Centenary of women's political rights in Finland

FRONTPAGE PUBLICATIONS ELECTORAL STATISTICS EXPERTS FEEDBACK MEDIA LINKS

Single mothers and their children as a political sphere of activity in the early 20th century

Saara Tuomaala

The disabled, the ailing and those who were on the ‘Red’ side in the Finnish Civil War, who were regarded as traitors of the fatherland, were branded as ‘abnormal’ in early 20th century Finnish society. Single mothers, who were considered morally suspect together with their children, were objects of depreciatory treatment. Strongly discriminatory appellations like ‘whore’ and ‘bastard’ were not uncommon. However, their use varied in different communities. Hardship and experiences of poverty and shame were common to lone mothers.

In late 19th- and early 20th-century societies undergoing modernisation, women’s special characteristics, morals and motherly ideals were heavily emphasised by the international women’s movement. This was how women’s specificity in relation to men was accentuated and how female-specific spheres of action were created in modern politics as well. Within these spheres of action, women responded to the situation of lone mothers and their children, prostitution and child welfare. Women’s emancipation was justified in so far as it benefited the whole nation. As women were considered ethically stronger than men, it was thought that expanding their sphere of action from the home to the larger society would advance the general morality of the nation. Indeed, in Finland female parliamentary representatives focused on education, health care and poverty relief, which constituted a central part of the female political playing field in the early 20th century. In connection with these issues, questions relating to unmarried mothers and their children created heated discussions and initiatives in Finland’s one-chamber parliament.

For example, according to Lucina Hagman (1853-1946), a long-standing leader of the League of Finnish Feminists and a forerunner of co-education for girls and boys, the fulfilment of women’s human dignity and human rights required certain reforms: improving the status of illegitimate children, raising the age of protection for girls, eliminating prostitution, improving women’s education and opening new professions to women. The prohibition of alcohol, changing primary school to a general elementary school and creating social insurance for the elderly were practical reforms included in the programme. Hagman drafted a bill for women’s emancipation and the improvement of their position through legislative means (Ollila 1997, 269–270; Kokko 1996). She championed her plan of action also in her suffrage campaign and as a member of the Finnish parliament (Hagman 1995).

Female parliamentary representatives supported the content of Hagman’s campaign. Even though conservative and socialist women were interested in the same social problems, their politics and their ways of implementation often differed. Their ideological starting points were also different. This had a strong impact on the rhetoric and ethical argumentation of the politics in question. Thereby, on one hand, issues that were considered important by female representatives – such as the rights of mothers, children and families – united female representatives in their work but, on the other hand, divided them along party-political lines. Broadly speaking, the representatives sought to influence the lives of unmarried mothers and their children in two different ways: conservative women by promoting morals and socialist women by improving living conditions. On the other hand, socialists appealed to the sobriety and morals of women, and conservative representatives began to give in to the development of social welfare. With her strong opinions, the liberal Lucina Hagman acted as a mediator between the conservatives and the socialists in the same way as the social democrat Miina Sillanpää (1866-1952) did from the other side. Miina Sillanpää worked with Hedvig Gebhardt (1867-1961) from the Finnish party particularly on issues of household economics. Hedvig Gebhardt was the founder of the household periodical Kotiliesi and a pioneer in home economics education.

As Anne Ollila has noted, since the first parliamentary elections of 1907 there seems to have been a clear understanding among women about special issues concerning each gender. The division of labour was seen in legislative initiatives made by women (Ollila 1997, 272). All female MPs, for example, were in favour of improving the legal position of illegitimate children. High infant mortality was a much-discussed topic and the women supported the responsibility of the municipalities to hire midwives. In the same way, the establishment of maternity insurance united women across party divides. Even the pioneer female representatives of the first parliament made legislative initiatives about maternity support and maternity leave.

Nevertheless, party-political divisions strengthened already in the first year of the new parliament in 1907 regarding the establishment of hospices for unmarried mothers and their children. The social democrat Hilja Pärssinen submitted a proposal for the establishment of these shelters, which would have been the responsibility of the municipalities. If the socialists supported this initiative, the conservatives were usually against it (record of the 1907 parliamentary debates, 484-496; Oikarinen 1997, 132). For example, the conservative Iida Vemmelsuo was of the opinion that unmarried mothers were in a state of moral degeneration and unfit for raising children. Establishing shelters for these women would mean encouraging licentious behaviour. Instead, correctional institutions were to be established for the children so that they would develop into morally decent citizens. The mothers were to be placed in good homes to learn decent behaviour. Vemmelsuo’s fellow party member Hilda Käkikoski was of the same opinion and thought that hospices for unmarried mothers would undermine moral standards. In these institutions, unmarried mothers and their children would get free upkeep from the state like “heroes in ancient Greece” (Ahtisaari 1997, 222). Especially the morality issue offended social democrats and created tensions between female representatives over party divides. In the end, the Ensi Koti (‘First Home’) movement was initiated in the 1930s by Miina Sillanpää and the first shelter was established in Helsinki in 1942 (Sulkunen 1989, 146-148).

