Written by Lizzie Dacombe
Illustrated by Laura Liu
In discussions about the East German legacy, the same themes are often reiterated: the lingering economic and political divide, whether women “had it better” under the East German Regime (GDR), and the portrayal of East German women as the “losers” of reunification. Such narratives reduce East German identity to a teleological story of decline spiralling towards 1989 and cast individuals as valuable only for understanding the state’s collapse.
For women, especially, this perspective renders them as passive victims of reunification. They are acknowledged mainly for their losses, whilst their cultural contributions and personal experiences are overlooked. Rather than debating which system was better, I want to look beyond such one-dimensional views to explore how East German women expressed themselves politically and culturally outside the state framework.
The Situation of East German Women by the 1970s
Since the 1970s, the Socialist Unity Party of Germany (SED) had shifted from increasing women’s overall employment and education toward addressing the friction between motherhood and women’s employment. These policies, ironically coined as Muttipolitik (Mommy policy), hoped to counter low birth rates and the continued labour shortage by making motherhood more attractive. Women were guaranteed a year of maternity leave with the ability to return to their jobs thereafter, as well as leave for housework or to care for sick children. Young couples were prioritised for housing allocation, and from 1972, one could receive an Ehekredit (marriage credit) of 5,000 marks, given after the birth of a third child. State daycares also expanded—a clear sign of the state’s willingness to help lighten the load of working mothers. Indeed, these policy interventions did push women and mothers into the workforce: by 1989, the East German workforce was 49% female, despite around 91% of East German women being biological mothers.
It is hard to deny that East Germany had made leaps and bounds in the economic emancipation of women. Women no longer had to choose between a career and motherhood; interestingly, the reforms encouraged women to be less dependent on men due to the expansive welfare state. Although there were still many issues in the rudimentarily progressive women’s policies of the SED, it is difficult to argue that progress in women’s emancipation hadn’t been made.
Female Autonomy and Community Building
It was in the 1980s that women began to organise themselves, initially under the auspices of the Protestant Church. This unique affiliation was due to the 1978 Church-State agreement granting the Church increased ideological, legal, and financial freedom. An unintended side effect of this attempt to placate the Protestant Church was the blooming of a rich (by Eastern Bloc standards) network of non-state groups, from peace activists and gay liberation to women’s rights groups.
One of the better-known women’s groups that grew under the wing of the Church was Frauen für den Frieden (Women for Peace). Formed in 1982 as a women’s peace group, it emerged in response to the new military act expanding conscription to women. Their petition to Honecker, with over 150 signatures (a large number for the time), stated that female conscription was in “contradiction to their femininity”, not an expression of gender equality. It was a statement of refusal that their calls for equal rights could be hijacked by the state to justify increasing militarisation and hostility. Frauen für den Frieden symbolised both the desire for systemic change as well as the determination these women had to politically articulate themselves.
That same year, the first independent lesbian group in the GDR was founded. Lesben in der Kirche (Lesbians in the Church, LiK) was the first effort to increase visibility and normalisation of female homosexuality. LiK challenged the founding ideology of the SED, which asserted that only through heterosexuality and motherhood could women experience self-fulfilment. Through lectures, discussions, and even guest visits (such as African American activist Audre Lorde in 1985), LiK was crucial in the conception of lesbianism as a political identity in East Germany. Their work to connect queer women, who had suppressed their feelings as unnatural, was key in fostering a network of women who could realise the normality of their desires, and begin to explore the possibilities of their new lifestyles.
Another significant achievement of the group was in their confrontation of the SED’s historical narrative of Nazism, particularly their emphasis on communist victims of fascist terror. In 1984, members visited Ravensbrück Camp Memorial to commemorate the lesbian victims who had been murdered there, a group frequently erased from the official SED narrative. It was not a huge protest to demand attention from the public, instead simply laying a wreath and signing a message to their “lesbian sisters” in the guest book – both of which were soon removed by the Stasi. This directly challenged the historic monopoly the SED had claimed on their national identity and the determination of these women to be recognised within it, symbolising a change in power dynamics in late East Germany between the state and its dissidents.
In the second half of the 1980s, state policy changed to allow the meeting of groups outside the Church. The dissident movement mushroomed as the organisation of larger national events became crucial in connecting women across the newly emerged women, lesbian, and peace groups.
Some of the most significant events were the Women’s Festivals that took place in Dresden between 1985 and 1987. They were a space for education and open discussion on various themes, but perhaps most remarkable was the 1987 festival in its theme of ‘power in relationships’, which served as one of the only critiques of state indifference to domestic violence in the GDR and was the first organised public discussion on the topic. Through these Women’s Festivals, attendees could access the language and framework to discuss sensitive topics like sexuality and violence, which remained highly restricted by the state.
