Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T18:01:08.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reflections on Feminism and Monism in the Kaiserreich, 1900–1913

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2008

Edward Ross Dickinson
Edward Ross Dickinson
Affiliation:
Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand/Te Whare Wananga o te Upoko o te Ika a Maui
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The League for the Protection of Motherhood (Bund für Mutterschutz und Sexualreform, or BfM) was the largest and most active sex-reform organization in Germany before the First World War. The league was at the center of a broad debate about sexuality, gender roles, the family, and population policy, in which representatives not only of the women's movements but also of the Christian churches, the medical and psychiatric establishments, and the sexology, eugenics, and life-reform (particularly nudist) movements participated. Both this broader debate and the BfM itself have been the subject of intensive study over the past fifteen years. One major interpretive focus of the literature to date has been on the issue of the extent to which the biologistic, social Darwinist, and eugenic ideas prominent in the thinking of many of the leading figures in the BfM were or were not evidence of a turning away from liberal, individualist feminism and toward the political and social Right, or of deeper intellectual affinities between National Socialism and sex reform — a point regarding which there is still considerable disagreement.

Type
Articles
Information
Central European History , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , June 2001 , pp. 191 - 230
Copyright
Copyright © Conference Group for Central European History of the American Historical Association 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

I would like to thank my friends and colleages Geoff Hume-Cook, Sarah Kindon, Pat Moloney, Bernd and Gela Teichgräber, and Richard Weickart for their assistance in the writing of this article.

1. In addition to the literature cited below, see the general histories by Hamelmann, Gudrun, Helene Stöcker, der “Bund für Mutterschutz,” und die “Neue Generation” (Frankfurt am Main, 1992)Google Scholar and Nowacki, Bernd, Der Bund für Mutterschutz (1905–1933) (Husum, 1983).Google Scholar

2. M[arcuse], M[ax], “Der Bund für Mutterschutz,” Sexual-Probleme (hereinafter SP) 4 (1908): 35, 36, 37Google Scholar.

3. See Fürth, Henriette, “Die Lage der Mutter und die Entwicklung des Mutterschutzes in Deutschland,” in Mutterschaft: Ein Sammelwerk für die Probleme des Weibes als Mutter, ed. Schreiber, Adele (Munich, 1912), 289–90Google Scholar.

4. The details of the complex and bitter struggles within the BfM can be traced in the papers of Adele Schreiber, held in the Bundesarchiv Koblenz, Nachlass 173.

5. See Hamelmann, , Helene Stöcker, 56–57Google Scholar. The BfM had nine local branches in 1911, following an internal crisis in 1909–1910; by 1913, it once again had twelve. See Nowacki, , Der Bund, 78Google Scholar.

6. Rosenthal, Max, “Was heisst: ‘Neue Ethik’? Was will der Bund für Mutterschutz?,” Die Neue Generation (hereinafter NG) 6 (1910)Google Scholar; Augspurg, Anita, “Reformgedanken zur sexuellen Moral,” in Ehe? Zur Reform der sexuellen Moral, ed. Dohm, Hedwig et al. (Berlin, 1911), 34Google Scholar.

7. “Geleitwort zum IV. Jahrgang,” Mutterschutz (hereinafter MS) 3 (1907): 503Google Scholar. SP was the BfM's journal under a new name: Stöcker had to find a new publisher for NG.

8. Schreiber, Adele, “Die Ansätze neuer Sittlichkeitsbegriffe im Hinblick auf die Mutterschaft” in Schreiber, Mutterschaft, 173, 167Google Scholar.

9. Fürth, Henriette, “Mutterschaft und Ehe,” MS 1 (1905): 489Google Scholar.

10. Lange, Helene, “Moderne Streitfragen in der Frauenbewegung,” Frau 13 (1905): 74Google Scholar. For the classic texts of the “moderate” critique of the New Morality, see Bäumer, Gerturd, “Die ‘neue Ethik’,” Die Frau 12 (1905): esp. 709, 711–12Google Scholar; Marianne Weber, “Sexualethische Prinzipienfragen” and Helene Lange, “Feministische Gedankenanarchie” and “Die Frauenbewegung und die moderne Ehekritik,” all in Frauenbewegung und Sexualethik: Beiträge zur modernen Ehekritik, ed. Bäumer, Gertrud et al. (Heilbronn, 1909), esp. 34–35, 39, 41, 48–49, 81–83, 93Google Scholar. For a discussion of these differences, see Wobbe, Theresa, Gleichheit und Differenz: Politische Strategien von Frauenrechtlerinnen um die Jahrhundertwende (Frankfurt am Main, 1989), esp. 120–21Google Scholar.

