Bewaehrt sich das Frauenstimmrecht?," 1—3. 25 do not differ or diverge from each other, but are one and the same."55 ‘Women’s emancipation went against nature, custom, religion and the "biologically based ties" necessary for the preservation of people and nations.56 A woman, at least one who had not forsaken God, nature and biology, was characterized.by "boundless altruism, devoted self-sacrifice, especially to those who are depending on her motherly love, her children and her husband."57 These were the women both the Monatsblatt and The Woman’s Protest claimed to represent: the majority of women who were either married.with children or were still single but aspired to marriage and motherhood.58 55"Frauenbewegung als Individualismus," Monatsblatt 1/2 (February, 1913), 4. 56Langemann, "Was ist Frauenemanzipation?," 2. S7Helmine Strosser quoted in Langemann, "Was ist Frauenemanzipation2," 3. IForIarticles from.the American.antis which stress similar opinions regarding women’s nature and its source see Louise Robertson, "The Fundamental Laws of Nature," The Woman’s Protest 4/4 (February 1914), 5-6., "Suffrage a Battle Against God and Nature, " The Woman’s Protest 8/2 (December 1915), 10, Florence Goff Schwarz, "Nature’s Warning to Suffragists," The Woman’s Protest 9/4 (August 1916), 10. For an in-depth analysis of how religious, biological, and natural arguments worked together see Aileen Kraditor, TEE Ideas of the Woman Suffrage Movement. 1890-1920 (New York:Columbia University Press, 1965), 14-28. 58Great pains were taken.by both groups to establish that married (unemployed) women were the vast, albeit silent, majority and that they' were uninterested or opposed to becoming independent in an economic or political sense. Both journals, therefore, engaged in establishing statistics and stressing the small size of the suffrage organizations in both countries. Both arrived at the conclusion that within their respective countries approximately 90% of all women were not interested in political independence or, in the case of Germany, in need of expanded opportunities. See Goodwin, "Fundamentals," The Woman’s Protest 2/5 (March 1913), 3, and Langemann "Der Deutsche Bund," 6-10. 26 In conjunction with this were their efforts to establish themselves as supporters of or as the "real" woman’s movement. Langemann, for instance, stressed that the German Anti-League supported all women’s associations which worked to lift the "real feminine spirit".59 The American antis likewise argued that the "true woman’s movement" would be one which recognized the "principle of a natural division of duties between the sexes," and "aimed at strengthening the woman in her normal, natural sphere".5° The Americans explicitly represented themselves as leading the "real" woman’s movement ‘1 even arguing that the suffrage movement could not be the real women’s movement because it was "fathered by men", in this case European, socialist men.62 They were, in other words, 59Langemann, "Der Deutsche Bund," 4. “Ethel Colquhoun,"Modern Feminism and Sex Antagonism," The Woman’s Protest 4/2 (December 1913), 7. 61"Fifteenth Annual Report, " (Illinois Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage, 1911), 2. 62"Woman Suffrage:A Socialistic Movement," Illinois Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage Bulletin #17 (1913), 3. The marital status of the women in the German Anti-League is difficult to assess. Trosino does not postulate on the percentage of women who were married which in all probability indicates she was unable to assess their marital status with any kind of certainly from available sources. She seems to assume that most of the women were married and notes that one fifth of the members of the League joined with their spouses (Trosino, 130). She refers to at least one of the members as Miss rather than Mrs. (Trosino, 129) but is otherwise silent on marital status. ‘Historians working with the American antis are also relatively silent on actual percentages for married and single anti-suffragists, again.probably due to the absence of membership rosters for the national organization. In her analysis of the Massachusetts Association Opposed to the Further Extension of Suffrage to Women, Louise L. Stevenson states that 79% of the of the Standing and Executive 27 the real women. The women who were leading the feminist and suffrage organizations, in contrast, had forsaken God, nature and biology. They were not "normal" women and, in fact, there was some question as to whether or not they were women at all. They were the antithesis of everything that presumably characterized the predominantly married.mothers who comprised the anti ranks. They were selfish, practical, violent, and, predominantly, single.63 Both journals regularly portrayed the women’s movements as being led.by single women, for single women, in a 'manner ‘which threatened and 'undermined the security and status of married women. .As Langemann stressed, the true German ideal woman should not "be confused with the ideal of a young unmarried woman earning a living".