Katherine E. Calvert – Germanic Studies, University of Sheffield
The Weimar Republic, founded in 1919 as a modern democracy, represented a clear departure from the immediate past and authoritarian Imperial era (1871-1918) in Germany. The Weimar era, which ended with the National Socialists’ assumption of power in 1933, failed to provide political stability, illustrated by the fact that eight national elections took place between 1919 and 1932. The period nevertheless brought economic and cultural modernisation. For women, the Weimar Republic offered new opportunities in the public sphere and, for the first time in Germany, women had equal voting rights with men. The predominant image of Weimar womanhood is the so-called ‘new woman’. In her book Women in German History, Ute Frevert describes the appearance and behaviour typically associated with the new woman: “Hair in a bob, cigarettes, casual clothes”,[1] she “played her part at work and in public life with confidence”.[2] In magazines, novels and films, new women were frequently portrayed as aspirational, emancipated figures, and, in some media commentaries, were considered a threat due to their perceived rejection of women’s traditional familial role.
Yet, the new woman was not a universal figure: she was generally middle-class, and cannot, therefore, be considered to represent the experiences of many women in Weimar Germany. For working-class women, for example, women’s paid employment was an economic necessity and practice that had existed for generations, rather than an emancipatory choice or political statement. Moreover, as suggested in The Modern Girl Around the World, the image of the new woman was indeed “little more than an image, a hollow product of clever advertising campaigns”,[3] hence the model of the new woman cannot be considered to provide an authentic picture of the lived experiences of women in Weimar Germany.
In this article, I aim to move beyond the stereotype of the new woman and consider how the experiences of working-class women were influenced not only by gender but also by class. I seek to offer a nuanced analysis of women’s historical experiences in Weimar Germany by examining how working-class women engaged with political discourse and the emerging model of womanhood which challenged the notion that women’s primary role was in the domestic sphere.
I draw on two primary sources: first, Alice Rühle-Gerstel’s Das Frauenproblem der Gegenwart (Women’s Issues in Contemporary Society) (1932), republished in 1972 as Die Frau und der Kapitalismus (Women and Capitalism) as part of a socialist literature series; and second, Mein Arbeitstag – Mein Wochenende (My Workday – My Weekend) (1930), a collection of reports written by female members of the German Textile Workers’ Union (Deutscher Textilarbeiterverein – DTAV).
Rühle-Gerstel, born into a middle-class Jewish family in Prague in 1894, was educated in Prague, Dresden and Munich, graduating from the University of Munich in 1921. Later that year she married Otto Rühle, a German left-wing politician and pedagogue. Rühle-Gerstel shared her husband’s political views, having first become interested in socialism in 1917. In 1932, sensing the political climate in Germany, the couple left their home in Dresden for Prague, then, in 1935, Otto Rühle went into exile in Mexico. Alice Rühle-Gerstel followed him in 1936.[4] Jutta Friederich notes that Rühle-Gerstel did not feel settled in Mexico, and that her ‘letters to her friends became continually more hopeless and hinted more often at thoughts of suicide’.[5] In 1943, Alice Rühle-Gerstel committed suicide hours after Otto Rühle died from a heart attack.
Rühle-Gerstel published extensively on the topics of Individual Psychology,[6] Marxism and feminism. Das Frauenproblem der Gegenwart is subtitled ‘A Psychological Survey’ [‘eine psychologische Bilanz’] and comprises around 400 pages discussing the psychological development of women, female sexuality, and women’s role in marriage, the family, work, and society. Rühle-Gerstel states that her intention in writing the book was initially “to apply the laws of Individual Psychology to the female sex”; however, this intention morphed into an attempt to write a “social psychology of womanhood” [‘Sozialpsychologie der Weiblichkeit’].[7] The book adopts a psychological and socialist approach to analyse the multiple ways in which women are treated as ‘second-class’ in both the public and private spheres. By recognising that different factors, including class, influence women’s experiences, the text can be seen as an early advocacy of an intersectional feminist approach. Friederich notes that Das Frauenproblem der Gegenwart attracted much public attention when it was published in 1932.[8]
I use Rühle-Gerstel’s text as a framework to analyse the reports included in Mein Arbeitstag – Mein Wochenende, which were written in response to a competition in the DTAV magazine in 1928. Through this competition the office of the female workers’ secretaries, Emma Ritsche and Elsa Krummschmidt, hoped to build a picture of the DTAV’s female members’ daily lives. The competition initially ran for five weeks, with a closing date of 1st September 1928, however, this was extended to 15th September due to a low response rate.[9] Of the 158 competition entries received, 150 were selected by the office of Ritsche and Krummschmidt for publication.[10] The top three entries received a cash prize and book, with 15 Reichsmark, equivalent to around one week’s wages, for first place. The organisers intended to give “useful women’s books” [‘brauchbare Frauenbücher’] such as Dr. Erna Meyer: Der neue Haushalt (Dr Erna Meyer: The New Household) as the award.[11]
These reports provide first-hand insight into the daily lives of women in industrial employment. The reports are organised into four sections: single women, married but childless women, mothers, and over-45s. This organisation already indicates the extent to which women were defined by their familial relationships. In order to consider how these women negotiated their work and domestic commitments, I focus on the fifty-nine reports submitted by those women who were also mothers.