11. Quoted in Stoehr, Irene, “Fraueneinfluss oder Geschlechterversöhnung? Zur ‘Sexualitäts-debatte’ in der deutschen Frauenbewegung um 1900”, in Frauenkörper — Medizin — Sexualität, ed. Geyer-Kordesch, Johanna and Kuhn, Annette (Düsseldorf, 1986), 170Google Scholar.

12. Lange, Helene, Die Frauenbewegung in ihren modernen Problemen (Leipzig, 1908), 62Google Scholar; Scheven, Katharina, “Selbtsbeherrschung oder freie Liebe?,” Abolitionist 4 (1905): 94, 95, 96Google Scholar.

13. Bré quoted in Schreiber, “Die Ansätze,” 176; Key, Ellen, “Mütterlichkeit,” in Mutterschaft, ed. Schreiber, , 598, 599, 594Google Scholar. See also Key, , Die Frauenbewegung (Frankfurt am Main, 1909)Google Scholar.

14. Stöcker, Helene, “Unsere Umwertung der Werte” (1897), in Stöcker, , Die Liebe und die Frauen (Minden, 1906), 26–27Google Scholar; Stöcker, “Vorwort” (1905) and “Die Ziele der Mutterschutzbewegung,” in Die Liebe und die Frauen 2d. ed. (Minden, 1908), x, 174Google Scholar.

15. Stöcker, Helene, “Vom IV. Neumalthusianerkongress in Dresden,” NG 7 (1911): 473Google Scholar.

16. See Hamelmann, , Helene Stöcker, 39Google Scholar; Stöcker, , “Die Hauswirtschaft als Beruf,” in Die Liebe und die FrauenGoogle Scholar; Allen, Ann Taylor, “German Radical Feminism and Eugenics, 1900–1908,” German Studies Review 11 (1988): 40CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lischnewska, Maria, “Die wirtschaftliche Reform der Ehe,” MS 2 (1906)Google Scholar.

17. Rosenthal, “Was heisst: ‘Neue Ethik’?,” 225.

18. See Evans, Richard J., The Feminist Movement in Germany 1894–1933 (London, 1976), 131, 138, 139Google Scholar.

19. Ibid., 162.

20. Ibid., 158, 169.

21. Janssen-Jurreit, Marie-Luise, “Sexualreform und Geburtenrückgang — Über die Zusammenhänge von Bevölkerungspolitik und Frauenbewegung um die Jahrhundertwende” in Frauen in der Geschichte, ed. Kuhn, Annette & Schneider, Gerhard (Düsseldorf, 1979), 56Google Scholar. See also Janssen-Jurreit, , “Nationalbiologie, Sexualreform und Geburtenrückgang: Über die Zusammenhänge von Bevölkerungspolitik und Frauenbewegung um die Jahrhundertwende” in Die Überwindung der Sprachlosigkeit, ed. Dietz, Gabriele (Darmstadt, 1978)Google Scholar.

22. Ibid., 62.

23. Schumann, Rosemarie, “Helene Stöcker: Verkünderin und Verwirklicherin,” in Alternativen: Schicksale deutscher Bürger, ed. Groehler, Olaf (Berlin, 1987), 169Google Scholar.

24. Weingart, Peter, “The Rationalization of Sexual Behavior: The Institutionalization of Eugenic Thought in Germany,” Journal of the History of Biology 20 (1987): 178, 179CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

25. This distinction, and the terms “mainline” and “social radical,” were borrowed from Kevles, Daniel J., In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity (New York, 1985)Google Scholar; see particularly 88–89.

26. Allen, “German Radical Feminists,” 32; Allen, Ann Taylor, Feminism and Motherhood in Germany, 1800–1914 (New Brunswick, 1991), 162Google Scholar.

