Sunshine for Women WHM 2003, ToC | Home

Hewdig Dohm

1831-1919

"If every woman has a lawful tyrant, then have I no sympathy for the tyranny some men must endure from their own sex."

Hedwig Dohm, Women's Nature and Rights, p. 147

The basic outline of Dohm's live is described by Ruth-Ellen Joeres in as essay entitled "Hedwig Dohm":

Hedwig Dohm, the oldest daughter of a middle-class family (her father, the owner of a tobacco factory, did not marry her Jewish mother until after the birth of the tenth of their eighteen children in 1838), was bom on 20 September 1831 in Berlin. With a few exceptions (stays, for example, with her mother in Spain in 1851 and during the winter of 1869-70 in Italy, where she visited her sister, the painter Anna Schleh), she spent her life in that city. She married the publisher and editor Ernst Dohm in 1853; they had four daughters and a son (who died in 1866, at the age of twelve). Dohm's writing career began in 1867 when she took over a commission from her husband to write and edit a two-volume history of Spanish literature, which was published under the genderless semi-pseudonym of H. Dohm. The rest of her published work consists of novels, short stories, one-act comedies, and a wealth of polemical writings, books, and articles on social issues ranging from critical essays on women's social role expectations to musings on marital and family relationships, the problems of aging, and the immorality of war. Although Dohm was not an active member of the German women's movement, her sympathies lay with its more radical wing, and she became an enthusiastic supporter of women's suffrage and the movement against the antiabortion "paragraph 218" in the German legal code. The bulk of her polemical writings appeared after 1872 and earned her the reputation of a clear and concise thinker as well as a sharp and passionate advocate for women's self-determination.

Before Dohm's death on 1 June 1919, German women had been granted the right to vote (12 November 1918), World War I had ended, and the monarchy had been eliminated. Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht had been murdered in early 1919, an event that Dohm mourned in the closing months of her life. Her last major publication was Der Missbrauch des Todes (The Misuse of Death), an antiwar essay that she completed for the periodical Die Aktion in 1915, at a time when Europe was mired in the horrors of the war. But her final writings consisted, appropriately, of articles and essays on the issue that had occupied her for most of her life: her demand that women be granted the rights and opportunities due them.

As mentioned above, Dohm was not an active member of the German woman's movement, building organizations, organizing and signing petitions, marching, or debating in public. Yet, Dohm was a fearless feminist yielding a witty and incisive pen to explore the many ways in which patriarchy manifests itself, to describe the many methods that men use to subjugate women, to describe women's oppression, to rouse women to action, and to appeal to women to fight on their own behalf. Dohm spared neither rich nor poor, public men or private man, writing about religious, legal, industrial, professional, educational, social, and familial sources of oppression.

Dohm was also one of the first German-writing women to advocate for woman suffrage. In Der Frauen Natur und Recht (Women's Nature and Rights), one of the first book length works in defense of women in modern Germany, Dohm uses wit, wisdom, knowledge of women's history, logic, and some fine prose to challenge men's authority over women.

From the chapter 'Women's Right To The Suffrage' in Women's Nature and Rights

We find in every country the same social questions which are stirring the world to its depths. It is the struggle between the natural and traditional rights of mankind, which penetrates the consciousness of the nations with ever stronger and more lasting reality. It is the struggle between the old gods and a new race of mankind. The god which must be overcome is that of monopoly, from whose almighty power the kingdom, the State, the Church, the classes and the sexes, draw their privileges, and which always supports and favours Might. A chief factor in the great spiritual revolution of our time is the Woman Question, which strives for reform in all existing institutions. The center of this action is Women's Suffrage. For years the Bill for Women's Suffrage has been repeatedly brought into the English Parliament. The progress which this question has made in public opinion is quite extraordinary, and the number of petitions for Women's Suffrage grows from year to year.