As Christina Benninghaus emphasises in her article, ‘Mothers’ Toil and Daughters’ Leisure’, since these reports were submitted as part of a writing competition, it should be considered whether some of these women were writing what they believed the union would want to hear. Benninghaus argues that “the essays of the female textile workers are also constructions in which the young women sought to show themselves in the best possible light. Industriousness, modest needs and political engagement were clearly elements in this positive self-portrayal”.[12] For example, one woman writes: “Naturally, as a class-conscious worker I know that, as far as possible, I should get all I need in our own shop, in the co-operative, and I do this too.”[13] By referring to herself as ‘class-conscious’ she is aligning herself with the union’s desired image of its membership, while the word ‘naturally’ implies her support. Benninghaus urges caution when analysing such contemporary reports, calling them “an excellent source for the self-perception of a working-class woman and her thorny relationship to time and leisure, but not for actual daily routines’, and suggesting that they ‘reflect a common, normative view”.[14] Indeed, some of the women emphasise the importance of union activities and reflect trade union views. In one such example, the author advocates union lectures, while criticising the distraction of mass culture: “The textile workers meetings are very instructive and Colleague M.M. gives good talks. Unfortunately, the meetings are very poorly attended. But the cinemas are full.”[15]
Furthermore, the reports cannot be considered representative of all working-class women. As Alf Lüdtke notes, the 158 competition entries represent fewer than one in every thousand female members of the DTAV.[16] Since the competition was advertised in the union magazine, it may be assumed that the responses represent the views of more politically engaged women.
Nevertheless, the reports should be considered a valuable historical source. While it is possible that the women overstate aspects of their political activity, and perhaps omit mention of certain pastimes, they provide insights into the experiences of women in industrial employment. They illuminate the dominant attitudes present among unionised working-class women, and provide an example against which to read the theories put forward by Rühle-Gerstel in Das Frauenproblem der Gegenwart. Rühle-Gerstel approaches the question of women’s experiences from a theoretical perspective, drawing on psychology and Marxism. She explicitly draws very little on her own (middle-class) experiences in her analysis. Mein Arbeitstag – Mein Wochenende, meanwhile, draws on lived experiences. Although the reports may be constructs, they are based on working-class women’s daily lives and self-perceptions. By analysing both a theoretical text and these reports, I seek to examine how working-class women during the Weimar period engaged with feminist and political theories, and the extent to which Rühle-Gerstel’s theories reflect the views and aspirations of working-class women. I consider, first, the representation of women in the domestic sphere in Das Frauenproblem der Gegewart and Mein Arbeitstag – Mein Wochenende, before comparing the response to domestic work with the descriptions of paid employment in both texts. Throughout this article, I adopt a class-focused approach to consider the political factors that impact women’s everyday experiences.
Family First? Working-class Women in the Domestic Sphere
In Das Frauenproblem der Gegenwart, Rühle-Gerstel argues that women’s role in the home is devalued and mothers are treated as second-class members of the family. Using the example of Mothering Sunday, Rühle-Gerstel demonstrates the contradiction between the public show of appreciation for motherhood and women’s reality: “in the evening, the mothers gradually slip back into the humble semi-darkness of their everyday lives, where they will now fulfil their modest and manifold duties until next year”.[17] By describing mothers’ daily lives as ‘semi-dark’, and their domestic work as ‘modest’, Rühle-Gerstel highlights that women are overlooked, indeed barely visible, in the family. She also suggests the volume of domestic work undertaken by mothers by referencing their ‘manifold duties’. The underlining of the disconnect between the dominant image of motherhood and the social reality forms the basis of Rühle-Gerstel’s criticism of the social status of women in Weimar Germany.