In these debates, social democrats reproached bourgeois women for false morality and intolerance. This surfaced in discussions concerning the maintenance of illegitimate children. Socialist women were unanimous in defending unmarried mothers, emphasising their inferior position, livelihood hardships and the attitudes of the better off. For instance, Anne Huotari responded to this issue in her speeches on infant murders. According to Huotari, the reasons for infant murders were poverty as well as moral imperatives that denounced unmarried mothers (Markkola 1997, 155-156). As the daughter of a single mother, she gave a fervent speech in the Parliament in 1913: “If one is stronger in character, if one tries to educate oneself despite everything, if one tries to show that one is not any worse than others even if one was born out of wedlock, one is still put down. (...) Children of unmarried mothers are being discriminated against in all possible ways. Few are those who try to lift them up” (parliamentary records 1913, I, 516).

With the initiative of Miina Sillanpää, public childcare was chosen as the model promoted by the social democrats. In the beginning, the issue was about the care of Red orphans after the civil war, but in the long run it was about childcare for mothers who worked outside the home. This was an especially pertinent problem for working-class women in the early 20th century, who often participated in earning a living for their families (Sulkunen 1989, 72–76; Lähteenmäki 1995, 254–303). The social policy programme of the social democrats was based on co-operation between the state and the municipalities, and it included protection for mother and child alike. The starting point for this was an article written by Hilja Pärssinen in 1913, “What particularly should the municipalities do for poor mothers and children?” (Sulkunen 1989, 76; Pärssinen 1913).

The 1918 civil war transformed poverty into a more politicised issue in Finland than it had been beforehand. After the war, the authorities were particularly distrustful of working-class and socialist mothers, as they were thought to be raising a new rebel generation. The moral ideals of parliamentary representatives could be seen on a very concrete level in their legislative work and in its implications for women’s lives. In the 1879 Poverty Act, members of the Poverty Committee in each municipality were authorised to visit homes in their designated district. This practice continued in the 1922 Poverty Act. In this act, special attention was paid to the supervision of household and childcare activities of Red widows and unmarried mothers. However, poor families resorted to public poverty relief only in the last instance, as it came with a high price. Apart from the relief being meagre, it meant availing one’s family to public control. Relief was means-assessed, it had to be applied for separately from the municipality and the beneficiary was obliged to pay it back. The freedom of residence of the beneficiary could be restricted. Receiving aid on a regular basis led to losing the right to vote, i.e. the loss of political citizenship. In addition, the beneficiary had to consent to the control and guidance of the local poverty relief committee and the child-welfare officer, which concerned the use of the benefits as well as the cleanliness of the home and the appropriate care and upbringing of children. The surveillance varied a great deal from one location and poor relief district to another, but in all cases, it set rigid boundaries on the lives of lone mothers (Poverty Relief Act 1922; Satka 1994, 275-281).

Mothers were expected to pay for childcare outside the home from their own pockets. If one could not or refused to comply with the conditions, the beneficiary came under threat of ending up as a ward herself. The municipality took the children into custody and placed them in private families or public institutions. In the municipal custody documents, the reason mentioned for the action is often “lack of care”. The mothers themselves risked ending up in penitentiaries. Fathers who had neglected their child maintenance duties were placed in state penitentiaries to pass an obligatory work penalty. Parents unable to support themselves and their children could be placed in communal poor houses as well. Katriina Kokko, who has done research on unmarried working-class mothers in Helsinki, has noted that getting children back from the authorities was impossible for unmarried mothers even when their living conditions had improved. In contrast, mothers who had subsequently gotten married or had been married all the time often got their children back (Kokko 1996).

The 1922 Poverty Relief Act contained legislation concerning illegitimate children. It acknowledged and affirmed the legal status of illegitimate children, something that the first female parliamentary representatives had already advocated. Child wardens were to be appointed in municipalities, and their activities fell under the control of the custody committee. The task of the child warden was to seek maintenance through a judicial process if needed. It was a difficult task, as fathers often neglected their child support obligations regardless of their social class. They might leave the maintenance payments to the municipality or even designate their property under the names of others. Child welfare protection in the early 20th century was mainly the protection and control of illegitimate children. The task of the municipalities was to place children under custodianship in private homes at low cost, and increasingly in correctional institutions.

In any case, mother-child protection gradually began to show in early 20th century legislation, in which the work of female parliamentary representatives played a huge role. Since 1919, a compulsory statutory six-week maternity leave was introduced according to the recommendations of the International Labour Organisation (ILO), first in industry and the service sector. In 1936 the first child protection legislation specifying the tasks of the custody committee was enacted. Population policy reforms pertaining to social welfare protection were mainly not implemented until the end of the 1930s. In 1937, the first Maternity Protection Act was imposed. It primarily concerned poor mothers, and in 1941 it was decreed to cover all mothers. The year 1943 saw the enactment of the Family Subsidy Act, and the year 1945 the General Home Establishment Act. The 1944 legislation on child welfare clinics and public health nurses standardised the practices of different localities. In 1948 the parliament passed the first Child Benefit Act (Lähteenmäki 1995, 277-282).

According to Katriina Kokko and Giovanna Pometa, during the period of modernisation unmarried motherhood was seen as a threat to society in two ways. First,  in the eyes of contemporaries and authorities, the unmarried mother was deemed as dangerous, since she combined motherhood and “rampant” sexuality, i.e. promiscuity, potentially spreading venereal disease. Thus she had to be controlled. Second, she was a threat to society also because, by potentially abandoning her child due to her life circumstances, she behaved against both social norms and the laws of nature. Attitudes towards unmarried mothers and their children in Finland changed substantially only as a result of the social and cultural change that took place in the 1960s.

Literature and sources