(pp. 107ff)
Second reason: Women do not want the right to vote.
[ . . . ] One cannot deny, however, that a large part of the female world – in Germany certainly the majority – attaches no value to gaining political influence. But it by no means follows that participation in the drafting of legislation is something that women can dispense with. To be sure, Negroes have never demanded civilization, and so far Oriental women have not exhibited any desire for monogamous marriage.
Nevertheless, no one will declare slavery and polygamy to be worthy institutions, and everyone will admit that civilization is preferable to barbarism and monogamy to polygamy. The value of these goods would immediately register with the affected parties if the latter were put in a position to enjoy their benefits. Anyone trained to servitude, like slaves and women, will recognize the inestimable value of freedom only slowly. Furthermore, when one considers the extent of women’s dependence [on men], the considerable number of them who support voting rights is quite remarkable after all.
There may be districts and municipalities of men, where, on average, less than half of them go to the polls. In those cases, then, the majority would have spoken against the right to vote, and the right to vote would have to be taken away from these districts and municipalities as a result. Who would think of such a thing?
If even a single woman demands the right to vote, then it is an act of violence
to prevent her from exercising her civil duty.
The motives prompting women to either directly oppose the right of their sex to vote or to at least remain indifferent on this question are very simple and very clear.
First, the great multitude of people, all the simple and mediocre minds, never embrace any idea or conception that has not yet gained currency in public opinion and has not yet made its tour de monde. The majority of humans do not budge an inch from the customary opinion in their country, generation, or town. That majority is satisfied with their honorable mediocrity, and moving at a sleepy trot along the well-trodden avenue of conventional custom, they doze leisurely from the here and now into the hereafter. Clinging to authority is and will always be the religion of all half-wits, intellectual idlers, and devout souls. The conception of an independent woman is too new, the implications of the idea too immeasurable for the majority to understand, let alone agree with it.
But are customs beyond criticism just because they are generally accepted?
Should the present always follow in the footsteps of the past?
Are we automatons that can only be moved ahead externally through the machinery of acquired social dogmas constructed for us by previous centuries?
No, time sanctifies nothing at all, and each belief has only an individual sanctity that is tied to a certain time and place. [ . . . ]
Secondly, no woman of uncharitable disposition – whether she be dumb, intelligent, or witty – will follow the banner of women’s liberty. Those who find themselves in comfortable circumstances, and who are also equipped with sufficient doses of egotism, will be careful not to pull someone else’s chestnuts out of the fire, for they know one thing: Conflicts with fellow humans are very unpleasant, whereas peace of mind, fine dinners, spa vacations, and box seats at the theatre are very pleasant.
“I have everything I need,” says the wife at the side of her loving husband, who has many excellent qualities, one of which happens to be a fat wallet.
print version
return to list
previous document