“ To Langemann the difference was plain: emancipated women were characterized by "egotism and individualism" and the wife was characterized In! "unconditional self-sacrifice tx) the Committees were married women but does not give percentages for the rank-and-file membership. See Louise Stevenson, "Women Anti-suffragists in the 1915 Massachusetts Campaign," The New England Quarterly (March, 1979), 89. 63The issue of women’s violence crops up repeatedly in the journals. Some argued that just the "idea" of suffrage made women aggressive, violent, and abusive in.public (The Woman’s Protest 1/3 (July 1912), 13). Accusations ran from suffragettes rioting and almost drowning a man in Illinois in the American newsletter, to a description in the German newsletter of how an American "amazon" in Seattle horsewhipped a judge. See The Woman’s Protest 1/1 (May 1912), 4. and Sigismund, "Frauenstimmrecht im Auslande," Monatsblatt 1/2 (February 1913), 3. 6“Langemann, "Die Gegnerinnen," Monatsblatt. 1/5 (May 1913), l. 28 assignment given her by God and nature.“5 Even in America, antis were arguing that suffrage legislation looked after the interests of the independent wage-earning woman at the expense of married women and the family.66 These "other" women, the women participating in the German women’s movement and the suffrage movement in.America, were, moreover, portrayed as physically ill and deranged. In both countries neurologists lent a hand in this assessment. Dr. Charles Dana, noted.American neurologist, argued that the fundamental differences in nervous structures between.men and women left women more prone to mental illness, a phenomenon which would increase if women attained the "feministic ideal".67 The Woman’s Protest also printed speculation by a London doctor that the suffrage militancy was an epidemic 65Langemann, "Was ist Frauenemanzipation?," 4. sstlsuffrage Ideals," The Woman’s Protest 1/4 (August 1912), 6. 67Dr. Charles Dana, "A.Noisy and Selfish Propaganda," The Woman’s Protest 7/2 (June 1915), 19. Dana is identified as the author of this article in "Notes and Comment," The Woman's Protest 7/3 (July 1915), 15. The standard argument behind all the accusations of abnormality or degeneration of women, whether they were attributed.only to suffragists and feminists or potentially to all women, was that with emancipation.and suffrage the problem would grow and pose a danger to women in general, government, nation, and race. Women’s emancipation would, in addition, lead to changes in male behavior making them violent toward women as chivalry disappeared. The threat of male violence if women achieved their goals is particularly strong in the American case. See The Woman’s Protest 1/4 (August 1912), 15., "Five Reasons .Against Woman Suffrage," The Woman’s Protest 3/4 (August 1913), 13., and Louise Robertson, "The Fundamental Laws of Nature," The‘Woman’s Protest 4/4 (February 1914), 6. 29 "akin to the dancing mania of the fourteenth century."68 More common, however, to the American discourse was an accusation that the suffragists suffered from tarantism. Tarantism was said to be defined by monotonous and rhythmical utterance of a short phrase, loss of self-control and attraction to certain colors. One can only guess at the phrase intended ("Votes for Women") or the colors (yellow and red). The research for this claim had apparently been confirmed by German scientists.69 The German neurologist Ollendorff also argued that health was tied to appropriate gender roles or, as he states, "The healthier the person is, the more unquestionable are they man or woman." In his assessment, women, even when within their proper functions, have a vast array of problems and, consequently, are incapable of moving beyond childbearing which is both their duty and their weakness.70 Ollendorff even raises the question of whether or not feminists, of either sex, could be classed as men and women. Ollendorff “The_floman;s_2rctest 3/5 (September 1913). 16. 6“‘"Tarantism: A Suffrage Disease," The Woman’ 5 Protest 4/5 March 1914) , 10. For additional accusations of Tarantism see Leonard Williams, "Insurgent Hysteria," The mean’e Pretest 1/1 (May 1912), 4. 7° Ollendorff , "Die Frauenemanzipation in aerztlicher Beleuchtung, " Monateplatt 1/3 (March 1913) , 1 . Ollendorff argues that woman’ s entire being and, consequently, capabilities, are limited and determined by her menstrual cycle which, as he reveals with statistics, makes a woman not only more prone to crime but also suicidal. It is also menstruation that "releases a feeling of longing for freedom and independence for artificially covering up or blotting out this weakness". 