Rühle-Gerstel references social class to emphasise the undervaluation of women’s contribution to society. Combining her socialist and feminist perspectives, she writes that society can be divided along two sets of criteria: gender and class. She argues that both criteria should be considered when analysing the place of women in society:
The divisions do not only go along the line between the sexes but also straight through sexes, along the line between social classes. The status of women in society is therefore to be viewed from a double perspective: What is women’s status in male society, and what is their status in class society?[18]
Her use of the term ‘male society’ demonstrates her assertion that men hold the dominant position within binary gender relations. She then argues that women are also subordinated by the class system: “However, within the capitalist system all women tend towards being proletarians.”[19] This statement describes the double oppression of women in society. By suggesting that all women, regardless of their social background, are proletarian, Rühle-Gerstel highlights the lack of opportunities and financial independence for women within the capitalist system. This suggestion that all women are proletarian demonstrates a class awareness by applying the social class hierarchy to gender relationships. It also, however, highlights the theoretical nature of Rühle-Gerstel’s approach, as the lived experiences of working-class women would have differed substantially from those of middle- and upper-class women.
Drawing again on socialist perspectives, Rühle-Gerstel identifies the petit-bourgeoisie as principal enforcers of rigid social morality which limits women’s opportunities: “The petit-bourgeois family is that family in which the woman is exclusively or at least primarily housewife and mother, and her role will be approved of by herself and all family members.”[20] Rühle-Gerstel shows how widespread the acceptance of domestic work as women’s duty is by indicating that all family members, including women themselves, accept this without question. Drawing on Individual Psychology’s notion that the individual and social are inseparable, Rühle-Gerstel suggests that women have internalised the dominant view of motherhood as duty.
Rühle-Gerstel argues that women do not see motherhood as a choice, conflating ‘obligation’ [‘Müssen’] and ‘desire’ [‘Wollen’]: “Since nature, custom, man, state and religion claim it is so, motherhood is often accepted with all its difficulties, and out of necessity comes a virtue.”[21] This quotation demonstrates the social pressure leading to many women’s acceptance of the role of motherhood and explains how motherhood has not only come to be seen as a requirement but also an honour for women. Rühle-Gerstel’s portrayal of motherhood in Das Frauenproblem der Gegenwart is often negative and her reference to ‘difficulties’ demonstrates her reservations about the reality of motherhood in Weimar Germany.
In her chapter ‘National Socialism and Working-Class Women Before 1933’, Helen Boak argues that “most working-class women identified more closely with the role of wife and mother than the role of worker”,[22] reflecting Rühle-Gerstel’s argument that women internalise social expectations of their domestic role. Indeed, the reports written by mothers in Mein Arbeitstag – Mein Wochenende demonstrate the women’s sense that their primary responsibility is towards their family. For example, one woman writes:
It’s no doubt understandable that I can’t fulfil my mothering duties as is necessary under these conditions, and my only wish would just be that my husband would earn enough to suffice, so that I could be what I should to my husband and child.[23]
This woman demonstrates a strong sense of duty and sees her primary role as being in the domestic sphere. This supports the idea that women have internalised the conception of womanhood, which is associated with the domestic. The extent of this internalisation is revealed by the fact that this author describes her “only wish” and uses the phrase “what I should [be] to them”. Renate Bridenthal suggests that the widespread social acceptance of women’s domestic responsibility led to feelings of guilt among working women,[24] and, following analysis of the competition entries, the office of the DTAV’s female workers’ secretaries concluded that, given the choice, many women would prefer to give up their paid employment to remain at home full time.[25]
This idea of duty which appears to be present in the case of mothering extends into general domestic duties. Yet, while the writers of the DTAV reports seem to accept willingly their mothering responsibilities, their descriptions of women’s wider domestic duties are more ambivalent. Domestic work is included in the total number of hours worked daily, showing that housework is indeed viewed as work: “My work day begins at 4.30am and ends at 9.30pm. That’s 17 hours daily, of which I spend only 9 hours in the factory.”[26] The details provided by this woman underline the volume of housework performed by working-class women during this period; almost as much time is spent on domestic work as paid work. Unsurprisingly, many of the women complain of exhaustion in their reports: “My body is still tired and weary from the day before”;[27] “It’s 4.30am. Tired and still not at all rested, I raise myself from my bed”.[28] The long hours these women work leave little time for rest and the women highlight that they begin each day feeling tired.