Thirty years ago, when the woman question was treated as an absurdity in Germany, England's practical statesman and Minister, Disraeli, stood up for Women's Suffrage. A speech in which he returned thanks for a petition, signed by eleven thousand women, ended with these words, "As I believe that this illegality (that of withholding the suffrage from women) is derogatory to the interests of the country, I also hope that Parliament in its wisdom will put an end to it." When a question is brought before Parliament with some authority one can be sure that public opinion will take it up, and in fact Women's Suffrage belongs to the great national questions of England and America. It is therefore not premature to claim for the women of Germany a right which is as clear as the light of the sun, and as undeniable.

For those who reject ideas and principles because they are new, and for those who like to trace new claims to historical rights, I have collected a few notices from which it is unmistakable that the political claims of women are based on ancient rights.

Before the Norman invasion, and often since that time, the women of England have taken part either indirectly or personally in the government of that country. Thomas Hughes, in his Life of Alfred the Great, says that noble women, even married women, were allowed entire possession of their estates. They could manage their business affairs as they wished, and by virtue of their title-deeds had a seat and vote in the Wittenagemot. They also had seats in the provincial and parish councils.

Gurdon, in his book Considerations sur les antiquites du parlement, tells of ladies of degree who were admitted to the supreme council. The historian Bede mentions an abbess who presided at a clerical synod.

Under Henry VIII Lady Anne Berkeley presided as judge at an assize at Gloucester. Fosbrook, the recorder of Gloucester, describes how she came, took her seat in the public hall, presided, received the evidence, declared the accused to be guilty of a plot and incitement to public disorder, and condemned them as enemies of mankind.

Under Henry III four abbesses were summoned to parliament. In the reign of Edward I. several noble dames were represented in the same place by proxy. The last public manifestation of female political rights in England was in 1640, but these rights were already waning, for the sheriff remarked at the time that it was humiliating for a man to be voted for by a woman.

In the next century the judges recognised the rights of women, but the practice of these rights was no longer customary. In 1739, in the reign of George HI., Sir William Lee and Sir Francis Page officiating as Chief Justice and Judge respectively, an appeal was made to the Courts of Law to decide whether a "feme sole " could vote for a sexton, and whether she could be a sexton. In the course of the case Sir William Lee declared that these rights were indisputable, and that in many cases the "feme sole" could even vote for a member of parliament. Justice Sir Francis Page gave the same judgment in an analogous case, and Lord Coke, who is reckoned a great authority, confirmed the sentences of both judges.

A logical consequence of the feudal rights of English women is, that a woman may reign in England. The "ricos hombres" or nobles of Aragon were allowed to transfer their votes in the Cortes to others of their own class, and the heiresses of Barons enjoyed a like privilege.

The Gauls, says Tacitus, admitted women to their councils, in which the most weighty matters were discussed, and their votes gave decision to the resolutions formed.

The federal republics of the Basques gave women power to vote in all public affairs. Later on the influence of women in State matters seems to have lapsed for some centuries, but we see it revived in feudal times. Women were raised to the dignity of duchess, peer, judge, and ambassador. Clothed with all the rights of a feudal lord, women developed extraordinary administrative talents in the management of their estates. Three women signed the treaty of Cambrai.

According to Montaigne, women who were raised to the peerage could vote for any measure which belonged to the legal right of the House of Peers. Women took their scats in the French Parliament as peeresses, and in all State ceremonies, such as coronations, behaved as became their dignity. The Countess of Flanders sat in the House of Peers, presided over by Louis the Saint.

Many writs have been preserved which were issued by female judges of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The abbesses of Remiremont with their deaconesses administered justice in the districts belonging to their cloister, and they had the right to send deputies to the parliamentary assembly of Lorraine.

There are examples in history of the highest offices in the magistracy falling to young girls by inheritance.

