Another exhibition on female labor held six years later sought to tell a different story. The Women at Home and Work Show argued that women could be both good wives and mothers
Although female labor was proving increasingly essential to Berlin’s economy, many social commentators, especially those of a conservative bent, expressed anxiety over the deleterious effects this activity was believed to have on the well-being of the workers and, by extension, on the nation as a whole. Women, it was claimed, were in danger of becoming so debilitated by the pressures of wage labor that they might have difficulty performing their true calling as wives and mothers. An article entitled “The Effect of Sewing Machine Work on the Female Genital Organs” (1897) argued that long hours at the Singer could render a woman unable to conceive children. Other experts insisted that factory labor inhibited lactation. Whatever their physical state, working women had less time to spend caring for their families. Berlin factory inspectors attributed high rates of child mortality and illnesses among infants to neglect by working mothers. Added to these health dangers were the negative moral consequences that female factory labor was said to yield. A report published in 1886 stated that “almost all” the women working in Berlin’s linen factories were living “in intimate contact” with men who were not their husbands. Four years later, a Reichstag commission firmly reasserted the traditional wisdom that a woman’s place was “at the cradle of her child,” not in some factory or office. For once, Kaiser Wilhelm II could only agree with the parliamentarians. Berlin’s women, he said, should take his own wife as a model, who had stayed home and produced six sons for the Fatherland. (In private, Wilhelm let it be known that he considered Donna “nothing but a broodhen,” and he wanted her to stay at home so she could not embarrass him in public with her provinciality.)
Berlin’s working-class women, whether or not they toiled for wages, bore the primary responsibility for managing family budgets, which were always stretched to the limit. The basic necessities of life—housing, food, fuel, and clothing—often required all the income a proletarian family could generate. Affordable housing remained the biggest challenge. At the turn of the century a typical one-room apartment (with kitchen but no bath) in one of the “rental barracks” cost 250 marks a year, or about one-quarter of the annual income of a skilled worker. Fully half of that income generally went for food, the staples being potatoes, bread, sausage, and lard. Another necessity was beer, which typically consumed one-fifth of a worker’s annual wages.
If money was always tight, daily life was not uniformly drab for Berlin’s working classes. The proletarian districts and suburbs certainly looked grim to outsiders, but they contained pockets of energy and vitality. Aside from hundreds of
The residents themselves were in constant movement, changing apartments, commuting to work across town, and on Sundays and holidays making excursions to lakes, parks, and amusement centers. The Berlin Zoo lowered its entrance fee to twenty-five pfennigs one Sunday each month, allowing working-class Berliners to charge en masse through its famous Elephant Gate. “Today the real Berliner sets the tone! Littie people with bag and baggage, and wrapped sandwiches and big hair with all sorts of pins and needles sticking out,” observed the
