Advertisement

“The Right of the Child to Choose its Parents”: Motherhood and Reproductive Responsibility in the Prewar Era

  • Ann Taylor Allen

Abstract

Legal equality, economic independence—these were indispensable bases for the reconstruction of motherhood on the basis of gender equality. But even the achievement of these ends could not relieve a still more basic form of servitude. “For what is poverty, what is all the misery of industrial exploitation,” asked the leader of the League of German Women’s Associations, Marie Stritt, in 1910, “compared to the cruel sexual exploitation in which the great mass of women live today?”1 “Dependence, in short, is the curse of our marriages,” wrote the British Mona Caird, “of our homes and of our children, who are born of women who are not free—not free even to refuse to bear them.”2 The claim to a right to refuse might at first glance seem to contradict the prevalent definition of motherhood as a contribution to the public welfare. But in fact it reinforced that definition, for mothers had power as well as responsibility they could make or break the state, and thus wielded a formidable political weapon. “What they forget, in all this talk about population, is that in order to produce children, you have to have mothers,” wrote the French journalist Maria Martin, editor of the Journal des Femmes. “Children will become the pride of every household when mothers are respected by the law. Until that day, we fear that women will not be sufficiently patriotic to make children for the fatherland, which rewards them so meagerly.”3

Keywords

Birth Control Venereal Disease Eugenic Movement Health Certificate Woman Suffrage 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Marie Stritt, “Frauenbewegung und Neumalthusianismus,” Die Neue Generation 1910, 439–446 (quotation 444).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mona Caird, The Morality ofMarriage and Other Essays on the Status and Destiny of Women (London: G. Redway, 1897), 135.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Maria Martin, “Dépopulation,” Journal des Femmes, June 1896Google Scholar
  4. 3.
    see also Karen Offen, “Depopulation, Nationalism, and Feminism in Fin-de-Siècle France,” American Historical Review 89 (June 1984): 648–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 4.
    Offen, “Depopulation, Nationalism and Feminism”; see also the contributions to Gisela Bock and Pat Thane, eds., Maternity and Gender Policies: Women and the Rise of the European Welfare States, 1880s-1950s (London and New York: Routledge, 1991).Google Scholar
  6. 5.
    Arthur Newsholme, M.D., The Declining Birth-Rate: Its National and International Significance (New York: Moffat, Yard and Co., 1911), 13.Google Scholar
  7. 6.
    Among the many, many works that deal with this subject: Robert Talmy, Histoire du mouvement familial en France, 1896–1939 (Aubenas: Union nationale des Caisses d’Allocations Familiales, 1962)Google Scholar
  8. 6.
    Anne Cova, Maternité et droits des femmes en France: XIX-XXe siècles (Paris: Anthropos, 1997), 29–71Google Scholar
  9. 6.
    Paul Weindling, Health, Race and German Politics between National Unification and Nazis, 1870–1945 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995)Google Scholar
  10. 6.
    Richard Soloway, Demography and Degeneration: Eugenics and the Declining Birthrate in Twentieth-Century Britain (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1990), passimGoogle Scholar
  11. 6.
    Ida Blom “Voluntary Motherhood 1900–1930: Theories and Politics of a Norwegian Feminist in an International Perspective,” in Gisela Bock and Pat Thane, eds., Maternity and Gender Policies, 21–39. The comparison between France and the United States made by Alisa Klaus, Every Child a Lion: The Origins of Maternal and Infant Health Policy in the United States and France, 1890–1920 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993), 10–43, is very illuminating.Google Scholar
  12. 8.
    Maria Montessori, Pedagogical Anthropology, trans. Frederic Taber Cooper (New York: Stokes, 1913), 474; see also Valeria Babini, “Science, Feminism and Education: The Early Work of Maria Montessori,” History Workshop 49 (1999): 44–57.Google Scholar
  13. 9.