Under the title of chevali'eres fieffées they were present in the courts of laws and presided, attired in audience robe and feathered hat. In their absence assessors and judges could not act. In spite of protest from the feudal lords, popes and kings long confirmed women in these rights. When Ermengarde, Viscountess of Narbonne, was prevented from exercising her judicial rights she appealed to the King's (Louis the Child) protection. He wrote a letter in answer to which were the following words: "We ordain that it be permitted to none to decline your jurisdiction."

Marchant, Countess of Artois and Bourgogne, attended the coronation of Philip V. at Rheims as a Peeress of France, and held the crown with the other peers. The number of sovereign feudal ladies who led their people to battle, equipped the troops and commanded a militia of nobles and burghers, was not small. At a siege of Remiremont, says the historian of the Abbey, the Abbess Katharine of Lorraiue faithfully fulfilled her duty as captain, soldier and princess. It was Louis XIV who abolished the rights of the feudal ladies in the interest of the centralisation of power.

These few notes may suffice to prove that the participation in political matters is traditionally a woman's right; but I need hardly add, that this historical basis is unnecessary. If women had never presided in a court of law, had never taken their seats in the Councils of the Gauls or in the Anglo-Saxon Witenagemot, and had never officiated as peeresses at a king's coronation, their chum to individuality and citizenship would not be less by the fraction of a thought. These historic notes simply show with what illogical despotism men think and act towards women. Women's Suffrage finds great support in England, even in the House of Lords. Members of Cabinets speak in its favour and in the House of Commons there is not a single party which does not include influential champions of its cause. The reasons for women's political rights must be very simple and very strong since Radicals and Conservatives, Churchmen and Freethinkers alike recognise and support them.

The attainment of Women's Suffrage is simply a question of time. English women have attained the municipal vote, the women of some American States have a political vote, and these are but the forerunners of universal Women's Suffrage. The principle is recognised, it is only a case of the extension of the practice.

It is a fact that in America nearly every woman who has in any way distinguished herself is in favour of Women's Suffrage. Those who, in spite of scorn and personal danger, took up the abolition of slavery, are those who now stand at the head of the movement for promoting the political rights of women.

In Germany this important question has been gravely discussed for about ten years only. Nothing is more significant of the change in public opinion in women's favour than the position the social democrats have assumed towards them. Eighteen years ago some of the social democrats violently opposed the claims made by women, and now the political equality of the sexes is a matter of course in their programme. I hope to prove that the arguments against the political rights of women are untenable and sophistical. It is a labour of Sisyphus, since no one disproves our arguments on this head but answers them with cheap and antiquated sarcasm* with poetic declamations in the style of Jean Paul and Schiller, and at worst with philosophical ribaldry like Schopenhauer's.

That the reasons given are few and slender is natural. There are no arguments against the political rights of women, except those which arise from custom, prejudice and disquietude of mind.

The arguments which told in the political emancipation of the poor, the labourer, the Negro, are precisely the same as those in favour of women.

These alleged reasons are :—

1. Women do not require the suffrage.

2. Women do not wish for the suffrage.

3. They have not the faculty of using such a privilege.

4. Their sex naturally precludes them from every political action.

Firstly. Women do not require the suffrage.—That is: men have always been so just, so noble, that the fate of more than half mankind can be safely entrusted to their pure hands. Their mistakes and crimes have ever been directed against their own sex. Apart, upon a pedestal, stands Woman, and at sight of her the temptations to evil cease, and virtue holds unquestioned sway. Never has a man betrayed, destroyed, and murdered a woman, or driven her to despair and death. Women do not require the suffrage. No, they would not require it in Utopia, in Arcadia, and in all the lands of fairy story, in which small children, and sometimes big men, believe. . . .

[On Women do not wish for the suffrage] The women who do not want the suffrage declare themselves to be an inferior species of human creature. May they continue to eat the crumbs which fall from their lords' tables, to kiss the hand that chastises them, and shine in the light reflected on them by the orders and appointments bestowed upon their lords and masters, to exult in them as if they themselves had deserved those honours!