27. Allen, Ann Taylor, “Mothers of the New Generation: Adele Schreiber, Helene Stöcker, and the Evolution of a German Idea of Motherhood, 1900–1914,” Signs 10 (1985): 424, 434, 435CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28. Schlüpmann, Heide, “Die Radikalisierung der Philosophie: Die Nietzsche-Rezeption und die sexualpolitische Publizistik Helene Stöckers,” Feministische Studien 3 (1984): 25, 29, 26CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29. Wickert, Christl, Helene Stöcker, 1869–1943: Frauenrechtlerin, Sexualreformerin, und Pazifistin: Eine Biographie (Bonn, 1991), 68Google Scholar. Amy Hackett had come to similar conclusions regarding Stöcker, in “Helene Stöcker: Left-Wing Intellectual and Sex Reformer,” in When Biology Became Destiny: Women in Weimar and Nazi Germany, ed. Bridenthal, Renate, Grossmann, Atina, and Koonz, Claudia (New York, 1984)Google Scholar.

30. Grossmann, Atina, Reforming Sex: The German Movement for Birth Control and Abortion Reform, 1920–1950 (New York, 1995), vi, vii, viiiGoogle Scholar.

31. The literature on the history of eugenics or “racial hygiene” in Germany is vast; for good brief surveys see especially Weingart, “The Rationalization”; Pickhardt, Thomas, “Sozialdarwinismus: Ein Panoramabild deutscher bevölkerungskundlicher Fachzeitschriften vor dem Ersten Weltkrieg,” Historische Mitteilungen 10 (1997)Google Scholar; Weiss, Sheila Faith, “The Race Hygiene Movement in Germany, 1904–1945,” in The Wellborn Science: Eugenics in Germany, France, Britain, and Russia, ed. Adams, Mark B. (New York, 1990)Google Scholar; Massin, Benoit, “From Virchow to Fischer: Physical Anthropology and ‘Modern Race Theories’ in Wilhelmine Germany,” in Volksgeist as Method and Ethic, ed. Stocking, George W. (Madison, 1996)Google Scholar; and Richard J. Evans, “In Search of German Social Darwinism,” in idem, Rereading German History: From Unification to Reunification 1800–1996 (New York, 1997). For concise statements on the relationship between eugenics and politics see Kaiser, Jochen-Christoph, Nowak, Kurt, and Schwartz, Michael, eds., Eugenik, Sterilisation, “Euthanasie”: Politische Biologie in Deutschland, 1895–1945: Eine Dokumentation (Berlin, 1992), xxiv–xxvGoogle Scholar; Broberg, Gunnar and Roll-Hansen, Nils, eds., Eugenics and the Welfare State: Sterilization Policy in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland (East Lansing, 1996), 265–68Google Scholar. There is a good discussion of the explicitly democratic conception of eugenics developed by Bäumer, Gertrud, a leading critic of the “New Morality,” in Repp, Kevin, Reformers, Critics, and the Paths of German Modernity (Cambridge, MA, 2000), 128–42Google Scholar.

32. On Key see Nyström-Hamilton, Louise, Ellen Key: Her Life and Her Work, trans. Fries, A. E. B. (New York, 1913), 103–4Google Scholar; on Fürth and Schreiber, see Wickert, , Helene Stöcker, 185, 192Google Scholar; on Social Democracy and eugenic thought, see Schwartz, Michael, “‘Proletarier’ und ‘Lumpen’: Sozialistische Ursprünge eugenischen Denkens,” Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte 42 (1994)Google Scholar and idem, Sozialistische Eugenik: Eugenische Sozialtechnologien in Debatten und Politik der deutschen Sozialdemokratie, 1890–1933 (Bonn, 1995).

33. On Stöcker's pacifism see Wickert, , Helene Stöcker, 100–1, 119, 123Google Scholar; Hamelmann, , Helene Stöcker, 121–34Google Scholar. For examples of Stöcker's radicalism see “Revolutionskrisen,” NG 14 (1918): esp. 401, 407Google Scholar; “Zu den Waffen — des Geistes und der Güte!,” NG 15 (1919): 453Google Scholar. See also Wickert, , Helene Stöcker, 103Google Scholar; Nowacki, , Der Bund 96–97Google Scholar for the debate within the BfM stirred by these articles.