The term ‘double burden’ describes the extensive workload taken on by women. In her article ‘Industriearbeiterinnen in der Weimarer Republik’ [‘Female Industrial Workers in the Weimar Republic’], Gabriele Wellner notes that the double burden was specific to women, and that women’s domestic work did not decrease as the number of women in paid employment increased.[29] Indeed, Wellner cites Mein Arbeitstag – Mein Wochenende to illustrate the double burden. One report, for example, emphasises the volume of work taken on by working-class women and the resulting physical exhaustion:
I always say to myself that those colleagues, who have no help at all, have it worse than a maid, since every maid has a clocking-off time, but we married (female) textile workers do not. Women often sit in the bathroom in the factory and sleep, because often they had to do the laundry and sew for the children until midnight the night before.[30]
The comparison to the domestic servant alludes to the inferior status that women have in the home and highlights that the domestic work they perform serves others. The repeated word ‘often’ indicates that this situation is widespread. In her discussion of the double burden, Rühle-Gerstel returns to her argument that women internalise the dominant social discourse and hence inadvertently contribute to the perpetuation of the gendered division of domestic labour: “And the women themselves are so very much under the diktat of this dominant perspective that they have learnt to perceive the social function, which is ascribed to them in the contemporary division of labour, as their natural role.”[31] Rühle-Gerstel’s belief that this behaviour is learnt implies that change may be possible.
However, it appears that theoretical discussions of women’s role in the domestic sphere have not reached working-class women, or do not resonate with them. While the women complain of exhaustion, they do not complain of the lack of help from family members. This supports Rühle-Gerstel’s assertion that women have internalised the expectation that domestic duties are carried out primarily by women. For example, one woman writes: “A mother, who goes to work from morning until evening, and only has male relatives around her, has to work twice and three times harder”,[32] while another writes: “That’s the weekend of a mother of five sons. If it were daughters, they would do everything for themselves alone, however sons want to be looked after”.[33] These quotations demonstrate that women expect no help from their male relations; in both cases, the complaint is that the women do not have daughters to help them. They do not suggest that their sons could help them with domestic duties, which again highlights the acceptance of the gendered division of labour.
Moreover, the women who do receive domestic help from male family members express gratefulness and consider themselves lucky to have such considerate husbands: “It’s just good that my husband, who helps me everywhere and takes the children to school every day, has a good heart”.[34] The fact that this woman provides an explanation for her husband’s help demonstrates that male assistance with domestic tasks is unusual. Citing her husband’s ‘good heart’ as an explanation for his help reveals her sense of gratitude.
Thus, the reports in Mein Arbeitstag – Mein Wochenende support the notion that there was widespread acceptance of the gendered division of domestic labour, even among women who had full-time paid employment. This analysis is supported by Benninghaus in her essay ‘Mothers’ Toil and Daughters’ Leisure’. She suggests that working-class women in Weimar Germany had little expectation of free time: “the adolescents assumed that married women were not entitled to free time”.[35] Benninghaus quotes essays written by teenage girls as part of their vocational training, thus demonstrating that these expectations are embedded in women from a young age.
Rühle-Gerstel proposes a radical socialist solution for improving the treatment of women: the financial recognition of women’s unpaid domestic work. She suggests that this would elevate undervalued ‘women’s work’ to the same status as ‘men’s work’, thereby allowing women to be respected as equals within the labour market: “Only when motherhood is recognised as a socially productive output can we talk about free competition in socially productive fields of work in general.”[36] She proposes nationalising motherhood, as, under the existing system, women are financially reliant on their husbands to support them and their children. [37] This measure would enable women to become socially and financially independent from men. Furthermore, it would increase the social value ascribed to motherhood by recognising the contribution that childbearing makes to society.