It is true that in Germany a great number of women care nothing for Women's Suffrage. Does it follow that a participation in the making of laws would be of no benefit to them? The Negro has never desired to be civilised and Oriental women have never wished for the establishment of monogamy. For all that, we do not approve of polygamy or slavery, indeed, everyone will acknowledge that monogamy and civilisation are preferable. The worth of these good things would at once be evident, if those who suffer now were to enjoy them. Those trained in slavery can only learn by degrees to appreciate the blessings of freedom.

There are parishes and constituencies where, on an average, less than half of the men use their vote. In this wise the majority in these places have expressed themselves against suffrage and their votes should be taken from them. Who thinks of depriving these men of their privilege? If only one woman desires the suffrage, it is an act of violence to prevent her from using it. The motives which induce women to oppose the right of suffrage for their sex, or at least to lie indifferent to it, are very simple and clear. The great mass of people, who are mostly somewhat limited in mind and intelligence, never accept an idea or proposition which is not favoured by public opinion and has not made the tour du monde. Such people never move an inch from the general and customary opinion of their country, generation or township. The great benefits which have been attained in the course of centuries have been won by the efforts of those who set themselves a goal which in their day seemed to others unattainable. No great things would ever have been accomplished if bold pioneers had not penetrated to regions of thought beyond the ken of the masses. . . .

Women have not the faculty to exercise the right of suffrage. This argument cannot be treated seriously. There are no bodily or mental faculties which in any country form the conditions of the suffrage. The weak and sick, cripples and foolish, even the brutal and, in America, the uncivilized Negroes are all entitled to vote. Especially in relation to universal suffrage such an argument is utterly useless. . . .

[On Their sex naturally precludes them from every political action] Because women bear children they are to have no political rights, and if I say, because men do not bear children they shall have no political rights, I see no reason why the one remark should not be considered as profound as the other. . .

Until now man has reigned alone, and what is the result? Open history at any page, we find strife and blood, superstition and corruption. If it be true, as men say, that theirs is a wild and passionate sex, thirsting for action, easily inclined to cruelty and of a sensual nature, while women are mostly gentle, pure and ideal—I see no reason why mildness and an ideal bent should be excluded from law-making and law-giving.

The man who was considered the best orator in that Parliament agreed with the former speaker, and even expressed himself somewhat more strongly and precisely: "The sympathetic element in the mental constitution of women absolutely blinds them to all logic." What gave almost absurdity to this remark was, that every argument of his party in the discussion was steeped in sentiment, instead of being buoyed up by logic. We hear of nothing but the laws of Nature, of propriety, custom, and tradition, of pedestals and girdles of innocence, etc.; in a word, nothing but — sentimentality. When the most able of the speakers pointed out that the suffrage would tear the mother from her child's cradle he was loudly cheered. When he implored the married men listening to him to think of the pure love of their wives, which must be sacrificed a victim to the suffrage, he was loudly cheered. And when at the last he could not help giving it as his opinion that no one would oppose these arguments, for what Nature has ordained and custom ratified is unassailable—there was prolonged cheering.

Have custom and tradition hallowed prostitution, the life of the harem, and Indian suttee?

"What Nature has ordained!" Where and when did Nature ordain that men should sit and speak in Parliament, and women hold their peace? I can only say that women require all their modesty to keep them from believing that the sexes are different from what men believe them to be; that, in fact, women arc reasonable and men are creatures of impulse.. . .

Women demand the Suffrage as a natural right.
They demand it as a means of raising the human race.