30 asserts that in addition to men and women there are hermaphrodites, "the transitional form" and that further: just as there are bodily hermaphrodites, which are sometimes more man, sometimes more woman, there are also mental hermaphrodites, be they so-called amazons (viragos), be they effeminate men...with whom the feminists also partly are classed;"71 This idea was not unique to Ollendorff and, indeed, the specter of masculine women and feminine men is raised repeatedly throughout both journals.72 It was, in fact, argued that it was this sexual deformity that led individuals to argue for suffrage and feminism. These "mistakes of nature" were, in the words of one American, trying to "hide their miserable abnormality behind a general belief in the sexual identity of men and women". Through feminism these "half women" were trying to make everyone believe they were "an. improvement. on. the race.“3 As one .American. writer summed it up, this "Third Sex Serves Neither Man nor God."74 71Ibid. 'nThe connection between feminism.and hermaphroditismlwas also an enduring one. In 1920 a British woman doctor, Arabella Kenealy (who was also cited in The Woman's Protest) posited in her work Feminiem and Sex-Extincripn (New York:E.P. Dutton, 1920) that feminism actually leads to hermaphroditism. (Work summarized in Cynthia Kinnard, Antifeminism.in American Thought: An Annotated bibliography, (Massachusetts:G.K. Hall and Co., 1986), 80). 73"A Monstrous Doctrine," The Woman’s Protest 4/4 (February 1914), 4. 7“The Woman’s Protest 1/5 (September 1912), 13. For a German anti perspective on feminists as biological errors see "Frauenemanzipation.und.Rassenhygiene," Monatsblatt 2/7 and 8 31 This characterization of woman’s nature seems, on the surface, contradictoryz If women are defined.by their biology then changes to their status should not destroy their womanhood. The connection between the essentialist theories of woman’s nature and anti-essentialist theories which argued that feminism and suffrage would destroy women was woven together by Social Darwinist ideas of degeneration.75 Both groups of antis argued that feminism.and suffrage represented a retrogression in evolutionary terms, an argument which.made gender difference mutable but in a highly negative way. The threat was perceived as real and immediate.76 The blame was typically laid on economics and modernity. Modern civilization, which was seen as pushing women into the economic, competitive struggle, was degenerating women and diminishing their capacity' and. desire to Ibear children. Anything which pushed or encouraged women toward this unnatural end.was, therefore, both a sign of, and.impetus for, racial degeneration. Civilization depended on specialization (July 1914), 16. 75It is not, therefore, surprising that the editor of the Social Darwinist Political—Anthropological Review, Dr. Schmidt-Gibichenfels, was a member of the German Anti-League. Trosino, 139. 76Although the exact details of this process varied from anti to anti, the general theory usually ran something like that expressed.by Henry Finck.in.his article "Evolution of Sex in Mind". There he argued that sexual traits can be altered through education, employment, and environment. Consequently, women engaging in men’s work would become unsexed within a few generations, as would men. This was seen as evolutionary degeneration. Finck’s article in summarized in Kinnard, Antifeminism in American Thought, 261. 32 by sex and, consequently, the antis perceived their struggle as one supported by evolutionary biology.77 Caroline Corbin summed up the antis’ arguments when she quoted from the authors of Evolution pf Sex; "What was deicded (sic) among the pre-historic protozoa cannot be annulled by act of 77The use of Social Darwinism was not exclusively an anti— feminist tactic. It wes alep peed by feministe and groups at all points on the political spectrum from socialists to liberals to conservatives. Unfortunately, the primary works on Social Darwinism in American and Germany - including Richard Hofstadter’ 3 Social Darwinism in American Thought (New Yorszeorge Braziller Inc., 1959) and Alfred Kelly’s I_h_e_ Descent of Darwin: The Popularization of Darwinism in Germany, 1860-1914 (Chapel Hill:The University of North Carolina, 1981) - fail even to consider the relationship between sex differentiation and Social Darwinism. Even a recent analysis of Social Darwinism such as Richard Weikart’s 1993 article on the origins of the theory is completely devoid of even a surface analysis of how the theory relates to gender stratification. See Weikart, "The Origins of Social Darwinism in Germany 