However, Rühle-Gerstel is realistic about the prospect of such a measure being introduced: “Not only the power interests and moral of the authoritative men’s world are opposed to this demand, but also a significant section of women themselves.”[38] While Rühle-Gerstel does not go so far as to call for revolution, she acknowledges that the place of women and mothers will not improve within the current system, as it would not suit the interests of those already in power. She also suggests that bourgeois morals are sufficiently embedded into society that many women would oppose such a change.[39]
While Rühle-Gerstel focuses on discussing women’s issues and the improvement of women’s status in society in Das Frauenproblem der Gegenwart, in Mein Arbeitstag – Mein Wochenende, the authors do not appear to engage critically with questions of gender and women’s role in the domestic sphere. Despite many of the women complaining of exhaustion as a result of undertaking the majority of domestic work, only one mother’s report explicitly frames this situation in terms of gender: “Women must free themselves”.[40] By implying that women must act themselves to improve their situation, this woman is perhaps acknowledging the tensions between workers’ and women’s movements and calling for female action. The lack of questioning of the gendered division of labour again adds weight to Rühle-Gerstel’s suggestion that women have internalised the social structure that seeks to deny them equal access to the public sphere. The reports, of course, were written as part of a union writing competition, which asked women simply to describe their daily routine and did not ask for critical engagement with women’s place in society. Nevertheless, as union members, these women clearly display interest in the workers’ movement and the lack of gender criticism in Mein Arbeitstag – Mein Wochenende is therefore noteworthy.
While there appears to have been little change, or indeed widespread support of change, in the domestic situation for working-class women in Weimar Germany, this should not lead to the assumption that women were not politically engaged or supportive of social developments. In the next section, I consider the paid work opportunities available to working-class women and their involvement with union politics.
Women’s Industrial Work and Union Politics
The Weimar period saw rapid urbanisation and the introduction of new industrial technologies in Germany. This, coupled with the fact that previously unemployed women entered the workforce during the First World War when men vacated their regular posts to join the army, gave the impression that women were taking advantage of new, widespread employment opportunities. Yet, Bridenthal argues that the statistics regarding employment from this period have been misinterpreted: “Of the one and a half million new jobs added in the period from 1925 to 1933, 77 per cent were taken by men. […] The actual proportion of women in the labor force did not so much rise as shift.”[41] As she notes, “[t]he breakdown of work into small, simple, mechanical, repetitive tasks made the hiring of cheap, unskilled labor possible and women were the most available source”.[42] The work available to working-class women in Weimar Germany was poorly paid and monotonous. However, Wellner suggests that, in general, women in industrial employment had greater job security,[43] primarily due to the lower cost of employing women, who were paid around 10-15% less than men.[44]
Rühle-Gerstel similarly argues that, while there may have been increased work opportunities for women in industrial production, there were not career opportunities. She suggests that industrial work was disappointing for women:
The female worker reaches her earning potential on average at the age of 25. Therefore, the married woman must now slave away with less energy, which is already claimed by housekeeping and children, for the same money that she happily pocketed ten years earlier in the expectation of something better.[45]
Rühle-Gerstel demonstrates that women only had access to jobs that men were either unable or unwilling to undertake.[46]
The reports submitted to the DTAV corroborate the idea that women’s factory work was unfulfilling and repetitive. One woman questions why such work is carried out by hand:
Now daily I sit thus for 8 ½ hours, only interrupted by the lunch hour, and spin threads together, 800 per hour. Arms and hands have to make this same movement up to 6000 times every day. […] Why hasn’t a machine been invented for this monotonous work yet?[47]
Providing the figures for the number of times she completes the same task daily emphasises the repetitiveness. The author shows the physical nature of the work by mentioning the repetitive movements that she must make, recalling the exhaustion of which many women complain in Mein Arbeitstag – Mein Wochenende. By referring to her ‘arms’ and ‘hands’, rather than writing ‘I’, this woman distances herself from the task she is completing and hence it appears that factory work was alienating and unfulfilling. In contrast to the domestic work they undertake, the female members of the DTAV are willing to complain about their paid work.
Moreover, it appears that the women work out of financial need rather than desire to enter the workforce or, as in Rühle-Gerstel’s analysis of housework, a sense of duty. One in five of the reports by mothers in Mein Arbeitstag – Mein Wochenende explicitly reference financial need, such as this woman, who writes: “Unfortunately, my husband doesn’t earn enough to see even this little family through decently. […] For that reason I’m also forced to go out to work”.[48] The words ‘Unfortunately’ and ‘forced’ show that the author does not want to undertake paid employment. This quotation again displays, however, that gendered division of labour is embedded in women’s view of society. Here, the expectation is clearly that the husband is the primary breadwinner and the author of this report expresses a desire to remain in the home, undertaking unpaid work, rather than seek a more fulfilling career than her current industrial work.