    John C. Caldwell, “The Delayed Western Fertility Decline: An Examination of English-Speaking Countries,” Population and Development Review 25 (September 1999): 479–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 10.
    Elizabeth Wolstenholme Elmy, “The Marriage Law of England,” Shafts (July—September 1890), 57–60 (quotation 59).Google Scholar
  15. 11.
    Francine van de Walle, “Infant Mortality and Demographic Transition,” in Ansley J. Coale and Susan Cotts Watkins, eds., The Decline of Fertility in Europe: The Revised Proceedings of a Conference on the Princeton European Fertility Project (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986), 201–233; see chart, p. 212.Google Scholar
  16. 14.
    Mrs. Edward Francis, “Race Suicide,” The Vote, January 21, 1911.Google Scholar
  17. 15.
    Ellen Key, Über Liebe und Ehe, trans. Francis Maro (Berlin: S. Fischer, 1906), 247.Google Scholar
  18. 16.
    Arma Davin, “Imperialism and Motherhood,” History Workshop 5 (1978): 9–65,16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 17.
    Marianne Hainisch, Die Mutter (Leipzig: Verlag von Hugo Heller, 1913), 16–17Google Scholar
  20. 17.
    cf Lucy Bland, Banishing the Beast: Sexuality and the Early Feminists (New York: The New Press, 1995), 242–247.Google Scholar
  21. 18.
    An example of the first category is Christi Wickert, Helene Stocker 1869–1943: Frauenrechtlerin, Sexualrefirmerin und Pazifistin: Eine Biographie (Bonn: Dietz, 1991)Google Scholar
  22. 18.
    of the second category, Richard Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004). For further historiographical perspectivesGoogle Scholar
  23. 18.
    see Ann Taylor Allen, “German Radical Feminism and Eugenics, 1900–1918,” German Studies Review 11 (1988): 31–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 18.
    and Ann Taylor Allen, “Feminism and Eugenics in Germany and Britain, 1900–1940: A Comparative Perspective,” German Studies Review 23 (2000): 477–506. Many more sources on this subject are listed in these articles.Google Scholar
  25. 19.
    Daniel J. Kevles, In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity (New York: Knopf, 1985), 85–92; see also Bland, Banishing the Beast and Soloway, Demography and Degeneration both of which show the variety of views that were represented within the eugenics movement.Google Scholar
  26. 20.
    See Allen, “Feminism and Eugenics in Germany and Britain”; Soloway, Demography and Degeneration; Lesley A. Hall, “Women, Feminism, and Eugenics,” in Robert A. Peel, ed., Essays in the History of Eugenics: Proceedings of a Conference organized by the Galton Institute, London 1997 (London: Galton Institute, 1997), 36–51; Bland, Banishing the Beast 222–249.Google Scholar
  27. 21.
    Bernd Nowacki, Der Bund fir Mutterschutz, 1905–1933 (Husum: Matthiesen, 1983), Section 4.5.Google Scholar
  28. 22.
    WLHM, EES, SA/Eug./B.1: Early Papers re Formation; see also Pauline Mazumdar, Eugenics, Human Genetics, and Human Failings: The Eugenics Society, Its Sources and Its Critics in Britain (London: Routledge, 1992), 7–57; on the role of women see Kevles, In the Name of Eugenics 64–65; and Soloway, Demography and Degeneration, 110–137.Google Scholar
  29. 24.
    William H. Schneider, Quality and Quantity: The Quest for Biological Regeneration in Twentieth-Century France (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 25.
    L. Huc, “La Section ‘ Eugenics and Child Study,’ ” Eugénique (1913): 119–133.Google Scholar
  31. 27.
    Women’s Cooperative Guild, Maternity: Letters from Working Women, (London: G. Bell and Sons, 1915), rpt., inGoogle Scholar
  32. 27.
    Marie Mulvey Roberts and Tamae Mizula, eds., The Mothers: Controversies of Motherhood (London: Routledge Thoemmes Press, 1994), 27.Google Scholar
  33. 28.