1859—1895," Journal of the Histog of Ideas 54 (July 1993):469-488. Gendered analyses of Social Darwinism can be found in the works of historians of feminism for, as noted, feminists also mobilized Social Darwinist arguments in support of their causes. For an American example of how feminists used the idea of sexual differentiation to challenge the status quo of sexual inequality see Charlotte Perkins Gilman, "Sex and Race Progress," in Calverton and Schmalhausen (eds.), Sex and Civilization (New York:The Macaulay Company, 1929) :109-126. For a German example see Martin’s analysis of Lou Andreas- Salome. While it should be noted that Andreas—Salome is not universally accepted as a feminist, she appropriated and reworked the Social Darwinist ideas of Boelsche and Haeckel to emerge with a theory which jettisoned the notion of the complementarity of the sexes and saw woman’s sexual difference, in evolutionary terms, as the source of their independence and creativity. (Martin, Woman and Modernity, 143-155.) See also Ann Taylor Allen’s analysis of the German feminists’ use of reform Darwinism (which posited cooperation rather then struggle as the motor of evolution) as a pillar for their emancipatory arguments in Feminism, 156-163. 33 Parliament."78 The antis deemed both suffragists and feminists, who were seen as urging women into this unnatural competition with men, as urging a degeneration which would.be a return to the condition of "primeval man, when male and female alike fought and snarled and hunted in the jungle".79 The only perceived benefit to the unnatural desire of feminists to work was posited by a German who speculated that it might be nature’s way to "prevent the increase of degenerating individuals and to weed them out".80 More typical, however, was the fear that the degeneration was spreading and was ultimately leading toward "race suicide". As one American anti remarked "One-breasted Amazons were not successful mothers!"81 Trosino, in her analysis of German anti-feminism, posits that the Anti-League’s concern over the declining birth rate is one area where it differed from its American anti-feminist 78Geddes and Thompson quoted in Corbin, Socialism and Christianity With Reference to the Woman Question (1905), 14. Corbin, the President of the Illinois Anti-League, consistently used evolution.as a‘weaponi ‘This pamphlet is one of the most detailed analyses of evolution in the anti arsenal. Corbin cites passages from numerous Darwinists in an eleven-page diatribe on the evolution of sexual differentiation” The regular‘ bulletins put out by the Illinois Anti-League should also be noted for their continuous use of evolutionary theory. 79Mrs. Benjamin Nicoll, "Votes for Women," The Woman’s Protest 1/5 (September 1912), 13. 80"Frauenemanzipation und Rassenhygiene," 16. 81Mrs. William Forse Scott, "Women and Government," The Woman’s Protest 1/1 (May, 1912), 5. 34 counterpart.82 In fact, however, both groups expressed an immense fear over the danger they believed the feminist movement posed to a healthy, procreating, vital nation. The debates over the birth rate in the German and American Anti- Leagues did differ but the difference is not, as Trosino posits, the absence of American concern over the declining birth rate. The difference is, rather, to be found in the fact that during this period the American discourse was more explicitly racist in its concern that the white race was being overrun by "negroes" and immigrants who were perceived as breeding faster then Anglo-Saxons.‘*"3 In contrast, historians of German "Rassenhygiene" (race hygiene) have argued that, prior to the mid-twenties, the German movement lacked the racial content it would develop in the thirties.“ At least one historian of German eugenics argues that the German field of "Rassenhygiene" focused.more on an overall increase in the population than did its American "eugenic" counterpart which 82Trosino, 210-211. She also argues that the declining birth rate was one of the reasons the environment was right in Germany for the founding of the.Anti-League. See Trosino, 29— 30. 83This assessment also runs counter to Trosino’s claims that the German anti-feminist movement was more racist than the American or British anti movements. “See Robert Proctor, Reciel Hygiene:Medicine Under the Nazis, (Cambridge:Harvard University Press, 1988), 21-22 and Paul Weindling, "Eugenics and the Welfare State during the Weimar Republic," in W.R. Lee and Eve Rosenhaft (eds.), The State and Social Change in Germany 1880-1980 (OxfordzBerg Publishers Limited, 1990), 156-158. 