Despite the dissatisfaction with women’s employment opportunities, Rühle-Gerstel suggests that the possibility for the improvement of women’s situation lies with revolutionary proletarians and intellectuals: “The class-aware proletariat and a few intellectuals […] try deliberately and ideologically to disregard the limitations of the family structure given by society and, with tentative glances and gestures, they give new tasks and new dignity to women as wife and mother.”[49] While Rühle-Gerstel does not suggest a total rejection of marriage and motherhood, she is supportive of measures to provide wider opportunities to women in society and to assign greater, authentic value to the role that women play within the family.
As we have seen, Rühle-Gerstel’s suggestions for the improvement of women’s position in society draw on socialist and feminist viewpoints. Yet, despite her socialist activism, Rühle-Gerstel never joined a political party,[50] and remained wary of organised socialism. In Das Frauenproblem der Gegenwart, she is critical of the hostility of trade unions to female employment.[51] Kathleen Canning, in her article ‘Gender and the Politics of Class Formation’, also comments on the animosity of male unionists towards their female colleagues. Discussing the concept of women’s ‘Eigenart’ [‘particularity’], she notes that male union leaders, on the one hand, denied women’s particularity in order to avoid changing union policies to accommodate women, and, on the other, used women’s particularity as a reason to explain their lower participation in strike action, due to their domestic commitments, and thus portray women as ‘wage-cutters and strikebreakers’.[52] Erich Fromm, moreover, demonstrates that “a large number of Socialists and Communists did not agree with” the socialist principle of women’s equality in practice. Drawing on a survey conducted by the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research between 1929 and 1931, he argues that psychological factors, such as Rühle-Gerstel’s idea of the internalisation of established gender roles, and economic factors, such as the perception that women were taking men’s jobs, influenced this view.[53]
Rühle-Gerstel’s argument that the question of women’s role in society should be viewed from the perspectives of both gender and class hints at an early call for intersectionality and she expresses frustration that there can be tension between these two perspectives: “A tragic diversion has befallen women’s economic priority in industry: women indeed earn less than working men, but just as much more than unemployed men. The victory of gender through the defeat of class!”[54] By referring to ‘victory’ and ‘defeat’, she implies that gender and class struggles are in opposition to each other, and her use of the word ‘tragic’ suggests that this is in detriment to both movements.
Furthermore, Rühle-Gerstel criticises the behaviour of working-class women who display a lack of solidarity. She suggests that married and single women cast doubt over the others’ need to work, while young and old feel threatened by one another: “With reluctance to agree, denunciation, disloyalty of every type, the women make that which they had to endure from their male colleagues part of their own work tactics, and forge for themselves the weapons with which they were beaten.”[55] Her choice of the words ‘weapons’ and ‘beaten’ demonstrate the difficulties faced in improving women’s experiences of paid employment by recalling the imagery of a battle.
In contrast to Rühle-Gerstel’s criticism of organised politics and union practices, the members of the DTAV whose reports appear in Mein Arbeitstag – Mein Wochenende offer support to the union and demonstrate engagement with socialist politics. As previously mentioned, it can be assumed that the women who entered the union competition may represent a higher level of political engagement than the average industrial worker. Nevertheless, they provide interesting examples of female class-awareness and explicit criticism of capitalism. Indeed, 42% of the mothers’ reports included in Mein Arbeitstag – Mein Wochenende discuss union activities and class. One such report states:
My thoughts are often far away. Yes, they are with my work sisters in far away states and countries and I let them all pass before my mind’s eye in long, endless rows, all with the stamp of the factory in their pale countenance. My thoughts are also up there, in the industrialist mansion. We can only quickly inhale the aroma of the fine meals as we scurry past: two nursery maids to three children, and mine roam around on the street. I stand at my machine the entire day and I have to sacrifice all my energy for those up there above, so that they can live splendidly and drive cars, and on payday I receive a few Reichsmarks.[56]