    Wally Secombe, “Men’s ‘ Marital Rights’ and Women’s ‘ Wifely Duties’: Changing Conjugal Relations in the Fertility Decline,” in John R. Gillis, Louise A. Tilly, and David Levine, eds., The European Experience of Declining Fertility 1850–1970: The Quiet Revolution (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1992), 66–84 (quotation 80). Blom’s results are discussed in this article.Google Scholar
  34. 28.
    Anna Bergmann, “Frauen, Männer, Sexualität und Geburtenkontrolle: Die Gebärstreikdebatte der SPD im Jahre 1913,” in Karin Hausen, ed., Frauen Suchen ihre Geschichte: Historische Studien zum 19. Und 20. Jahrhundert (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1983), 81–108.Google Scholar
  35. 28.
    Cf also Edward Shorter, A History of Women’s Bodies (New York: Basic Books, 1982), 3–16.Google Scholar
  36. 30.
    Frank Wedekind, The Awakening of Spring: A Tragedy of Childhood, trans. Francis J. Ziegler (Philadelphia PA: Brown Brothers, 1910), Act I.Google Scholar
  37. 31.
    Claudia Nelson, “Under the Guidance of a Wise Mother: British Sex Education at the Fin de Siècle,” in Claudia Nelson and Anne Sumner Holmes, eds., Maternal Instincts: Visions of Motherhood and Sexuality in Britain, 1875–1925 (Houndmills, Basingstoke: Macmillan and St. Martin’s Press, 1997), 98–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 35.
    H.Q. Röling, Gevreesde vragen: Geschiedenis van de seksuele opvoeding in Nederland (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1994), 13.Google Scholar
  39. 36.
    Mevrouw Baerveldt-Haver, “Eenige beschouwingen over de zedelijke opvoeding,” in Verslagen der Congressengehouden bejgelegenheit van de Nationale Tentoonstelling van Vrouwenarbeid, Besprcki;uren over de Taak von Moeders en Opvoedsters, September 14–15, 1898 (Amsterdam: Versluys, 1899), 124–137.Google Scholar
  40. 37.
    Nellie van Kol, “Een kiesch onderwerp,” Evolutie, May 31, 1893.Google Scholar
  41. 40.
    Ghenia Avril de Sainte-Croix, ed., Dixième congrès international des femmes: Oeuvres et institutions féminines; droits des femmes (Paris: Giard et Brière, 1914), 198–204.Google Scholar
  42. 40.
    Cf. Jacques Donzelot, The Policing of Families, trans. Robert Hurley (New York: Pantheon Books, 1979), 168–184.Google Scholar
  43. 42.
    E. Piecynska, L’École de la Pureté (Geneva: Ch. Eggiman, 1897), 11.Google Scholar
  44. 43.
    On Piecynska’s life and work see E. Serment, “Emma Piecynska, née Reichenbach, dans ses oeuvres,” Annrivain• des femmes suisses 10 (1926): 81–143; andGoogle Scholar
  45. 43.
    Karen Offen, European Feminisurs 1700–1960: A Political History (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2000), 155, 246. I am grateful to Karen Offen for sharing materials gathered in the course of her research on Piecynska with me.Google Scholar
  46. 44.
    Ellen Key, Das Jahrhundert des Kindes: Studien von Ellen Key [1901], trans. Francis Maro (Berlin: S. Fischer, 1902), 10–11.Google Scholar
  47. 45.
    Havelock Ellis, Studies in the Psychology of Sex (Philadelphia, PA: P.A. Davis Co., 1910), 78.Google Scholar
  48. 46.
    Maria Lichnewska, “Die geschlechtliche Belehrung der Kinder,” Mutterschutz (1905): 137–170.Google Scholar
  49. 47.