In the GDR’s final months, social activism became increasingly agitated with the worsening economic situation and Honecker’s rejection of glasnost and perestroika. Some women focused on shaping their communities as an escape, by founding spaces for solidarity, joy, and possibility at a time when the political future was uncertain. Frau Anders (Miss Different) was first published in January 1989 as the first and only lesbian publication in the GDR, and in many ways was a representation of the past decade of work of East German women.
Frau Anders cultivated the vibrant community of women that had developed in the 1980s through amusing illustrations, articles, readers’ letters, and event notices. Distributed from friend to friend, it deepened the personal networks that were the foundations of the East German women’s movement. The zine also represented a more light-hearted side of the movement in its role as a space for playfulness and to explore identity and its possibilities, as women, lesbians, mothers, and even as socialists. It was not just about outlining goals for the political movement, but a longer-term ambition to build a lasting community and space for exploration and self-expression.
This understanding of Frau Anders and other community initiatives challenges the notion that late East German society was acutely aware of its expiration date. Many women still saw the future as undecided. Diversity was in action where the state was both tolerated and challenged, but many also relished the opportunity to eliminate the state entirely from their lives.
Concluding Remarks
Of course, there is some explanation for the neglect of East German women from the historical narrative. In the years following reunification, many East German activists retreated from political activity, feeling increasingly disillusioned with the absorption, and in many cases erasure, of the culture and history of their state into the newly unified Germany. This was particularly true for women and lesbian activists, as they had endured repression and marginalisation from all sides – by the larger dissident movement, East German society during reunification, and finally in the new state. It was no wonder that many women began to feel that the work they had dedicated years of their lives to was simply not important anymore or to anyone. Democracy had arrived, allowing them to speak freely, but no one wanted to listen.
It was this feeling of devaluation that Kenawi, a member of Lesben in der Kirche, highlighted as a key obstacle in her attempts to record the East German women’s and lesbian movement. Many women had to be convinced that their activism was worth being recorded – an obvious internalisation of the wider disinterest in this part of both East German and feminist history. What has been recorded of the movement in the GDR was carried out by the women themselves – through interviews, documentaries, memoirs, and archives like Grauzone, co-founded by Kenawi in 1988. Without their continued commitment to maintaining the visibility of East German women, a crucial part of history may have been lost.
Only recently have we begun to reappraise East Germany as a society with autonomous people, culture, and history, rather than a monolithic police state. East German women in particular have been unfairly labelled as “losers”, ignoring how they existed alongside, in opposition to, but most importantly, independently from the state. The communities they built were essential in developing a sense of self as women, mothers, feminists, and/or lesbians. They were never passive, and although they did suffer more than most in the reunification process, we continue to do them a disservice by retrospectively marginalising them from our understandings of both East German and modern German cultural and historical development.
SHortened version
Discourse about the East German legacy reiterates the same themes: the lingering economic and political divide, whether women “had it better” under the East German Regime (GDR), and the portrayal of East German women as the “losers” of reunification. Such narratives reduce East German identity to a teleological story of decline spiralling towards 1989, and casts individuals as valuable only for understanding the state’s collapse.
This perspective renders women as passive victims of reunification. Rather than debating which system was better, I want to look beyond such one-dimensional views to explore how East German women expressed themselves politically and culturally outside the state framework.
The Situation of East German Women by the 1970s
By the 1970s, the Socialist Unity Party of Germany (SED) had shifted from increasing women’s employment and education to addressing the friction between motherhood and women’s employment. These policies, ‘Muttipolitik’ (Mommy policy), hoped to counter low birth rates and the continued labour shortage by making motherhood more attractive. Women were guaranteed a year of maternity leave with the ability to return to their jobs, as well as leaves for housework and to provide care. Young couples were prioritised for housing allocation, and from 1972, one could receive an Ehekredit (marriage credit) of 5,000 marks after the birth of a third child. State daycares also expanded. Indeed, these policy interventions did push women and mothers into the workforce: by 1989, the East German workforce was 49% female, despite around 91% of East German women being biological mothers.
East Germany had made leaps and bounds in the economic emancipation of women: they no longer had to choose between a career and motherhood. Interestingly, the reforms encouraged women to be less dependent on men due to the expansive welfare state.