This quotation is an example of a more expressive entry. While many of the women simply provide descriptions, this author repeats socialist rhetoric to provide a more creative response, which contrasts the experiences of workers and capitalists. She demonstrates class awareness and references the solidarity with other workers that was demanded by the socialist movement. She highlights injustice, drawing on the narrative that labelled capitalists as the enemy of the working-class. This passage also exemplifies the poverty experienced by industrial workers during this period; she references her low salary and that she cannot afford childcare. Indeed, Wellner writes that, during the 1920s in Germany, 35.4% of working-class women left their children unattended while they were at work.[57]
Therefore, while there may be bias present in Mein Arbeitstag – Mein Wochenende, it can be seen that the women’s apparent internalisation of their domestic role and lack of discussion of feminist issues does not equate to a disengagement from politics. Women’s increasing engagement with class politics is revealed in their unionisation rates: as Canning notes, “by 1925 the unionization rate for female textile workers had surpassed that of men” working in the same industry.[58]
Conclusions
In this article, I have considered the discussions of women’s political engagement, role in the family, and paid employment opportunities in Alice Rühle-Gerstel’s Das Frauenproblem der Gegenwart and the DTAV’s Mein Arbeitstag – Mein Wochenende. Rühle-Gerstel’s text combines psychological, socialist, and feminist perspectives to provide a theoretical explanation for women’s status and attitudes. Rühle-Gerstel suggests that women have internalised the expectation of the gendered division of labour and see their primary role as being in the domestic sphere. She advocates greater recognition of motherhood as a socially productive occupation and criticises the tensions between the movements for gender and class emancipation. Mein Arbeitstag – Mein Wochenende, meanwhile, provides insights into the lived experiences and self-perceptions of working-class women in Weimar Germany. A comparison of these two texts has revealed that Rühle-Gerstel’s suggestion of the internalisation of women’s domestic priority does indeed appear to reflect the attitudes of working-class women, however, it also seems that the theoretical approach to improving women’s position in society does not resonate with the female members of the DTAV. Rather, their political engagement is focused upon union politics and issues of class.
By adopting a class-focused approach, I sought to demonstrate that gender cannot be the only category used to explore and explain women’s historical experiences. Instead, it is necessary to consider the intersections between gender and class, among other categories, to provide a nuanced understanding of women’s attitudes and behaviour. In this article, I have discussed the experiences of only a small group of unionised working-class women in Weimar Germany, considering how their self-perceptions are influenced by their class and domestic situation, and the extent to which Rühle-Gerstel’s attempts to theorise women’s experiences reflect those reported by these particular women. In order to build a more comprehensive picture of the experiences of women in Weimar Germany, it is necessary to move beyond the media-constructed ‘new woman’ and consider the many factors that influence women’s daily lives, varied attitudes, and experiences of leisure time during the Weimar period.
[1] Ute Frevert, Women in German History, trans. by Stuart McKinnon-Evans, (New York: Berg, 1989), p.176.
[2] Frevert, p.176.
[3] Alys Eve Weinbaum et al. (eds.), The Modern Girl Around the World, (Durham: Duke University Press, 2008), p.1.
[4] For further biographical information see: Marta Marková, Auf ins Wunderland! Das Leben der Alice Rühle-Gerstel, (Innsbruck: Studienverlag, 2007).
[5] Jutta Friederich, Alice Rühle-Gerstel (1894-1943): Eine in Vergessenheit geratene Individualpsychologin, (Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, 2013), p.43. My translation. The original German quotation is provided in the appendix.
[6] Rühle-Gerstel was acquainted with, and studied under Alfred Adler, who developed the theory of Individual Psychology. For an introduction to Adler’s theory see: Heinz L. Ansbacher, Rowena R. Ansbacher, The Individual Psychology of Alfred Adler: A Systematic Presentation in Selections from his Writings, (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1958).
[7] Alice Rühle-Gerstel, Die Frau und der Kapitalismus, (Frankfurt: Neue Kritik, 1972), p.408. All translations from this text are my own. The original German quotations for extended citations are provided in the appendix.
[8] Friederich, p.134.
[9] Lüdtke, ‚Erwerbsarbeit und Hausarbeit‘, pp.IX-X.
[10] Alf Lüdtke, ‘Erwerbsarbeit und Hausarbeit: Arbeiterinnen in den 1920er Jahren. Zur Einleitung von «Mein Arbeitstag – mein Wochenende»’ in Mein Arbeitstag – Mein Wochenende: Arbeiterinnen berichten von ihrem Alltag 1928, ed. by Alf Lüdtke, (Hamburg: Ergebnisse, 1991), pp.IX-XXXIII, (p.IX).