34. Allen, Ann Taylor, “Feminismus und Eugenik im historischen Kontext,” Feministische Studien 9 (1991): 47CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35. Stöcker, “Zur Emanzipation des Mannes” (1904), in idem, Die Liebe und die Frauen, 116.

36. Stöcker, Helene, “Zur Reform der sexuellen Ethik”, MS 1 (1905): 9Google Scholar.

37. Stöcker, Helene, “Von Neuer Ethik,” NG 2 (1906): 9Google Scholar. See Weingart, Peter, Kroll, Jürgen, and Bayertz, Kurt, Rasse, Blut, und Gene: Geschichte der Eugenik und Rassenhygiene in Deutschland (Frankfurt am Main, 1988), 71Google Scholar.

38. Stöcker, Helene, “Strafrechtsreform und Abtreibung,” NG 4 (1908): 399Google Scholar.

39. Stöcker, , “Vom IV. Neumalthusianerkongress in Dresden,” NG 7 (1911): 470Google Scholar.

40. Stöcker, , “Kongresse,” NG 9 (1913): 597Google Scholar; Stöcker, , “Staatlicher Gebärzwang oder Rassenhygiene?,” NG 10 (1914): 144Google Scholar.

41. Allen, Ann Taylor, “Feminism and Motherhood in Germany and in International Perspective 1800–1914,” in Gender and Germanness: Cultural Productions of Nation, ed. Herminghouse, Patricia and Mueller, Magda (Providence, R.I., 1997), 122Google Scholar.

42. Breitenbach, W., Die Ergründung und erste Entwicklung des Deutschen Monistenbundes (Brackwede, 1913), 18Google Scholar.

43. On monism in the arts and literature see Fick, Monika, Sinnenwelt und Weltseele: Der psychophysische Monismus in der Literatur der Jahrhundertwende (Tübingen, 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gasman's, Daniel some-what manic Haeckel's Monism and the Birth of Fascist Ideology (New York, 1998)Google Scholar; Bayertz, Kurt, “Biology and Beauty: Science and Aesthetics in Fin-de-Siècle Germany,” in Fin de Siècle and Its Legacy, ed. Teich, Mikulas and Porter, Roy (Cambridge, 1990)Google Scholar; and Hübinger, Gangolf, “Die monistische Bewegung,” in Kultur und Kulturwissenschaften um 1900, vol. 2, Idealismus und Positivismus, ed. Hübinger, et al. (Stuttgart, 1997)Google Scholar. On Lebensreform see Krabbe, Wolfgang R., Gesellschaftsveränderung durch Lebensreform: Strukturmerkmale einer sozialreformerischen Bewegung im Deutschland der Industrialisierungsperiode (Göttingen, 1974)Google Scholar; Rothschuh, Karl E., Naturheilbewegung, Reformbewegung, Alternativbewegung (Stuttgart, 1983)Google Scholar. For an indication of the breadth of the monist influence see Drews, Arthur, ed., Der Monismus: Dargestellt in Beiträgen seiner Vertreter, vols. 1–2 (Jena, 1908)Google Scholar. The DMB had some 4,660 members by 1911, and leading members included some prominent eugenicists, sexologists, and race theorists, such as Wilhelm Schallmayer, August Forel, Heinrich Driesmann, Ludwig Plate, Friedrich Siebert, Franz Müller-Lyer, Otto Juliusburger, Bruno Wille, Wilhelm Bölsche; see Breitenbach, , Die Ergründung, 68, 26–27, 32Google Scholar.