    Marianne Hainisch, “Sexuelle Erziehung,” Der Bund (April 1908): 3.Google Scholar
  50. 48.
    Ella Anker, Women’s Suffrage in Norway (London: National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies, 1913).Google Scholar
  51. 49.
    Frank Mort, Dangerous Sexualities, Medico-Moral Politics in England since 1830 (London and New York: Routledge, 1987), 154–156.Google Scholar
  52. 53.
    Henriette Fürth, Die geschlechtliche Aufklärung in Haus und Schule (Leipzig: n.p., 1903), 23.Google Scholar
  53. 54.
    Marie Stopes, Married Love quoted in Ruth Hall, Passionate Crusader: The Lifè of Marie Stopes (New York and London: Harcourt, 1977), 129; a more skeptical view of Stopes’s testimony is given byGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Richard A. Soloway, “The Galton Lecture 1996: Marie Stopes, Eugenics, and the Birth Control Movement,” in Robert A. Peel, ed., Marie Stopes and the English Birth Control Movement: Proceedings of a Conference Organized by the Galton Institute, London 1996 (London: Galton Institute, 1997), 49–76, see especially 50–51.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Carol Dyhouse, Feminism and the Family in England, 1880–1939 (Oxford: Blackwell, 1989), 174.Google Scholar
  56. Ellis Ethelmer (Elizabeth Wolstenholme Elmy), Woman Free (Congleton: Women’s Emancipation Union, 1893), 11. Two excellent and thorough accounts of British feminists and sexuality are given in Bland, Banishing the Beast 95–185; and Sheila Jeffreys, The Spinster and Her Enemies: Feminism and Sexuality 1880–1930 (London: Pandora, 1985), 6–52.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Cicely Hamilton, Marriage as a Trade (London: Chapman and Hall, 1909), 33–34.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Frances Swiney, The Bar of Isis or the Law of the Mother (London: C.W. Daniel, 1909). For an extensive account of British feminism and birth control, see RichardGoogle Scholar
  59. 58.
    Allen Soloway, Birth Control and the Population Question in England, 1877–1930 (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1982), 133–155; and Bland, Banishing the Beast 189–221.Google Scholar
  60. 59.
    Peter Fryer, The Birth Controllers (New York: Stein and Day, 1965), 163.Google Scholar
  61. 60.
    Maude Pember-Reeves, Round About a Pound a Week (London: G. Bell and Sons, 1913), 219.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Fryer, The Birth Controllers 173–192; Lesley A. Hall, “Malthus, Medicine, and Morality: ‘ Malthusianism’ after 1798,” Clio Medica 59 (2000): 141–163; Richard Soloway, Birth Control 133–155.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Stella Browne, The Freewoman, April 18, 1912, quoted in Jeffreys, The Spinster and her Enemies, 52; Jane Hume Clapperton, What do We Women Want? (London: W.H. Reynolds, 1880), 4.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Charles Vickery Drysdale, “Freewomen and the Birth Rate,” The Freewoman, November 30, 1911.Google Scholar
  65. 66.
    Aletta Jacobs, Memories: My Life as an International Leader in Health, Suffrage and Peace (New York: Feminist Press, 1996), 34Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Hugo Q. Röling, “L’Énigme de la contraception aux Pays- Bas,” in Francis Ronsin, Hervé Le Bras, and Elisabeth Zucker-Rouvillois, eds., Démographie et Politique (Dijon: Editions universitaires de Dijon, 1997), 27–37.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Aletta B. Jacobs, Vrouwenbelangen (Amsterdam: L.J. Veen, 1899), 66.Google Scholar
  68. 69.
    Ph. van Praag, “The Development of Neo-Malthusianism in Flanders,” Population Studies 32 (1978): 476–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 76.
    Francis Ronsin, La grève des ventres: Propagande néo-malthusienne et baisse de la natalité française, 19–20 siècles (Aubier: Montaigne, 1980), 157.Google Scholar
  70. 77.
