We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 February 2009
The paper centers on the question of how widespread was the impact of the lively discussion of housing and household reform during the Weimar Republic. Therefore the focus is on the experiences of working-class women. Against the background of material conditions in proletarian households, it analyzes which norms and standards concretely shaped working women's everyday housework in the urban working-class milieu in the 1920s, and how these norms and standards arose. The paper demonstrates the substantial reservations and resistance with which even better-off working women approached all efforts at rationalizing their housework in the 1920s. They wanted better living conditions and new household appliances, but the vast majority could not afford both. The specific norms and standards against which a “good” housewife was measured, norms and standards which corresponded more to the “old” model of the “economical, clean and tidy” housewife, also blocked acceptance, however.
1 “Rationalisierung des Arbeiterhaushalts”, Hamburger Echo (hereafter HE), 76, 17 March 1929.
2 Cf. e.g. “Rationalisierter Einzelhaushalt oder GroBhaushalt”, Die Genossin (hereafter Ge.), 4 (April 1927), pp. 127ff.; “Neue Hauswirtschaft”, Gewerkschaftliche Frauenzeitung (hereafter GF), 5 (May 1929), p. 40.
3 For more detail, see Hagemann, Karen, Frauenalhag und MUnnerpolitik. Alltagsleben und gesellschaftliches Handeln von Arbeiterfrauen in der Weimarer Republik (Bonn, 1990), pp. 106–114Google Scholar. On the Social Democratic women's movement in the Weimar Republic more generally, seeibid., pp. 509–638; , Hagemann, ‘“Equal but not the same’: The Social Democratic Women's Movement in the Weimar Republic”, in Fletcher, Roger (ed.), Bernstein to Brandt: A Short History of German Social Democracy (London, 1987), pp. 133–143Google Scholar, and “Men's Demonstrations and Women's Protest: Gender in Collective Action in the Urban Working-Class Milieu during the Weimar Republic”, Gender and History, 5 (1993), pp. 101–119; and “La ‘question des femmes’ et les rapport masculinteminin dans la social-democratie allemande sous la Republique Weimar”, Le Mouvement Social 163 (April-June 1993), pp. 25–44; Pore, Renate, A Conflict of Interest: Women in German Social Democracy (Westport, 1981)Google Scholar; Thònnessen, Werner, The Emancipation of Women: Tlie Rise and Decline of the Women's Movement in German Social Democracy 1863–1933 (London, 1973)Google Scholar.
4 Cf. e.g. Nolan, Mary, ‘“Housework Made Easy’: The Taylorized Housewife in Weimar Germany's Rationalized Economy”, Feminist Studies 16 (1990), pp. 549–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Orland, Barbara, “Emanzipation durch Rationalisierung? Der ‘rationelle Haushalt’ als Konzept institutionalisierter Frauenpolitik in der Weimarer Republik”, in Dagmar Reese etal., Rationale Beziehungen? Geschlechtenerhaltnisse im Rationalisieningsprozefi (Frankfurt a. Main, 1993), pp. 222–250Google Scholar and “Effiziens im Heim: Die Rationalisierungsdebatte zur Reform der Hausarbeit in der Weimarer Republik”, Kultur und Technik 7, (1983), 4, pp. 221–227; Sachse, Carola, “AnfSnge der Rationalisierung der Hausarbeit in der Weimarer Republik”, in Orland, Barbara (ed.), Haushalts Traume: Ein Jahrhundert Technisierung und Rationalisierung im Haushalt, published by the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Hauswirtschaft e.v. and Stiftung Verbraucherinstitut (Königstein i. Taunus, 1990), pp. 49–61Google Scholar; Schmidt-Waldherr, Hiltraud, “Rationalisierung der Hausarbeit in den zwanziger Jahren”, in Tornieporth, Gerda (ed.), Arbeitsplatz Haushalt. Zur Theorie und Okologie der Hausarbeit (Berlin, 1988), pp. 32–54Google Scholar. On the middle-class women's movement, see Bridenthal, Renate, “‘Professional’ Housewives: Stepsisters of the Women's Movement”, in Renate Bridenthal et al When Biology Became Destiny: Women in Weimar and Nazi Germany (New York, 1984), pp. 153–173Google Scholar and “Class Struggle Around the Hearth: Women and Domestic Service in the Weimar Republic”, in Dobowski, Michael and Wallisman, Isidor (eds). Towards the Holocaust: Anti-Semitism and Fascism in Weimar Germany (Westport, CT, 1983), pp. 243–264Google Scholar; Schmidt-Waldherr, Hiltraud, Emanzipation durch Professionalisierung: Politische Stra tegien und Konflikte der btirgerlichen Frauenbewegung wahrend der Weimarer Republik und die Reaktion des btirgerlichen Antifeminismus und des Nationalsozialismus (Frankfurta. Main, 1987), pp. 176–187Google Scholar. On the German middle-class women's movement more generally, see for example Evans, Richard J., The Feminist Movement in Germany, 1894–1933 (Beverly Hills, 1976)Google Scholar; Frevert, Ute, Women in German History: From Bourgeois Emancipation to Sexual Liberation (Oxford, 1989), pp. 168–204Google Scholar; Greven-Aschoff, Barbara, Die btirgerliche Frauenbewegung in Deutschland 1894–1933 (Gdttingen, 1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5 The best-known American figures were Christine Frederick and Lilian M. Gilbreth, whose writings were widely read in Germany as well. See Frederick, Christine, Die rationelle Haushaltsftihrung: Betriebswissenschaftliche Studien (Berlin, 1921)Google Scholar;Gilbreth, Lilian M., Heim und Arbeit: Die Lebensaufgabe der modernen Hausfrau (Stuttgart, 1930)Google Scholar. For the USA, see:Bock, Gisela and Duden, Barbara, “Arbeit aus Liebe – Liebe als Arbeit: Zur Entstehung der Hausarbeit im Kapitalismus”, Frauen und Wissenschaft. Beitra'ge zur Berliner Sommeruniversitdt fur Frauen, Juli 1976 (Berlin, 1977), pp. 118–199Google Scholar; Cowan, Ruth Schwartz, More Work for Mothers: The Ironies of Household Technology from the Open Hearth to the Microwave (New York, 1983), pp. 151–192Google Scholar. A general overview of the American discourse about domesticity is given by Matthews, Glenna, Just a Housewife. The Rise and Fall of Domesticity in the United States (Oxford and New York, 1987)Google Scholar. For the development of household and family life and the importance of differences by class and race, see Mintz, Steven and Kellog, Susan, Domestic Revolutions: A Social History of American Family Life (New York, 1988)Google Scholar. For an overview of the international dimensions of the household rationalization movement, which, however, concentrates on house-hold technology, see Giedion, Sigfried, Mechanization Takes Command (New York, 1948)Google Scholar.
6 For the general appeal of rationalization, see Maier, Charles, “Between Taylorism and Technocracy: European Ideologies and the Vision of Industrial Productivity in the 1920s”, Journal of Contemporary History, 8 (04 1970), pp. 27–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nolan, Mary, Visions of Modernity. American Business and the Modernization of Germany (New York and Oxford, 1993)Google Scholar.
7 The most famous German propagandists for household rationalization were the architect Bruno Taut, with his Die neue Wohnung (New Housing), first published in 1924, and the home economist Erna Meyer, whose book Der neue Haushalt (The New Household) was to become the most important work of the German rationalization movement, going through thirty-seven editions in the three years after its first appearance in 1926. See Meyer, Erna, Der neue Haushalt: Ein Wegweiser zur wirtschaftlichen Haushaltsftihrung (Stuttgart, 1926)Google Scholar; substantially augmented and revised edition (Stuttgart, 1929); Taut, Bruno, Die neue Wohnung: Die Frau als Schopferin (Leipzig, 1924)Google Scholar. On the objectives of the German movement for household rationalization, see the literature in notes 3 and 4; on the model of the housewife more generally, see Weismann, Anabella, Froh erftille Deine Pflicht: Die Entwicklung des Hausfrauenleitbildes im Spiegel trivaler Massenmedien in der Zeit zwischen Reichsgrtindung und Weltwirtschaftskrise (Berlin, 1988)Google Scholar.