44. The phrase “rediscovery of the human body” is from Mosse, George L., Nationalism and Sexuality: Middle Class Morality and Sexual Norms in Modern Europe (Madison, 1985), 48Google Scholar. For an interesting example of similar thinking that was influential in Germany see the discussion of Charlotte Perkins Gilman in Bederman, Gail, Manliness and Civilization: A Cultural History of Gender and Race in the United States, 1880–1917 (Chicago, 1995), chap. 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Gilman's Woman and Economics (1898) was translated into German in 1901 by Marie Stritt, later president of the BDF and a member of the governing board of the BfM. On discourses about the body in Germany in this period see, among many others, Canning, Kathleen, Languages of Labor and Gender: Female Factory Work in Germany, 1850–1914 (Ithaca, 1996), esp. 197–217Google Scholar; Garb, Tamar, Bodies of Modernity: Figure and Flesh in Fin-de-Siècle France (London, 1998)Google Scholar; the essays in Frauenkörper, ed. Kuhn and Geyer-Kordesch; Massin, Benoit, “From Virchow to Fischer: Physical Anthropology and ‘Modern Race Theories’ in Wilhelmine Germany,” in Volksgeist as Method and Ethic, ed. Stocking, George W. (Madison, 1996)Google Scholar; Sweeney, Dennis, “Work, Race and the Transformation of Industrial Culture in Wilhelmine Germany,” Social History 23 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The international literature is enormous; see particularly Birken, Lawrence, Consuming Desire (New York, 1991)Google Scholar; Budd, Michael Anton, The Sculpture Machine (New York, 1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dutton, Kenneth R., The Perfectible Body (London, 1995)Google Scholar; Featherstone, Mike, “The Body in Consumer Culture,” in The Body, ed. Featherstone, et al. (1991)Google Scholar; Griffen, Clyde, “Reconstructing Masculinity from the Evangelical Revival to the Waning of Progressivism,” in Meanings for Manhood, ed. Griffen, and Carnes, Mark (Chicago, 1990)Google Scholar; Robb, George, “The Way of All Flesh: Degeneration, Eugenics, and the Gospel of Free Love,” Journal of the History of Sexuality 6 (1996)Google ScholarPubMed; and of course Foucault, Michel, The History of Sexuality, vol. 1, An Introduction (New York, 1990)Google Scholar.

45. For a good short definition of monism see Ploetz, Alfred, “Die Begriffe Rasse und Gesellschaft und die davon abgeleiteten Disziplinen,” Archiv für Rassenhygiene und Gesellschaftsbiologie (hereinafter ARGB) 1 (1904): 2–3Google Scholar.

46. On Haeckel and Bölsche see Kelly, Alfred, The Descent of Darwin: The Popularization of Darwinism in Germany, 1860–1914 (Chapel Hill, 1981), 39–51Google Scholar; on Haeckel in particular Hawkins, Mike, Social Darwinism in European and American Thought, 1860–1945 (Cambridge, 1997), 132–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Weindling, Paul, Health, Race, and German Politics between National Unification and Nazism, 1870–1945 (Cambridge, 1989), 40–48Google Scholar; and Gasman, Daniel, The Scientific Origins of National Socialism (London, 1971)Google Scholar.

47. Bölsche, Wilhelm, Das Liebesleben in der Natur: Eine Entwickelungsgeschichte der Liebe, 3 vols (Leipzig, 1901–1903), 3:372, 373; 2:267; 1:32Google Scholar.

48. See Stöcker, Helene, “Monismus und Mutterschutz,” NG 8 (1912): 546–49Google Scholar and “Kongresse,” NG 9 (1913): 599Google Scholar.

49. There is a particularly clear statement of monist anti-Christianity in Schmidt, Heinrich, Monismus und Christentum (Brackwede, 1906)Google Scholar (Flugschriften des Deutschen Monistenbundes 2); see also Kelly, The Descent, esp. 22, 103, 110, 113.

50. On Stöcker, feminism, and Nietzsche see Evans, , Feminist Movement, 117Google Scholar; Schlüpmann, “Die Radikalisierung,” esp. 17–19; Aschheim, Steven E., The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany, 1890–1990 (Berkeley, 1992), esp. 85–92Google Scholar; and Thomas, R. Hinton, Nietzsche in German Politics and Society, 1890–1918 (Manchester, 1983), esp. 80–95Google Scholar. For Ellen Key's views on Nietzsche see Das Jahrhundert des Kindes (Berlin, 1911 [1902]), 22, 32, 36, 70.

51. Stöcker, Helene, “Die Ziele der Mutterschutzbewegung” (1905), in Die Liebe und die Frauen, 174–75Google Scholar.

52. Stöcker, “Die Ziele” (1905) and “Unsere Umwertung der Werte (1897), in Die Liebe und die Frauen, 174–75, 14–15Google Scholar.