Female Autonomy and Community Building
It was in the 1980s that women began to organise themselves, initially under the auspices of the Protestant Church. This unique affiliation was due to the 1978 Church-State agreement, which granted the Church increased ideological, legal, and financial freedom. An unintended side effect of this attempt to placate the Protestant Church was the blooming of a rich (by Eastern Bloc standards) network of non-state groups, from peace activists and gay liberation to women’s rights groups.
One of the better-known women’s groups that grew was Frauen für den Frieden (Women for Peace). Formed in 1982 as a women’s peace group, it emerged in response to the new military act expanding conscription to women. Their petition to Honecker, with over 150 signatures (a large number for the time), stated that female conscription was in “contradiction to their femininity”, not an expression of gender equality. It was a statement of refusal that their calls for equal rights could be hijacked by the state to justify increasing militarisation and hostility.
That same year, the first independent lesbian group in the GDR was founded. Lesben in der Kirche (Lesbians in the Church, LiK) was the first effort to increase visibility and normalisation of female homosexuality. Through lectures, discussions, and even guest visits, LiK was crucial in the conception of lesbianism as a political identity in East Germany. Their work to connect queer women, who had suppressed their feelings as unnatural, was key in fostering a network of women who could realise the normality of their desires.
Another significant achievement of the group was in their confrontation of the SED’s historical narrative of Nazism, particularly their emphasis on communist victims of fascist terror. In 1984, members visited Ravensbrück Camp Memorial to commemorate the lesbian victims who had been murdered there, a group frequently erased from the official SED narrative. It was not a huge protest to demand attention from the public, instead simply laying a wreath and signing a message to their “lesbian sisters” in the guest book – both of which were soon removed by the Stasi. This directly challenged the historic monopoly the SED had claimed on their national identity and the determination of these women to be recognised within it, symbolising a change in power dynamics in late East Germany between the state and its dissidents.
Some significant events were the Women’s Festivals that took place in Dresden between 1985 and 1987. They were a space for education and open discussion on various themes, but perhaps most remarkable was the 1987 festival in its theme of ‘power in relationships’, which served as one of the only critiques of state indifference to domestic violence in the GDR and was the first organised public discussion on the topic. Through these Women’s Festivals, attendees could access the language and framework to discuss sensitive topics like sexuality and violence, which remained highly restricted by the state.
In the GDR’s final months, social activism became increasingly agitated with the worsening economic situation and Honecker’s rejection of glasnost and perestroika. Frau Anders (Miss Different) was first published in January 1989 as the first and only lesbian publication in the GDR, and in many ways was a representation of the past decade of work of East German women.
Frau Anders cultivated the vibrant community of women that had developed in the 1980s through amusing illustrations, articles, readers’ letters, and event notices. Distributed from friend to friend, it deepened the personal networks that were the foundations of the East German women’s movement. The zine also represented a more light-hearted side of the movement in its role as a space for playfulness and to explore identity and its possibilities, as women, lesbians, mothers, and even as socialists. It was not just about outlining goals for the political movement, but a longer-term ambition to build a lasting community and space for exploration and self-expression.
This understanding of Frau Anders and other community initiatives challenges the notion that late East German society was acutely aware of its expiration date. Many women still saw the future as undecided. Diversity was in action where the state was both tolerated and challenged, but many also relished the opportunity to eliminate the state entirely from their lives.
Concluding Remarks
Of course, there is some explanation for the neglect of East German women from the historical narrative. In the years following reunification, many East German activists retreated from political activity, feeling increasingly disillusioned with the absorption into the newly unified Germany. This was particularly true for women and lesbian activists. It was no wonder that many women began to feel that the work they had dedicated years of their lives to was simply not important anymore or to anyone. Democracy had arrived, allowing them to speak freely, but no one wanted to listen.
It was this feeling of devaluation that Kenawi, a member of Lesben in der Kirche, highlighted as a key obstacle in her attempts to record the East German women’s and lesbian movement. Many women had to be convinced that their activism was worth being recorded – an obvious internalisation of the wider disinterest in this part of both East German and feminist history. What has been recorded of the movement in the GDR was carried out by the women themselves – through interviews, documentaries, memoirs, and archives like Grauzone.
Only recently have we begun to reappraise East Germany as a society with autonomous people, culture, and history, rather than a monolithic police state.
East German women in particular have been unfairly labelled as “losers”, ignoring how they existed alongside, in opposition to, but most importantly, independently from the state. The communities they built were essential in developing a sense of self as women, mothers, feminists, and/or lesbians. They were never passive, and although they did suffer more than most in the reunification process, we continue to do them a disservice by retrospectively marginalising them from our understandings of both East German and modern German cultural and historical development.