8 Meyer, Erna (ed.). Neuzeitliche Hauswirtschaftslehre. Handbuch zum Attsbau des hauswirtschaftlichen Unterrichts (Stuttgart, 1928, 3rd ed.), p. 5Google Scholar.
9 SeeBaum, Marie, Familienfilrsorge (Karlsruhe, 1927)Google Scholar and “Die Familie in Sozial- und Fiirsorgepolitik der Gegenwart”, Soziale Praxis (hereafter SP), 27 (1932), cols 828ff.; Zahn, Friedrich, “Familienpolitik”, SP, 45 (1927), cols 1116ff.; Hagemann, Frauenalltag, pp. 99ffGoogle Scholar.
10 Kraus, Hertha, “Wohnungsnot und Wohnungsreform”, lecture given at the SPD National Women's Conference in Kiel, inSozialdemokratischer Parteitag 1927 in Kiel. Protokoll mit dem Bericht v. d. Frauenkonferenz, (Kiel, 1927; rpt Glashiitten i. Taunus, 1974), pp. 345–355Google Scholar; see also pp. 355–369. For a detailed account of the development of Social Democratic positions on housing and household reform since the turn of the century, and of the controversies involved, see Hagemann, Frauenalltag, esp. pp. 106–114. Until now the literature has not produced a thorough analysis. Mary Nolan's essay “Housework Made Easy” (see note 4) also pays only scant attention to the subject.
11 See, Nolan, “Housework” Heinz Hirdina, “Rationalisierte Hausarbeit: Die Kilche im Neuen Bauen”, Jahrbuch fiir Volkskunde und Kulturgeschichte, 26 (new series, vol. 11) (1988), pp. 44–80Google Scholar; Saldern, Adelheid v., “‘Statt Kathedralen die Wohnmaschine’: Paradoxien der Rationalisierung im Kontext der Moderne”, in Bajohr, Frank, Johe, Werner and Lohalm, Uwe (eds),Zivilisation und Barbarei (Hamburg, 1991), pp. 168–192Google Scholar; “Sozialdemokratie und kommunale Wohnungsbaupolitik in den 20er Jahren – am Beispiel von Hamburg und Wien”, Archiv filr Sozialgeschichte (hereafter AfS), 25 (1985), pp. 183–237, and “Neues Wohnen: WohnverhSItnisse und Wohnverhalten in Groβanlagen der der Jahre”, in Schildt, Axel and Sywottek, Arnold (eds),Massenwohnung und Eigenheim. Wohnungsbau und Wohnen in der Grofistadt seit dem Ersten Weltkrieg (Frankfurt a. Main and New York, 1988), pp. 201–221Google Scholar.
12 On the extensive literature, see notes 4–7.
13 See Hagemann, Frauenalltag, pp. 114–132 and 204–219.
14 I define as working women (Arbeiterfrauen) all women of the working class because of their fundamental dual responsibility for house and family on the one hand and paid labor on the other.
15 On the history of everyday housework, see also Martin Soder, Hausarbeit und Stammtischsozialismus: Arbeiterfamilie undAUtag im Deutschen Kaiserreich (Gieβen, 1980), pp. 31ff.; and, most recently, Kuhn, Barbel, Haus Frauen Arbeit 1915–1965: Erinnerungen aus filnfzig Jahren Haushaltsgeschichte (St Ingbert, 1994)Google Scholar. For revealing contemporary literature see Leichter, Kathe, So leben wir[…] 1320 Industriearbeiterinnen berichten über ihr Leben (Vienna, 1932)Google Scholar; Mem Arbeitstag – mein Wochenend: 150 Berichte von Textilarbeiterinnen, ed.Deutschen Textilarbeiterverband (Berlin, 1930) (reprint, ed. Alf Liidtke, Hamburg, 1991).
16 See Hagemann, Frauenalltag, pp. 13ff.
17 Ibid., pp. 109ff. and 594ff. In 1929, the women's organization of the Hamburg SPD even founded their own housewives’ organization, in cooperation with the local branch of the “Arbeiterwohlfahrt” and the local consumer cooperative. The “Hauswirtschaftlichen Vereinigung”, as it was called, was intended to represent the “interests of the housewives of the. working population”. This organization, the first of its kind in Germany, was devoted, among other things, to educating “proletarian housewives” about the possibilities for “rationalizing the individual household”. Seeibid., pp. 136ff.