53. “Was will der Deutsche Bund für Mutterschutz?” in Flugblätter des Bundes für Mutterschutz, 1 (1905), in BAK, NL 173 (Adele Schreiber) Nr. 29, fol. 30; Freudenberg, Ika, “Moderne Sittlichkeitsprobleme,” Frau 11 (1903): 68Google Scholar.

54. Helene Stöcker, “Die Ziele,” 180 and “Der Segen der Form,” MS 1 (1905): 134Google Scholar.

55. Thal, Max (Rosenthal), Mutterrecht: Frauenfrage und Weltanschauung (Breslau, 1903), 77, 79, 128Google Scholar.

56. Stöcker, Helene, “Die alte Ethik und die Verantwortlichkeit”, NG 4 (1908): 43Google Scholar.

57. Stéenhof, Frida/Gote, Harold, “Ehe- und Sexualreform,” NG 8 (1912): 415, 416, 418, 423, 414, 416Google Scholar.

58. Cited in Helene Stöcker, “Unsere dritte ordentliche Generalversammlung,” 226.

59. Lischnewska, Maria, “Die wirtschaftliche Reform der Ehe,” MS 2 (1906): 220Google Scholar.

60. See Evans, , Feminist Movement, 151, 71, 85, 87, 88Google Scholar.

61. Bäumer, “Die ‘neue Ethik’,” 711. Of course, many Christian theologians held that sexuality, as part of God's creation, was sacred. Even among very conservative Protestants, the tradition represented particularly by Schleiermacher supported more positive evaluations of sexuality and the body. Christian theologians nevertheless held that the idea that the body was essentially disorderly and amoral, and must be directed toward its proper purpose by the spirit. Particularly among those involved in the Christian “morality movement” (Sittlichkeitsbewegung), views of sexuality were less nuanced, and more negative. For a conservative Protestant view on the sanctity of sexuality, see von Rohden, Gustav, Ehe und freie Liebe: Ein Wort zum Individualismus in der Frauenfrage (Berlin, 1911), esp. 30, 31, 32, 34Google Scholar; for a Catholic view, Foerster, Friedrich Wilhelm, Sexualethik und Sexualpädagogik (Kempten, 1907), esp. 23–24, 25Google Scholar.

62. Minod, H., “Warum die Föderation die Prostitution als solche nicht für ein Vergehen im strafrechtlichen Sinne hält,” Abolitionist 4 (1905): 4, 5Google Scholar.

63. Stöcker, “Zur Reform,” 7; “Die sexuelle Frage und der Katholizismus,” NG 4 (1908): 229Google Scholar.

64. Key, Ellen, Liebe und Ethik (Berlin, 1905), 23Google Scholar.

65. For a brief discussion of Key's ideas see Hawkins, , Social Darwinism, 265–69Google Scholar.

66. Key, , Der Lebensglaube (Berlin, 1906), 291Google Scholar. Key's reasoning here was quite similar to Nietzsche's late aesthetic theory; see Bayertz, “Biology and Beauty,” 284.

67. Schreiber, Adele, “Der Bund für Mutterschutz und seine Gegner,” MS 3 (1907): 30Google Scholar; Rohleder, Hermann, “Neumalthusianismus (Schwangerschaftsverhütung) und Ärztestand”, NG 7 (1911): 545Google Scholar; Stöcker, Helene, “Vom IV. Neumalthusianerkongress in Dresden”, NG 7 (1911): 479Google Scholar; Baars, Ernst, Sexuelle Ethik (Berlin, 1908), 3Google Scholar.

68. Key, , Liebe und Ethik, 18, 19Google Scholar.

69. Borgius, Walter, “Mutterschutz und neue Ethik”, Flugblätter des Bundes für Mutterschutz Nr. 3, in BAK, NL 173 (Adele Schreiber), Nr. 29, fol. 31–32Google Scholar.

70. Stöcker, Helene, “Unsere dritte ordentliche Generalversammlung,” NG 7 (1911): 228Google Scholar; also in David, Eduard, “Bessere Sexualauslese,” NG 6 (1911): 307Google Scholar.