    Madeleine Pelletier L’Émancipation sexuelle de la femme (Paris: Giard et Brière, 1926), 39. On Pelletier’s life and career seeGoogle Scholar
  71. 77.
    Felicia Gordon, The Integral Feminist: Madeleine Pelletier, 1874–1939: Feminism, Socialism and Medicine (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1990); andGoogle Scholar
  72. 77.
    Marilyn Boxer, “French Socialists, Feminism, and the Family,” Troisième République 3–4 (1977): 128–167.Google Scholar
  73. 78.
    Angus McLaren, “The Sexual Politics of Reproduction in Britain,” in Gillis, Tilly and Levine, eds., The European Experience of Declining Fertility, 85–100; see also Willem de Blécourt, “Cultures of Abortion in The Hague in the Early Twentieth Century,” in Franz X. Eder, Lesley A. Hall, and Gert Hekma, eds., Sexual Cultures in Europe: Themes in Sexuality (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000), 195–212.Google Scholar
  74. 81.
    Nelly Roussel, “Pour les Mères,” Almanach Féministe (1907).Google Scholar
  75. 82.
    Nelly Roussel, “Pour le mariage, contre l’union libre,” L’Entente (July 1906).Google Scholar
  76. 83.
    Gabrielle Petit, “Ce que nous voulons,” La Femme Affranchie, September 1904.Google Scholar
  77. 84.
    James Woycke, Birth Control in Germany 1871–1933 (London: Routledge, 1988), 54Google Scholar
  78. 84.
    Anna-E. Freier, Dem Reich der Freiheit sollst Du Kindergebären: Der Antifeminismus der proletarischen Frauenbewegung im Spiegel der “Gleichheit,” 1891–1917 (Frankfurt: Haag und Herchen Verlag, 1981), 73–81.Google Scholar
  79. 86.
    Helene Stöcker, Die Liebe und die Frauen (Minden: J.C.C. Bruns, 1906), 177.Google Scholar
  80. 89.
    Cf. Richard Evans, The Feminist Movement in Germany, 1894–1933 (London: Sage, 1976), 145–174Google Scholar
  81. 89.
    Barbara Greven-Aschoff, Die bürgerliche Fraucnben’c,jnng in Deutschland, 1894–1933 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Rupprecht, 1981), 112–114.Google Scholar
  82. 90.
    Else Luders, “Eindrücke von der Generalversammlung des Bundes deutscher Frauenvereine, Breslau, 6–8 Oktober, 1908,” Die Frauenbewegung October 15, 1908, 154.Google Scholar
  83. 91.
    Ernestine Federn, “Aktuelles in der deutschen Frauenbewegung,” Der Bund, Zentralblatt des Bundes österreichischer Frauenverene (February 1909).Google Scholar
  84. 93.
    Doris H. Linder, Crusader for Sex Education: Elise Ottesen-Jensen (1886–1973) in Scandinavia and on the International Scene (Lanham, NY: University Press of America, 1996), 22.Google Scholar
  85. 97.
    Key, Das Jahrhundert des Kindes, 1; the work is also translated into English as Ellen Key, The Century of the Child [1909] (New York: Arno Press, 1972).Google Scholar
  86. 99.
    Grete Meisel-Hess, Die sexuelle Krise: Eine soziologische Untersuchung (Jena: Eugen Diederichs, 1909), 272–317Google Scholar
  87. 99.
    Harriet Anderson, Utopian Feminism: Women’s Movements in fin-de-siècle Vienna (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992), 181–192.Google Scholar
  88. 100.
    George Bernard Shaw, Getting Married, in The Doctor’s Dilemma, Getting Married, and the Sheaving Up of Blanco Posnet (New York: Brentano, 1911), 219.Google Scholar
  89. 103.
    On Brieux and his cultural context, see Jean Elisabeth Pedersen, Legislating the French Family: Feminism, Theater, and Republican Politics, 1870–1920 (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2003), 170–174.Google Scholar
  90. 104.