18 Ibid., pp. 114–132 and 204–219; Hagemann, Karen and Kolossa, Jan, Gleiche RechteGleiche Pflichten? Der Frauenkampf fiir “staatsbilrgerliche” Gleichberechtigung, Hamburg: Ein Bilder-Lese-Buch zu Frauenalltag und Frauenbewegung in Hamburg (Hamburg, 1990), pp. 76–98Google Scholar.
19 Miriam A. Glucksmann, Elizabeth Roberts and Ellen Ross, who have studied, with different approaches and questions, the everyday work of British working-class mothers and housewives, also used autobiographical sources and oral history. See Glucksmann, Miriam A., “Some Do, Some Don't (But in Fact They All Do Really); Some Will, Some Won't; Some Have, Some Haven't: Women, Men, Work, and Washing Machines in Inter-War Britain”, Gender and History, 7 (08 1995), pp. 275–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Roberts, Elizabeth, A Woman's Place. An Oral History of Working-Class Women 1890–1940 (Oxford and New York, 1984)Google Scholar; Ross, Ellen, Love and Toil. Motherhood in Outcast London 1870–1918 (Oxford and New York, 1993)Google Scholar. For their analysis of housework in the British working-class milieu, see Roberts, A Woman's Place, pp. 125–168; Ross, Love and Toil, pp. 27–54. Ellen Ross's study, in particular, contains a large bibliography for a comparison of working-class living conditions and everyday housework, which could not be cited here, see pp. 234–243.
20 See Hagemann, Frauenalltag, and “Wir hatten mehr Notjahre als reichliche Jahre […]: Lebenshaltung und Hausarbeit Hamburger Arbeiterfamilien in der Weimarer Republik”, in Tenfelde, Klaus (ed.), Arbeiter im 20. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart, 1991), pp. 200–240Google Scholar, and “4Wir werden alt vom Arbeiten': Die soziale Situation alternder Arbeiterfrauen in der Weimarer Republik am Beispiel Hamburgs”, AfS, XXX (1990), pp. 247–296, and “Changer Chaque Jour de Travail: L'Emploi des Ouvrieres de Hambourg Dans les Anndes Vingt”, Bulletin Centre Pierre Lion d'histoire e”conomique et sociale, 2–3 (1994), pp. 23–35.
21 These women were chosen with the help of an extensive biographical questionnaire to cover the broadest possible range of life patterns and experience. I began with open biographical interviews. After analyzing the results, I conducted structured interviews with some of the women, and twenty-seven particularly rich interviews were transcribed as literally as possible into standard German. On methodological approaches and problems see Hagemann, Frauenalltag, pp. 20ff., and “ ”Ich glaub' nicht, daβ ich Wichtiges zu erzahlen hab” […]: Oral History und historische Frauenforschung”, in VorlSnder, Herwart (ed.). Oral History. Milndlich Geschichte. Acht BeitrSge (Gattingen, 1990), pp. 29–48Google Scholar; Gluck, Sherna Berger and Patai, Daphne (eds), Women's Words: Tfie Feminist Practice of Oral History (New York and London, 1991)Google Scholar.
22 Interviews with Agne s A., Hamburg, June 1981 and March 1984. Al l subsequent information on the H. family comes from these interviews and the ten-page biographical questionnaire that Agnes A. filled out in March 1981.
23 See Hagemann, “Notjahre”.
24 See. Martens-Edelmann, Agnes, Die Zusammensetzung des Familieneinkommens (Eberswalde, 1931)Google Scholar; Hagemann, “Notjahre”.
