Certainly, my dear madam, that is not the issue, however; the issue here is the wife of the drunkard who knocks her to the ground in the most bestial manner, condemning her and their child to death by starvation so that he can indulge his vices. The issue here is the young girl who violates her nature and proceeds to marry a man she does not love for the sake of securing her livelihood and to escape the misery of an empty and lonely existence. The issue here is the old maid who crawls through this vale of tears on earth without friends or joy, bent over her needle day after day. Oh yes, the issue here, my dear madam, concerns many other women of whom you never knew or wished to know at all.
In response to the highest and most wonderful of Commandments – Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself – human egotism has always had the answer of indifference in store: “Lord, am I my brother’s keeper?” [ . . . ]
Thirdly, resisting that which one depends on requires a courageous heart, a joyful conviction. Women, however, are dependent on men. How many women in Germany have a husband who supports women’s right to vote?
If today we announced a meeting to promote women’s political rights, hundreds of women who share our views would stay home, because their husbands do not wish for them to attend such gatherings. They would stay home out of fear of their masters or for the sake of peace, or to coax this or that out of their husbands by remaining obedient.
In the fourth place, the women of the common classes are generally among those who do not desire the right to vote; this is because they lack insight and education, and because, as a rule, prejudice has an even stronger effect among the ignorant than the educated. Common women are unable to recognize why the table of life has not been set for them. If the proletarian wife writhes in pain under the heavy blows of her drunken husband, she does not know that the law legitimizes the actions of this fellow. If the woman living in sin with a man (not through her own volition but according to his will, for just how much she would like to be his lawful wife!) finds herself thrown out onto the street with her children, she is not aware of the fact that the laws are on his side. [ . . . ] The law is always on his side if he disowns his biological children, taking as many mistresses as his carnality desires, with no concern for their subsequent fate. The half-crazy mother given to infanticide does not suspect that the laws could protect her from the horrible deed in which, often enough, her soul has no share at all.
We have admitted that, for the time being, a large part of the female world does not desire the right to vote. Does it follow, however, that women who do not want the right to vote are superior to those who do? Certainly not. Just as the men who do not exercise their political rights are not superior to those who participate in public life.
If our adversaries are right, however, and if, generally speaking, women really do not want the right to vote, there is no need for a regulation to exclude them. – Whoever needed a legal regulation to force people to follow their own inclinations!
Women do not want the right to vote. I understand it may be welcome, very welcome for the person governing to assume that the governed is happy to obey.
To the good ladies who do not want the right to vote, however, men offer their knightly chivalry as a form of compensation, threatening the political women with its withdrawal. [ . . . ]
Incidentally, it seems to me that the effect of this deterrent is problematic, for experience suggests that when chairs and arms are offered, or umbrellas and corner seats in train compartments, they only benefit pretty young ladies; whereas the discomforts suffered by old maids and women who are no longer young and beautiful are incompatible with inspiring the stronger sex to knightly behavior. – Therefore, these women – and they represent the majority – are not really affected by this question and can ridicule the threat.
print version
return to list
previous document