35 stressed quality.85 Despite the "time lag" in incorporating racist notions, however, the German antis definitely drew on American ideas about "race suicide" to explain their own situation.86 Inr the assessment of both1116XtAmerican and the German antis, public life, working, and academic education ruined potential 85See Sheila Faith Weiss, "The Race Hygiene Movement in Germany, " in Mark B. Adams (ed.) The Wellborn Science:Eugenics in. Germany. France, Brazil. and. Russia (New ‘York:Oxford University Press, 1990), 8. This difference is perhaps best explained.by the fact that in America, an immigration country, planning for an absolute increase in the population was not perceived to be a problem whereas the quality and "race" of the population increase was. In contrast, Germany took extreme measures to restrict immigration (while still utilizing foreign labor) a situation which provided an a priori racial exclusivity to the German antis’ arguments regarding the "German" birth rate. For evidence that racial exclusivity was taken as a given within the German antis’ arguments see Schauff’s article (Monatsblatt 2/7 (July 1913), 1-3) in which he states that "It goes without saying" that the families on which the state is based, and those which should have political rights, are within the same "racial community". For an analysis of the ways in which Germany restricted immigrant laborers see Martin Forberg, "Foreign Labour, the State and'Trade'Unions in Imperial Germany, 1890-1918," in Ipe State and Social Change, 99-130. See also Ulrich Herbert, A History of Foreign Labor in Germany. 1880-1990: seasonal workers, forced laborersrrguest workers (Ann ArborzUniversity of Michigan Press, 1990), 9-79. 86See "Frauenemanziation tuxi Rassenhygiene," 16. The article utilizes the theories of Professor Roswell Hill Johnson from the University of Pittsburgh. This is not surprising as the eugenics community was international in scope. For information on the international dimensions see Adams, The Wellborn Science. Eugenic ideas were also utilized by feminists in both Germany and the United States and were used to criticize marriage conventions, support the rights of unmarried mothers, argue for birth control and, in some cases, for compulsory sterilization of the "unfit". See the work of Ann Taylor Allen, "German Radical Feminism and Eugenics, 1900-1918," German Studies Review XI, no. 1 (February 1988):31-56 or Feminism, 197-205. 36 mothers by making them sterile or unwilling to bear children. Of particular concern for both movements was the perceived drop-off in the birth rate among the "better" classes of women. It was, as one American anti argued, particularly tragic as it took the race millions of years to produce the highly gifted women whose special qualities would now perish. As she saw it, it was akin to taking "all the best hens" and setting them aside "to go to college or run a feather factory for the hens." and "You couldn’t run a chicken farm on those principles."87 In the eyes of the Germans, the women’s movement was aiming to put the axe "to the root of the human race."88 Norway, with its partial suffrage and birth figure 5% below Germany’s was taken as proof that "women’s emancipation has a damaging effect on the energy and strength of the people."89 The specters of abortion and.birth control were also raised as proof of the unnatural methods emancipated women would go to to drop the birthrate.90 ‘Even the neurologist Ollendorff’s assessment of women’s inability to work while pregnant does not keep him from warning that "the state cannot abandon the next generation to pflease the women’s movement; it should "Mrs. John Martin, "Women in Industry and Politics a Menace to the Nation," The Woman’s Protest 2/4 (February 1913), 10. 88Presumablya quote from Lily Braun quoted in Langemann, "Was ist Frauenemanzipation," 4. 89Sigismund, "Frauenstimmrecht," 1. 90Langemann, "Was ist Frauenemanzipation?," 3-4. 37 rather keep a watchful eye on the number of births."91 That the concern.over the birth rate was an international phenomenon, which also touched the American antis, can.be seen in the attention they paid to the birthrate in other countries, including Germany.92 An article published in Ipe Woman’s Protest in 1912 noted that the German Government was instituting an inquest into the declining birth rate "which is also becoming a menace in that empire" and, further, noted press reports in Germany that argued the Government was pursuing the wrong course of action by filling 8,600 postal servant jobs with women to save money.93 A.previous article in the same "Notes and Comments" section examined the declining birth rate in France along with the high rate of industrial employment for women in that country, leading Ipe Woman’s Protest to remark that in America "an increase in criminality and.a marked fall in the birth rate, which seem to follow on.women’s desertion of home are greater evils than can be mended by the votes of women".94 The situation was deemed to be particularly dangerous in suffrage states such as Kansas where "every tenth Kansas woman is a candidate for some fool 91Ollendorff, "Die Frauenemanzipation," 3. ”German antis also stressed the falling birthrate in other countries, usually those with full or partial woman suffrage, such as Australia and New Zealand. See Sigismund, "Frauenstimmrecht," 2. ”"Notes and Comments." The_flcmanls_2rgtest 1/4 (August 1912); 15. 