25 The birth-rate, i.e. the number of live births per 1,000 population sank on an average in Hamburg from 29 in 1900 to 11 in 1933. Of all working-class couples at this time, 29 percent had one child, 20 percent two, 10 percent three and 12 per cent more than three children, 20 per cent were childless. For more detail see Hagemann, Frauenalltag, pp. 196–204; for the general development in Germany, see Knodel, John E., The Decline of Fertility in Germany, 1871–1939 (Princeton, 1974)Google Scholar; on population policy and the movement for birth control and abortion rights in Germany, see Hagemann, Karen (ed.), Eine Frauensache: Alltagsleben und Geburtenpolitik (Pfaffenweiler, 1991)Google Scholar; Bergmann, Anna, Die verhiitete Sexualita't. Die Anfa'nge der modernen Geburtenkontrolle (Hamburg, 1992)Google Scholar; Usborne, Cornelie, The Politics of the Body in Weimar Germany: Women's Reproductive Rights and Duties (London, 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Grossmann, Atina, “The New Woman and the Rationalization of Sexuality in Weimar Germany”, in Ann Snitow et ah. Powers of Desire. The Politics of Sexuality (London, 1984), pp. 190–211Google Scholar, and Reforming Sex: The German Movement for Birth Control and Abortion Rights, 1920 to 1950 (New York and Oxford, 1995); Neumann, Robert P., “The Sexual Question and Social Democracy in Imperial Germany”, Journal of Social History, 7 (1974), pp. 271–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
26 SeeHagemann, Karen, “Ausbildung fur die ‘weibliche Doppelrolle’: Berufswiinsche, Berufswahl und Berufschancen von VolksschUlerinnen in der Weimarer Republik”, in Hausen, Karin (ed.), Geschlechterhierarchie und Arbeitsteilung. Zur Geschichte ungleicher Enverbschancen von Manner und Frauen (Gottingen, 1993), pp. 214–236Google Scholar.
27 On approaches to Alltagsgeschichte (the history of everyday life), see Ludtke, Alf (ed.), Alltagsgeschichte. Zur Rekonstruktion historischer Erfahrungen und Lebensweisen (Frankfurt a. Main and New York, 1989)Google Scholar, esp. Dorothee Wierling, “Alltagsgeschichte und Geschichte der Geschlechterbeziehungen: Uber historische und historiographische Verhaltnisse”, pp. 169–190; Crew, David, “Alltagsgeschichte: A New Social History 'From Below'?”, Central European History (hereafter CEH), 22 (1989), pp. 394–407Google Scholar; Geoff, Eley, “Labor History, Social History, Alltagsgeschichte: Experience, Culture, and the Politics of Everyday – A New Direction for German Social History?”, Journal of Modern History, 2 (1989), pp. 297–343Google Scholar. On the methodological problems of approaches using experience in the wake of the “linguistic turn” taken by feminist history see, most recently, Kathleen Canning, “Feminist History After the Linguistic Turn: Historicizing Discourse and Experience”; SIGNS, 19 (1994), pp. 368–404, esp. 368–384.
28 See Hagemann, Frauenalltag pp. 51–89, esp. 70ff.; o n architecture, housing conditions and housing policy in the Weimar Republic more generally, see Buddensieg, Tilmann (ed.), Berlin 1900–1933: Architecture and Design (New York and Berlin, 1987)Google Scholar; Lane, Barbara Miller, Architecture and Politics in Germany, 1918–1945 (Cambridge, 1968)Google Scholar; Schildt and Sywottek, Massenwohnung, pp. 127–287; Herlyn, Ulfert, Saldern, Adelheid v. and Tessine, Wulf (eds), Neubausiedlungen der 20er und 60er Jahre: Ein historisch-soziologischer Vergleich (Frankfurt a. Main and New York, 1987)Google Scholar;Ruck, Michael, “Der Wohnungsbau -Schnittpunkt von Sozial- und Wirtschaftspolitik: Probleme der offentlichen Wohnungpolitik in der Hauszinssteuersra (1924/25–1930/31)”, in Abelshauser, Werner (ed.) Die Weimarer Republik als Wohlfahrtsstaat: Zum Verhaltnis von Wirtschafts- und Sozialpolitik in der Industriegesellschaft (Stuttgart, 1987), pp. 91–123Google Scholar; Witt, Peter-Christian, “Inflation, Wohnungszwangswirtschaft und Hauszinssteuer: Zur Regelung von Wohnungsbau und Wohnungsmarkt in der Weimarer Republik”, in Niethammer, Lutz (ed.), Wohnen im Wandel: BeitrSge zur Geschichte des Alltags in der bUrgerlichen Gesellschaft (Wuppertal, 1979), pp. 385–407Google Scholar; , Saldern, Sozialdentokratie, and “The Workers' Movement and Cultural Patterns o n Urban Housing Estates and in Rural Settlements in Germany and Austria during the 1920s”, Social History, 15 (1990), pp. 346ff.Google Scholar; Silvermann, D.P., “A Pledge Unredeemed: The Housing Crisis in Weimar Germany”, CEH, 3 (1970), pp. 112–139Google Scholar.