71. On Nietzsche's reception of eugenic thought, see Gayon, Jean, “Nietzsche and Darwin,” in Biology and the Foundation of Ethics, ed. Maienschein, Jane and Ruse, Michael (Cambridge, 1999), esp. 173–85Google Scholar.

72. Fürth, Henriette, “Das Geschlechtsproblem,” NG 3 (1907): 163Google Scholar.

73. Key, , Liebe und Ethik, 12Google Scholar.

74. Ibid., 33.

75. von Wiese, Leopold, “Soziologische Betrachtungen über das Wesen der Askese,” Archiv für Sexualforschung 1 (1915): 39Google Scholar.

76. Stöcker, “Zur Reform,” 10; “Von neuer Ethik,” MS 2 (1906): 5Google Scholar; and “Die Kultur der Liebe,” NG 9 (1913): 520Google Scholar; Bölsche, , Liebesleben 2:155Google Scholar.

77. Bleuler-Waser, Hedwig, “Zur Diskussion der Grundfragen,” MS 1 (1905): 279Google Scholar.

78. Baars, , Sexuelle Ethik, 7Google Scholar.

79. Schreiber, Adele, “Missbrauchte Mutterschaft,” in Mutterschaft, ed. Schreiber, , 215Google Scholar.

80. Fürth, , “Mutterschaft und Ehe,” MS 1 (1905): 268, 269Google Scholar.

81. Stöcker, “Unsere Umwertung,” 27.

82. Key, , Liebe und Ethik, 21, 40, 41Google Scholar; Über Liebe und Ehe (Berlin, 1911), 199.

83. Key, , Liebe und Ethik, 7Google Scholar and Über Liebe und Ehe, 53.

84. Meyer-Benfey, Heinrich, “Die neue Ethik und ihre Gegner,” NG 4 (1908): 167Google Scholar.

85. Schreiber, “Die Ansätze,” 168, 167.

86. Hirschfeld, Magnus, “Sexualwissenschaft als Grundlage der Sexualreform,” NG 8 (1912): 124Google Scholar; Fürth, “Das Geschlechtsproblem,” 164.

87. Stöcker, “Vom IV Neumalthusianerkongress,” 470.

88. Stöcker, “Unsere dritte ordentliche Generalversammlung,” 228; also in David, “Bessere Sexualauslese,” 299, 301.

89. See Key, , Über Liebe und Ehe, 152, 162, 168–69, 219–20, 246–47, 407, 451, 25Google Scholar.

90. Lischnewska, “Die wirtschaftliche Reform,” 233.

91. Stöcker, Helene, “Der Internationale Neumalthusianer-Kongress im Haag,” NG 6 (1910): 416Google Scholar. Opinion among the sex reformers was not unanimous regarding contraception; Lily Braun, for example, feared that it would encourage “frivolous relationships” and “cheat the state and humanity of the best, most fit, most vital” children. Braun, Lily, “Die Mutterschaftsversicherung” MS 2 (1906): 120Google Scholar.

92. Stöcker, , “Politische Reaktion und Geschlechtsleben,” NG 7 (1911): 95Google Scholar.

93. Lissauer, Margarete, “Untreue bei Mann und Frau,” NG 5 (1909): 484Google Scholar.

94. Stöcker, “Staatlicher Gebärzwang,” 139. For arguments in favor of legalized abortion, see particularly Stöcker, , “Strafrechtsreform und Abtreibung,” NG 4 (1908)Google Scholar and Hiller, Kurt, “Die Strafwürdigkeit der Abtreibung,” NG 5 (1909)Google Scholar; the debate is described best in Wobbe, , Gleichheit, 138–78Google Scholar. For particularly striking arguments in favor of the free availability of contraception and contraceptive knowledge, see Rutgers, J., “Rassenverbesserung,” NG 8 (1912), esp. 488–91Google Scholar; Stritt, Marie, “Frauenbewegung und Neumalthusianismus,” NG 6 (1910)Google Scholar.

95. See Bebel, August, Woman Under Socialism, ed. Leon, Daniel de (New York, 1904/1971)Google Scholar.

96. Ploetz, A., “Bund für Mutterschutz,” ARGB 2 (1905): 317Google Scholar.

97. Peukert, Detlev J. K., “The Genesis of the ‘Final Solution’ from the Spirit of Science,” in Nazism and German Society, 1933–1945, ed. Crew, David F. (New York, 1994), esp. 282Google Scholar.