9“Ibid. 38 office, and the birth rate is decreasing alarmingly".95 To combat this fall in the birth rate the American.Antis stressed the responsibility of the "normal" woman with regard to childbearing, arguing that.a married.woman.with.no children was "breaking one of nature’s most natural and urgent laws." Women with only one child were advised to read "On the Handicapping of the First-born" and reminded.what a void.would exist in their lives if the only child died.96 Ironically, while the declining birth rate was blamed on women, the declining death rate was credited to men working in their laboratories.97 Where the blame rested for the fewer births was also clear. It was "owing to just such movements as suffrage that motherhood has lost so much of its charm to the young generation of women."98 The fall in the birth rate in the "advanced countries" ultimately raised the possibility of "the end of either the present-day civilization or the end of all". ” It was, according to the antis on both sides of the 95Paul S. Conwell, "Letters from Double Suffrage States," The Woman’s Protest 8/4 (February 1916), 16. States which.had voted to allow woman suffrage by 1916 were Wyoming (1869), Colorado (1893), Utah and Idaho (1896), Oregon, Kansas, and Arizona (1912) Illinois (partial suffrage, 1913) and Nevada and Montana (1914). 96Peveril Meigs, Jru, 'Khr the Responsibilities of the Normal Woman," The Woman’s Protest 7/6 (October 1915), 3. ”Mrs. William Forse Scott, "Woman and Government," The Woman’s Protest 1/1 (May 1912), 6. 98"Women Do Not Want the Vote Despite Cry of Suffragists, " The Woman’s Protest 1/1 (May 1912), 7. 99Max G. Schlapp, "The Enemy at the Gate," The Woman’s Protesr 1/5 (September 1912), 6. 39 Atlantic, the national duty of women to bear numerous, healthy children. The conception of the national duty of women was central to both Anti-League groups for both perceived women’s responsibilities in terms of duties. In 1915 The Woman’s Protest took as its motto "There are even greater words than Liberty, Equality and.Rights...Above Liberty write Duty, above Fraternity writeaHumility, above Equality'write Service, above the immemorial creed of your Rights inscribe the divine creed 00 of your Duties".1 The primary duty of women was to uphold 100See also Scott, "Woman and Government;The Demand for Right, as Opposed to the Recognition of Duty in Relation to Government," The Woman’s Protest, 5. Feminists in both Germany and America also utilized the conception of duty. It has often been argued that the German feminists differed from the American feminists in their stress on duties over rights. See, for instance, Amy Hackett, "The German WOmen’s Movement and Suffrage, 1890-1914:A Study of National Feminism," in Robert J. Bezucha (ed.), Modern European.Socia1.History;(LexingtonzHeath, 1972):354-386. This difference can and has been overstated as American feminists also utilized arguments which stressed their duties. As Ann Taylor Allen points out, even the Seneca Falls Declaration, which Hackett uses to demonstrate the American feminists use of natural rights, also included an appeal to duty (Allen, Feminism, 78). As Hackett concedes in her footnotes, differences between the American and German feminist movements were "matters of degrees" (379). See also Kraditor, The Ideas of the Woman Suffrage Movement for an analysis of the ways the American feminist movement moved away from natural rights arguments and. began to posit racist arguments based on political expediency in the period from 1890-1920. Kraditor also stresses that this shift was accompanied by the adoption of the social housekeeping argument (which justified women’s involvement in public life through her household role), an argument which has traditionally been associated with the German feminists. In general, Kraditor’s analysis shows that the suffragists, who had argued for equal political rights on the basis that justice required them, began arguing that woman suffrage would be useful to the nation. Unfortunately, in addition to arguing this utility could be used to further "reforms" such as prohibition and city sanitation, suffragists 40 the family. This was particularly critical to both groups as they both perceived the family as the fundamental unit of the state. The German and American Anti-Leagues shared a political philosophy which rested.