29 On the development of household technology in Germany, see Hausen, Karin, “Groβe Wasche. Technischer Fortschritt und sozialer Wandel in Deutschland vom 18. bis 20. Jahrhundert”, Geschichte und Gesellschaft (hereafter GG), 13 (1987), pp. 273–303Google Scholar, esp. pp. 290ff.; , Orland, Haushalts Träume, and Wasche waschen: Technik- und Sozialgeschichte der hauslichen Waschepflege (Reinbek b.Hamburg, 1991)Google Scholar; Meyer, Sybille and Orland, Barbara, “Technik im Alltag des Haushalts und Wohnens”, in Troitzsch, Ulrich and Weber, Wolfhard (eds), Die Technik: Von den Anfdngen bis zur Gegenwart (Braunschweig, 1982), pp. 564–583Google Scholar; Herrad U. Bussemer etal., “Zur technischen Entwicklung von Haushaltsgeraten”, in Tornieporth, Arbeitsplatz, pp. 116–127.
30 In 1932, for example, only 2,700 electric stoves had been installed in all of Hamburg. See HEW. Strom filr Hamburg – gestern, heute, morgen (Hamburg, 1982), p. 28. See Frauke Langguth, “Elekrizitat in jedem Gerat – Elektrifizierung der privaten Haushalte am Beispiel Berlins”, in Orland, Haushalts TrSume, pp. 93–102.
31 Hagemann, Frauenalltag, pp. 73ff.
31 Niemcyer, Annemarie, Zur Struktur der Familie: Statistische Materialien (Berlin, 1931), pp. 111Google Scholar and 115.
33 See Hagemann, Frauenalltag, p. 28. On the development of women's employment in Germany more generally, see also ibid., pp. 353–465; Bridenthal, Renate, “Beyond Kinder, Kiiche, Kirche. Weimar Women at Work”, CEH, 6 (1973), pp. 148–166Google Scholar; Bajohr, Stefan, Die Halfte der Fabrik. Geschichte der Frauenarbeit in Deutschland 1914–1945 (Marburg, 1979)Google Scholar; Franzoi, Barbara, At the Very Last She Pays the Rent: Women and German Industrialization, 1871–1914 (Westport, CT, 1985)Google Scholar; Hausen, Karin, “Unemployment Also Hits Women: The New and the Old Woman on the Dark Side of the Golden Twenties in Germany”, in Stachura, Peter D (ed.), Unemployment and the Great Depression in Weimar Germany (London, 1986), pp. 273–303Google Scholar; Rouette, Susanne, Sozialpolitik als Geschlechterpolitik. Die Regulierung der Frauenarbeit nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg (Frankfurta. Main and New York, 1993)Google Scholar; Annemarie Tröger, “The Creation of a Female Assembly-Line Proletariat”, in Bridenthal et al, Biology, pp. 237–270.
35 See Meyer and Orland, Technik, pp. 564–583; Michael Wildt, “Das Ende der Bescheidenheit. Wirtschaftsrechnungen von Arbeiternehmerhaushalten in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1950–1963”, in Tenfelde, Arbeiter, pp. 573–610, esp. pp. 601ff.
36 Agnes A., March 1984. All subsequent quotations are also taken from this interview.
37 See Baum, Marie and Westerkamp, Alix, Rythmus des Familienlebens: Das von der Familie taglich zu leistende Arbeitspensum (Berlin, 1931), pp. 99ffGoogle Scholar.