    Eugène Brieux, Damaged Goods, in Three Plays by Brieux, trans. Mrs. Bernard Shaw (New York: Brentano’s, 1913), 197.Google Scholar
  91. 106.
    Christabel Pankhurst, “Concerning Damaged Goods,” The Suffragette, February 20, 1914.Google Scholar
  92. 108.
    Nelly Roussel, “Ma Réponse,” L’Action, July 5, 1906.Google Scholar
  93. 109.
    Sudario, A Semeadora (February 15, 1916): 2, quoted in Joâo Esteves, As Origens do Sufragismo Português: A Primeira Organizaçüo Sufragista Portuguesa: A Associçüo de Propaganda Feminista (1911–1918) (Lisboa: Editorial Bizâncio, 1998), 1998.Google Scholar
  94. 110.
    Alix Westerkamp, “Gesetzliche Bestimmungen,” in Anna Pappritz, ed., Einführung in das Studium der Prostitutionsfrage (Leipzig: Verlag von Johann Ambrosius Barth, 1919), 92–98.Google Scholar
  95. 111.
    Camilla Jellinek, “Die venerische Ansteckung und das Strafgesetz,” Centralblatt des Bundes deutscher Frauenvereine, November 1, 1909.Google Scholar
  96. 116.
    Kari Melby, Anu Pylldcänen, Bente Rosenbeck, and Christina Carlsson Wetterberg, “The Project ‘ The Nordic Marriage Model in a Comparative Perspective’ and its Main Results,” in Kari Melby, Anu Pylkkänen, Bente Rosenheck, and Christina Carlsson Wetterberg, eds., The Nordic Model of Marriage and the Welfare State (Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers, 2000), 13–26.Google Scholar
  97. 119.
    Helene Stocker, “Unsere erste Generalversammlung,” Mutterschutz (1907): 76–80.Google Scholar
  98. 120.
    Matthew Thomson, The Problem of Mental Deficiency: Eugenics, Democracy, and Social Policy in Britain c. 1870–1959 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), 23–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 120.
    Ellen Hume Pinsent, “Care and Control of the Feeble-Minded,” The Nineteenth Century 67 (1910): 43–57; WLHM, EES Eug/B3: “Feeblemindedness.” See alsoGoogle Scholar
  100. 120.
    Mark Jackson, “ ‘ Grown-Up Children’: Understandings of Health and Mental Deficiency in Edwardian England,” in Marijke Gijswijt-Hofstra and Hilary Marland, eds., Cultures of Child Health in Britain and the Netherlands in the Twentieth Century (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2003), 149–168.Google Scholar
  101. 121.
    Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence, “Can the Cats Legislate for the Mice?” Votes for Women, August 22, 1913Google Scholar
  102. 121.
    Dora Marsden, “The Poor and the Rich,” The Freewoman, July 25, 1912.Google Scholar
  103. 123.
    Die achte Generalversammlung, Centralblatt des Bundes deutscher Frauenvereine December 15, 1908; see also the favorable reference to Schreiber’s speech in A. Ploetz, ”Mutterschutz und Rassenhygiene, Archiv für Rassen und Gesellschaftsbiologie 5 (1909): 134–135.Google Scholar
  104. 125.
    Nelly Roussel, “Lettre ouverte a M. le docteur Toulouse,” Regéneration (March 1903).Google Scholar
  105. 128.
    Henriette Herzfelder, “Mehr Mutterschutz!” Der Bund, October 1910.Google Scholar
  106. 129.
    Mrs. Edward Francis, “Race Suicide,” The Vote, January 21, 1911.Google Scholar
  107. 130.
    Christabe Pankhurst, “What Women Think-II,” The Suffragette January 23, 1914; Bland, Banishing the Beast 247.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ann Taylor Allen 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ann Taylor Allen

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations