Hamburg Women’s Week
Issues and Organization
The first Hamburg Women’s Week of March 1981 was jointly organized by the nonprofit association ‘Frauen lernen gemeinsam e.V.’ (Women Learn Together), the ‘Hochschule für Wirtschaft und Politik’ (HWP, since 2005 part of the Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences at the University of Hamburg), and the AStA (General Students’ Committee) of the Faculty of Education at the University of Hamburg. For one week in March, the rooms of the HWP were reserved for a broad range of political education programs conceived exclusively by and for women.
The foyer felt like a marketplace. Various projects set up stands there, offering women a chance to gain knowledge and contact like-minded parties. This structured form of cooperation and exchange remained relatively constant until 1991. Women from all walks of life were able to participate, thanks to the programs’ status as paid educational leave and the childcare offered as part of the concomitant Children’s Week.
A comprehensive understanding of what education can be facilitated a broad range of subject matter over the following eleven years. Sometimes there was a focal issue such as ‘Frauen Macht Politik’ (Women Power Politics), in 1984; ‘Frauenarbeit’ (Women’s Work), in 1986; or ‘Gewalt und Widerstand’ (Violence and Resistance), in 1987; yet this did not prevent events being offered on almost every conceivable theme of concern to women. In 1984, for example, alongside major political debates on the gendered division of labor,1 small seminars took place, such as ‘Women and Fascism’2 and ‘Sexism in Picture Books’3, as well as yoga courses4, astrology seminars (always popular), and theater workshops5.
The Women’s Week of 1991 was launched as the ‘First Hamburg Women and Lesbian Week’. Lesbians had in fact played a (consciously) important role since the second Women’s Week and had meanwhile always numbered heavily among the organizer-activists and visitors—the new name was meant to highlight this at last.6
From 1994 on, the Women’s Week format was reduced and the name changed to ‘Frauentage’ (Women’s Days). The reason behind this was the 75 percent cut in funding from the ‘Amt für Berufs- und Weiterbildung’ (Office for Vocational and Further Education).7 The theme that year was ‘Was heißt denn hier normal?’ (What Does Normal Mean Here?). The participants accordingly examined how norms and social constructs of normality affected women’s lives and life choices.
New Concepts of Education: Learning Can Be Fun
Role models for the Women’s Week were the Summer University in Berlin and the Women’s Forum at the Revier venue in Dortmund. The goal was to give women the tools and vision to bring about individual and social change. “In order to keep us out of politics, cultural life, and the sciences, people have tried to persuade us that these are all ‘men’s business.’… It is time for us to work out our own points of view and to get involved.”8 The Women’s Week intended to strengthen women’s ability to do so, namely by providing them with opportunities to share their knowledge and views.
The motto of the first Hamburg Women’s Week was therefore ‘Women Learn Together’. The organizers had deliberately expanded the design and definition of this mutual education. The Women’s Week aimed to provide an opportunity for political education outside of university structures. “Our day-to-day experience as women will take center stage. We intend to learn from and with each other and to try out new forms of learning, because learning can also be fun. We assume that all women—not just so-called female experts—have something to say.”9 In practice, however, this broad concept of education was only partially accepted by the funding authorities. The self-awareness seminars and cultural events were not regarded as political education, so attendees were not eligible for paid educational leave.
Who exactly the Women’s Week program should appeal to was hotly debated by the various members of the ‘orga group’.10 The founding principle was that the event should be for all kinds of women. While activists in the women’s liberation movement were increasingly the organizers’ focal group, it was nonetheless agreed that at least some events and workshops should aim to attract the “average housewife from the boonies”,11 – who likely would not identify with the women’s movement.
In retrospect, the Hamburg Women’s Week is regarded as an outcome of the autonomous women’s movement—also because it reckoned with the participation of many autonomous women’s projects over the years. At least early on, this self-image was controversial. Thus, it was stated in the program of the second Women’s Week that “while some women regard this week as a mirror of the autonomous women’s liberation movement, others are decidedly against even using the word autonomous, in part because they consider themselves members of the women’s liberation movement but not of its [more radical] autonomous wing, and in part for fear that the term could frighten other women off.”12
‘Frauen lachen gemeinsam e. V.’ (Women Laugh Together)
Every year, the nonprofit cabaret group ‘Frauen lachen gemeinsam e.V.’ (Women Laugh Together) provided the humorous highlight of the Women’s Week. The group’s name was itself an (affectionate) parody of the name ‘Frauen lernen gemeinsam e.V.’ and thus of the Women’s Week itself. In a packed lecture hall at the HPI, participants were witness to self-deprecating takes on women’s issues, particularly those theoretical aspects discussed at length over the week. The cabaret group played ironically with the notion that all feminists lack a sense of humor—once with the catchy tune ‘Ich mach ’nen Workshop, ’nen Workshop, ’nen Workshop hier’ (I am doing a workshop here…), and in 1987—when the overall theme was ‘Violence and Resistance’—by presenting the show ‘Gewaltig geschafft’ (All Done In). Among other things, the show tackled sexist language and “radical linguistic reform”13 whereby the gender of definite or indefinite articles could be chosen at will.
The Problem with ‘State Dough’
Like most women’s projects, the Hamburg Women’s Week endured constant financial struggles. Each year, state authorities funded events to the tune of 50,000 German Marks. As the ‘orga group’ stated, this sum failed to cover even half the total budget, even when costs were kept to a minimum. The Women’s Week was therefore dependent on donations. State funding also had some consequences in terms of content: for example, state auditors criticized the “lesbian” content of the ninth Women’s Week.14 As mentioned above, the Hamburg Women’s Week of 1991was initially to be renamed the Hamburg Women and Lesbian Week.15 This proved impossible, however, on account of the endless red tape involved. Finally, to retain state funding yet nonetheless assure the visibility of lesbian content and participation, the organizers kept their usual name—the (11th) Hamburg Women’s Week—yet took ‘1st Hamburg Women and Lesbian Week’ as its internal motto. The alternative would have been to finance their event without any state funding. They would in that case have been free to make their own decisions, but the event would have become financially unviable.
The lack of funds also brought to light a conflict between the (majority) autonomous women’s projects and the more traditional women’s associations. The latter were behind the ‘Festival der Frauen’ (Festival of Women) that took place in 1986, with invited international guests and diverse cultural events. The Senate granted the festival 500,000 German Marks even while imposing austerity across the board—and slashing the funding of autonomous women’s projects. Thus, the Festival was harshly criticized by the autonomous women’s movement.
The Women’s Week Under Attack
In 1985, the Women’s Week’s closing party was attacked. According to the press release, “At midnight on March 16, the women’s party ended with a display of male violence. Shots were fired at guests in the university canteen, three women were beaten up, and several others were threatened and insulted.”16 As a result, the women became increasingly concerned with male violence against individual women and women’s projects and groups. On Walpurgis Night that year (April 30), discussions, a protest march, and a party called attention to male violence.17
The negative relationship of some men (and even women) to the Women’s Week did not only find expression in physical confrontations. In 1983, there were accusations of gender discrimination because the Women’s Week was exclusively for women. Three German newspapers—Welt, taz, and Lübecker Nachrichten—reported that Charlotte Fera, then the oldest member of the Hamburg Parliament, had criticized the cultural and educational authorities for funding this “discriminatory event.”.18
Her reproach and the argument underlying it show that the Women’s Week is an object of social discourse that is still with us to this day.
Footnotes
-
1
4. Hamburger Frauenwoche. Programm 26.–31.3.1984, Hamburg 1984, 40.
-
2
Ibid., 67.
-
3
Ibid., 101.
-
4
Ibid., 160.
-
5
Ibid., 177.
-
6
Cf. 11. Hamburger Frauenwoche. Programm 4.–8.3.91, Hamburg 1991, 6.
-
7
Bake, Rita: Die Ersten und das erste Mal... Zum 50. Geburtstag des Gleichberechtigungsartikels im Grundgesetz. Was hat er Hamburgs Frauen gebracht?, Hamburg 1999, 124.
-
8
Hamburger Frauenwoche. Vorprogramm 1980, 2.
-
9
Frauen lernen gemeinsam e.V.: Hamburger Frauenwoche – Frauen lernen gemeinsam. Konzeptpapier, Hamburg 1981, 1 f.
-
10
5. Hamburger Frauenwoche. Programm 11.–16.3.1985, 6.
-
11
Versuch eines Protokolls der Diskussion auf dem Projektetreffen der 10. Hamburger Frauenwoche am 8.6.89, 1.
-
12
Hamburger Frauenwoche. Programm 1.–6.3.1982, Hamburg 1982, 3.
-
13
Tauch auf, Kassandra!, in: Hamburger Rundschau, 19.3.1987, 3.
-
14
11. Hamburger Frauenwoche. Programm 4.–8.3.1991, 5.
-
15
Ibid.
- 16 Frauen lernen gemeinsam e.V.: Presseerklärung, 3.4.1985.
- 17 Walpurgisnacht, in: taz, 25.4.1985.
-
18
[1] Cf. 58.000 Mark zur Diskriminierung des Mannes?” Die Welt, March 18,1983; “Frauenwoche findet ein Bürgerschafts-Nachspiel,” Lübecker Nachrichten, March 26, 1983; “Frauenwoche geschlechtsdiskriminierend,” taz, March 25, 1983.