They demand it as a right. Why should I prove that I have a right to suffrage? I am a human being, a citizen; I do not belong to the criminal class, I do not live on alms. These are the proofs which I have to bring in favour of my claim. A man requires to pay a certain rent, to be a certain age, and possess a certain sum, in order to be able to vote, why should a woman need more? Why is a woman classed with criminals and imbeciles? No, not with criminals, for they are only prevented from voting for certain periods of time. It is only the idiot and the woman who belong to the same category. No one has the right to rob me of my natural political right. But supposing this right is proved to be irreconcilable with the welfare of the State? We demand proofs of the enmity between the welfare of the State and women's rights. We shall have to wait for these proofs till Doomsday, and in the meantime our opponents appeal to that judgment of God and Nature that has characterized woman as unpolitical— she has no beard! The presumption that a class of persons should have laws imposed upon them, in the making of which they have had no share; the presumption that a class of persons who bear the burdens of citizenship, has no right to tiring any influence to bear on these burdens, is, in the main, only possible in a despotic State. The admission of such a principle is tyranny, in every language of the world and for both sexes. The claim to political equality of the sexes, the idea of a woman speaking in Parliament, is to most men the acme of absurdity! Only one sort of political equality do they admit—that of the scaffold. Why did they not laugh when Marie Antoinette's and Madame Roland's head fell under the guillotine? Madame de Stael wrote, "In a State where men cut off women's heads in its interest, the women should at least know the reason why." But men never answer such impertinent questions. Men derive their rights over women from their power over them. They arrange all the rules, customs and orders which serve to suppress women, and call these arrangements legal power. A wrong is not less a wrong because it is sanctioned by the law, an act of oppression is all the more objectionable when universal. As long as it is—man will and woman shall, we live in a State governed by might and not by right. Franklin says, "The poor man has an equal right, but a far greater necessity, to be represented than the rich man. Those who have no vote in the election of their representatives are absolutely robbed of their freedom; for it is being robbed of freedom to be reigned over by those whom others have set over us."

It might be said, that the vote accorded to women would, on the whole, hardly have any other legislative result than that already effected by the one-sided votes of the men. This supposition is false. Are not men the first to say, that women have other interests, other mental, spiritual and bodily requirements than they themselves? The more the difference of the sexes is discussed, the more clearly we see the necessity of a representation of women. And just as, Franklin says, the poor man has more need to be represented than the rich, so women, as the weaker sex, have more need to be represented than men. There is no need of remarkably profound argument on this question, the facts speak for themselves. Laws such as those on women's property, their rights over their children, marriage, divorce, etc., arc impossible in a country where women have the suffrage. Men, they say, represent women. When did women give men the right to represent them? When did men ever give women an account of their resolutions? Never. An absolute monarch can say with just as much right that he represents his people, or the slave-holder declare that he represents his slaves. It is an old argument that the workman can be represented by his employer, but it has not convinced the workman, and lie has refused such representation with the greatest energy. Equality in the legislation will necessarily produce equality before the law in course of time. " pp. 92 - 144

References:

Ruth-Ellen B. Joeres, "Hedwig Dohm (1831-1919) Germany," Women Writers in German-Speaking Countries: A Bio-Bibliographical Sourcebook, Elke P. Frederiksen and Elizabeth G. Ametsbichler (eds.) [Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1998] pp. 86-87

Hedwig Dohm (1876), Translated by Constance Campbell (1896), Women's Nature and Privilege (Das Frauen Natur and Recht) {Westport, Ct.: Hyperion Press, 1976]

Return to Women's History Month 2003 Table of Contents

Thanks for visiting Sunshine for Women at http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/main.html

e-mail sunshine@pinn.net

Sunshine for Women encourages you to support our feminist sisters by purchasing their books, reading them, disseminating the ideas they contain, but most especially, by making their book available to our sisters, our daughters, and the community at large by requesting your school library, your public library, and area bookstores to carry their books. Remember it is not enough to write literature, history, and theology, we must pass these works on to future generations. Help us to preserve these works for a new generation by putting them on library bookshelves.

Copyrighted, created and maintained by Sunshine, 2003. You have Sunshine's permission to copy and disseminate this document as long as it is attributed to Sunshine and Sunshine's URL appears on the document.

last updated February 2003