Christina Schnyer Document Analysis
Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl, author of the 1852 book Die Familie [The Family], focuses his discussion on what he believes to be the degradation of women in society, calling them back to the conservative lifestyle filled with marriage and motherhood that he says should be their norm (1). Contrasting these views, Louise Otto wrote in an 1849 newspaper called Frauen-Zeitung [Women’s Newspaper] where she principally published a call to action for all women saying, “… join with me so that we shall not be left behind,” (1). Otto does not, surprisingly, say this in the hopes for women to become individually independent. Explicitly, Otto clarifies, “But we also want to earn our share by not striving individually, each one for herself, but rather each for all…” (2). Furthermore, she states that part of spreading this message of independence occurs through child-rearing; she is not promoting abandoning the nuclear family to gain individual freedom (2). So, as dissimilar as their political bent may have been, Riehl’s conservative dreams and Otto’s liberal desires do share the common focus on upholding the importance of women in the family. However, this conversation created by Otto and Riehl was not limited to women. Otto talked with men in Saxony, asking them to consider women when they seek out labor (1). The women want to work in whatever way they can, earning money for their family, so Otto needed to encourage men to further open up the workplace to women. She did not consider working degrading, but the complete independence seen in an “emancipated woman” as undignified (2). Otto qualifies an emancipated woman as a female who takes on the characteristics of a man (2). She put complete control of these decisions to act degradingly or be forgotten in the hands of women. Riehl greatly agreed with the argument of the corruption of women, saying that women were “unshackling [their] manners and habits” by spending time in beer taverns, wearing men’s’ clothes, and smoking a cigar (1). In a different way though, Riehl put the blame of this degradation of women on men, too. He said this was also due to their own selfishness, claiming that it helped to further displace women within society, causing both genders to being questioning their placement, loyalties, and responsibilities personally and socially (2). Riehl’s Die Familie was part of a bigger, 4-part book called Die Naturgeschichte des Volkes als Grundlage einer deutschen Social-Politik (Natural History of the People as a Basis for a German Social Politics, 1851–69). By the title alone, that …show more content…
He points to one woman, Louise Aston, as proof to his claims (1, 2). From there, Riehl creates generalizations on how both men and women are reacting to the widespread introduction of hyper-femininity, writing that men and women are “becoming socially derailed” due to “the same sort of self-indulgence,” (1). Riehl says that this self-serving behavior triggered marriages to be put off or even split up, causing women to act like men and “also making men womanish” (1). He feared that if these basic social duties weren’t kept up, it could have grave consequences deeper within society. Riehl saw marriage and large families as, “the surest emblems of excellent management,” (3). If you can’t manage the basic aspects of society, Riehl implies, you can’t manage
Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl, author of the 1852 book Die Familie [The Family], focuses his discussion on what he believes to be the degradation of women in society, calling them back to the conservative lifestyle filled with marriage and motherhood that he says should be their norm (1). Contrasting these views, Louise Otto wrote in an 1849 newspaper called Frauen-Zeitung [Women’s Newspaper] where she principally published a call to action for all women saying, “… join with me so that we shall not be left behind,” (1). Otto does not, surprisingly, say this in the hopes for women to become individually independent. Explicitly, Otto clarifies, “But we also want to earn our share by not striving individually, each one for herself, but rather each for all…” (2). Furthermore, she states that part of spreading this message of independence occurs through child-rearing; she is not promoting abandoning the nuclear family to gain individual freedom (2). So, as dissimilar as their political bent may have been, Riehl’s conservative dreams and Otto’s liberal desires do share the common focus on upholding the importance of women in the family. However, this conversation created by Otto and Riehl was not limited to women. Otto talked with men in Saxony, asking them to consider women when they seek out labor (1). The women want to work in whatever way they can, earning money for their family, so Otto needed to encourage men to further open up the workplace to women. She did not consider working degrading, but the complete independence seen in an “emancipated woman” as undignified (2). Otto qualifies an emancipated woman as a female who takes on the characteristics of a man (2). She put complete control of these decisions to act degradingly or be forgotten in the hands of women. Riehl greatly agreed with the argument of the corruption of women, saying that women were “unshackling [their] manners and habits” by spending time in beer taverns, wearing men’s’ clothes, and smoking a cigar (1). In a different way though, Riehl put the blame of this degradation of women on men, too. He said this was also due to their own selfishness, claiming that it helped to further displace women within society, causing both genders to being questioning their placement, loyalties, and responsibilities personally and socially (2). Riehl’s Die Familie was part of a bigger, 4-part book called Die Naturgeschichte des Volkes als Grundlage einer deutschen Social-Politik (Natural History of the People as a Basis for a German Social Politics, 1851–69). By the title alone, that …show more content…
He points to one woman, Louise Aston, as proof to his claims (1, 2). From there, Riehl creates generalizations on how both men and women are reacting to the widespread introduction of hyper-femininity, writing that men and women are “becoming socially derailed” due to “the same sort of self-indulgence,” (1). Riehl says that this self-serving behavior triggered marriages to be put off or even split up, causing women to act like men and “also making men womanish” (1). He feared that if these basic social duties weren’t kept up, it could have grave consequences deeper within society. Riehl saw marriage and large families as, “the surest emblems of excellent management,” (3). If you can’t manage the basic aspects of society, Riehl implies, you can’t manage