38 SeeTeuteberg, Hans-Jürgen, “Der Verzehr von Nahrungsmitteln pro Kopf und Jahr seit Beginn der Industrialisierung (1850–1975): Versuch einer quantitativen Langzeitanalyse”, AfS, XIX (1979), pp. 331–388, esp. 344–384Google Scholar.
39 On the development of nutritional science, see Hans-Heinz Eulner, “Die Lehre von der Emäahrung im Universitätsunterricht”, in Edith Heischkel-Artelt (ed.), Emährung und Ernahrungslehre im 19. Jahrhundert. Vorträge eines Symposiums am 5. u. 6. Januar 1973 in Frankfurt a.M. (Gottingen, 1973), pp. 76–98; Hans Jürgen Teuteberg and GUnter Wiegelmann, Der Wandel der Nahrungsgewohnheiten unter dem Einflufi der Industrials siening (Gòttingen, 1972), and Unsere tiigliche Kost: Geschichte und regionale Prdgung (Münster, 1986), pp. 63–281, 310–334 and 345–370.
40 See Hagemann, “Notjahre”.
41 See the instructions for washing in Meyer, Hauswirtschaftslehre, pp. 143ff.
42 See ibid., pp. 141ff.
43 For the importance of the women's network in the British working-class milieu, see Roberts, A Woman's Place, pp. 183–192; Ross, Ellen, “Survival Networks: Womens's Neighbourhood Sharing in London before World War I”, History Workshop 15 (Spring 1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
44 See Barth, Margret and Niemeyer, Annemarie, Über die häausliche Hilfeleistung von Kindern (Berlin, 1932), esp. pp. 9–35Google Scholar.
45 See Frevert, Ute, “The Civilizing Tendency of Hygiene: Working-Class Women under Medical Control im Imperial Germany”, in Fout, John (ed.), German Women in the Nineteenth Century: A Social History (New York and London, 1984), pp. 320–344Google Scholar.
46 For what follows as well see Hagemann, Frauenalltag, pp. 117–132, and “Hauswirtschaftsunterricht für Mädchen an Volks-und Berufsschulen”, in de Lorent, Hans-Peter and Ullrich, Volker (eds), “Der Traum von der freien Schule”: Schule und Schulpolitik in der Weimarer Republik (Hamburg, 1988), pp. 252–272Google Scholar; Tornieporth, Gerda, Studien zur Frauenbildung: Ein Beit rag zur historischen Analyse lebensweltorientierter Bildungskonzeptionen (Weinheim and Basel, 1979)Google Scholar.
47 Beckmann, Emmy, “Bildungsaufgaben und Erziehungswerte der MSdchenbenifsschulen”, in Von dem Leben und der Arbeit unserer Allgemeinen MSdchenbenifsschulen in Hamburg, hg. v. Lehrkorper der Staatlichen Allgemeinen Gewerbeschulen fiir das Geschlecht, weibliche (Hamburg, 1927), pp. 26–31, esp. p. 31.Google Scholar
48 Lilly Peters, “Unsere Aufgaben im neuen Schulhaus”, in Von dem Leben und der Arbeit, pp. 18–22, esp. p. 19.
49 On the limits o f household rationalization, see Hirdina, Hausarbeit, p. 48; Barbara Methfessel, “[…] entscheidend bleibt die Arbeitskraft der Frau: Zu den Grenzen der Rationalisierbarkeit und Technisierbarkeit der Hausarbeit”, in Tornieporth, Arbeitsplatz, pp. 55–85; Nolan, Housework, pp. 571ff.; Stahl, Gisela, “Von der Hauswirtschaft zu m Haushalt oder wie man vom Haus zur Wohnung kommt”, in Went gehdrt die Welt? Kunst und Gesellschaft in der Weimarer Republik, ed. Kunst, Neue Gesellschaft fiir Bildende (Berlin, 1977), pp. 87–108Google Scholar, esp. p 105.
50 See Pr.FK.SPD 1927, pp. 358 and 366.
51 See Hagemann, Frauenalltag, pp. lllff.
52 See ibid., pp. 196–219.
53 See ibid., pp. 79–86 and 112; Hagemann, “Notjahr”.
54 See esp. Cowan, More Work for Mothers.
You have
Access