98. Key, , Lebensglaube, 329, 340, 341Google Scholar. Key had already made similar suggestions in 1900, in The Century of the Child, arguing that criminals and those with hereditary diseases should not be allowed to procreate, that couples should receive a medical certificate of fitness for marriage, and that “In our society … respect for life is not yet so great that we may allow the extinguishing of the life” of deformed or incurably ill children. Das Jahrhundert des Kindes (Berlin, 1911), 43 (quotation), 56, 69.

99. Allen, “German Radical Feminists,” 44, 45, 46. See also Allen, , Feminism and Motherhood, 202Google Scholar.

100. Allen, “Feminism and Motherhood,” 125, 124.

101. Richard J. Evans, “In Search of German Social Darwinism,” 137, 140 n. 28. Evans was writing here specifically of “selectionist” social Darwinism; but it is clear that he viewed the ideas of the feminist sex reformers (again, after 1908) as part of this language.

102. See for example Schirmacher, Käthe, “Frauenachtung,” MS 1 (1905): 350Google Scholar. On Schirmacher see Walzer, Anke, Käthe Schirmacher (Pfaffenweiler, 1991), esp. 55–77Google Scholar.

103. “‘Richtlinien’ des Deutschen Bundes für Mutterschutz,” NG 18 (1922): 387Google Scholar. On pacifism in the DMB, see Hübinger, “Die monistische Bewegung,” 258.

104. See Grossmann, , Reforming Sex, esp. 153, 161, 164–65Google Scholar. On Rosenthal see Wickert, , Helene Stöcker, 190–91Google Scholar.

105. Foucault, Michel, The History of Sexuality, vol. 1, An Introduction, trans. Hurley, Robert (New York, 1990), 100–2Google Scholar.

106. Hawkins, , Social Darwinism, 141Google Scholar. For a similarly skeptical view of Haeckel see Sandmann, Jürgen, Der Bruch mit der humanitären Tradition: Die Biologisierung der Ethik bei Ernst Haeckel und anderen Darwinisten seiner Zeit (Stuttgart, 1990)Google Scholar.

107. Zimmermann, Susan, “Weibliches Selbstbestimmungsrecht und auf ‘Qualität’ abzielende Bevölkerungspolitik,” Beiträge zur feministischen Theorie und Praxis 21/22 (1988), esp. 57, 62, 66, 67Google Scholar.

108. Schwartz, , Sozialistische Eugenik, 68–69Google Scholar; Epple, Angelika, Henriette Fürth und die Frauenbewegung im deutschen Kaiserreich (Pfaffenwiler, 1996), esp. 142–60Google Scholar. Fürth herself came from an upper middle-class family.

109. Evans, , Feminist Movement, 274Google Scholar.

110. Bock, Gisela, “Equality and Difference in National Socialist Racism,” in Feminism and History, ed. Scott, Joan Wallach (Oxford, 1996 [orig. 1992]), 286Google Scholar.

111. On Scandinavia see Broberg and Roll-Hansen, eds., Eugenics and the Welfare State; on the USA, see — among many others Reilly, Philip, The Surgical Solution: A History of Involuntary Sterilization in the United States (Baltimore, 1991)Google Scholar; Kühl, Stefan, The Nazi Connection: Eugenics, American Racism, and German National Socialism (New York, 1994)Google Scholar. For a decidedly darker vision of the place of evolutionary thought in feminism, see Newman, Louise Michelle, White Women's Rights: The Racial Origins of Feminism in the United States (New York, 1999)Google Scholar.

112. Grossmann, , Reforming Sex, viiGoogle Scholar.

113. Geoff Eley, “Introduction 1”; Quataert, Jean, “Introduction 2,” in Society, Culture, and the State in Germany, 1870–1930, ed. Eley, Geoff (Ann Arbor, 1996), 14, 103Google Scholar.

114. Evans, “In Search,” 130, 138.

115. Peukert, Detlev J. K., Grenzen der Sozialdisziplinierung: Aufstieg und Krise der deutschen Jugendfürsorge, 1878–1932 (Cologne, 1986), 21, 294, 309Google Scholar.