[11] Lüdtke, ‘Erwerbsarbeit und Hausarbeit’, p.IX.
[12] Christina Benninghaus, ‘Mothers’ Toil and Daughters’ Leisure: Working-Class Girls and Time in 1920s Germany’, trans. by Deborah Laurie Cohen, History Workshop Journal, 50, (2000), 45-72, (p.65).
[13] «Mein Arbeitstag – Mein Wochenende»: Arbeiterinnen berichten von ihrem Alltag 1928, ed. by Alf Lüdtke, (Hamburg: Ergebnisse, 1991), p.175. All translations from this text are my own. The original German quotations for extended citations are provided in the appendix.
[14] Benninghaus, ‘Mothers’ Toil and Daughter’s Leisure’, p.68.
[15] Mein Arbeitstag – Mein Wochenende, p.182.
[16] Lüdtke, ‘Erwerbsarbeit und Hausarbeit’, pp.X-XI.
[17] Rühle-Gerstel, p.28.
[18] Rühle-Gerstel, p.14.
[19] Rühle-Gerstel, p.23.
[20] Rühle-Gerstel, p.36.
[21] Rühle-Gerstel, p.343.
[22] Helen Boak, ‘National Socialism and Working-Class Women Before 1933’, in The Rise of National Socialism and the Working Classes in Weimar Germany, ed. by Conan Fischer, (Oxford: Berghahn, 1996), pp.163-188 (p.169).
[23] Mein Arbeitstag – Mein Wochenende, p.133.
[24] Renate Bridenthal, ‘Beyond Kinder, Küche, Kirche: Weimar Women at Work’, Central European History, 6:2, (1973), 148-166, (p.165).
[25] Lüdtke, ‘Erwerbsarbeit und Hausarbeit’, p.XII.
[26] Mein Arbeitstag – Mein Wochenende, p.153.
[27] Mein Arbeitstag – Mein Wochenende, p.128.
[28] Mein Arbeitstag – Mein Wochenende, p.140.
[29] Gabriele Wellner, ‘Industriearbeiterinnen in der Weimarer Republik: Arbeitsmarkt, Arbeit und Privatleben 1919-1933’, Geschichte und Gesellschaft, 7:3, (1981), 534-554, (p.151).
[30] Mein Arbeitstag – Mein Wochenende, p.180.
[31] Rühle-Gerstel, p.271.
[32] Mein Arbeitstag – Mein Wochenende, p.126.
[33] Mein Arbeitstag – Mein Wochenende, p.164..
[34] Mein Arbeitstag – Mein Wochenende, p.135.
[35] Benninghaus, ‘Mothers’ Toil and Daughters’ Leisure’, p.56.
[36] Rühle-Gerstel, p.354.
[37] Rühle-Gerstel, p.353.
[38] Ibid.
[39] Ibid.
[40] Mein Arbeitstag – Mein Wochenende, p.148.
[41] Bridenthal, ‘Weimar Women at Work’, p.158.
[42] Bridenthal, ‘Weimar Women at Work’, p.157.
[43] Wellner, ‘Industriearbeiterinnen in der Weimarer Republik’, p.540.
[44] Frevert, p.179.
[45] Rühle-Gerstel, p.282.
[46] Rühle-Gerstel, p.239.
[47] Mein Arbeitstag – Mein Wochenende, p.164.
[48] Mein Arbeitstag – Mein Wochenende, p.132.
[49] Rühle-Gerstel, pp.36-7.
[50] Marková, Auf ins Wunderland!, p.241.
[51] Rühle-Gerstel, p.277.
[52] Kathleen Canning, ‘Gender and the Politics of Class Formation: Rethinking German Labor History’, The American Historical Review, 97:3, (1992), 736-768, (p.762).
[53] Erich Fromm, The Working Class in Weimar Germany, trans. by Barbara Weinberger, (Oxford: Berg, 1984), p.163.
[54] Rühle-Gerstel, p.280.
[55] Rühle-Gerstel, p.281.
[56] Mein Arbeitstag – Mein Wochenende, p.137.
[57] Wellner, ‘Industriearbeiterinnen in der Weimarer Republik’, p.551.
[58] Canning, ‘Gender and the Politics of Class Formation’, p.760.
Featured image: By Miscellaneous Items in High Demand, PPOC, Library of Congress [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
Track Changes 