|
Although Frank spoke out forcefully in favor of
greater involvement in the Jewish community, she
was far from a straightforward proponent of women's
rights. Her opinions on such issues as suffrage and
the employment of women were complex, and she often
espoused views that would today be considered
decidedly conservative.
Frank claimed often to be "a
stout opponent of what is commonly called 'Women's
Rights.'" In the 1890s, she spoke
against women's suffrage, asserting that women's
influence on their male relatives already brought
them a say in the political process and that they
lacked the education and experience necessary to
use the vote wisely. And although she supported
herself until she married and advocated careers for
single women, she believed married women should not
work outside the home.
Even on the issue that affected her most
personally, the ordination of women as rabbis,
Frank was highly ambivalent. At times she asserted
that women had both the right and the ability to
become rabbis, arguing at the Jewish Women's
Congress that "All in all, [women] have
in the past earned the right to the pulpit....
[A woman] may be ordained rabbi or be the
president of a congregation—she is entirely able
to fill both offices." But at other times she
put forth a far more traditional viewpoint: "I
do not even aspire to the office of rabbi, because
being a woman I could never be one; that is
thoroughly masculine."
While Frank's independence of action might seem
incompatible with some of her traditional ideas, in
fact the combination was not unusual in her day.
Caught between Victorian conceptions of women's
spheres and new ideas about women's roles
circulating in American society, the late
nineteenth century saw many people freely mixing
"progressive" and "conservative" opinions.
Opposition to the suffrage movement was not
uncommon, even among those who championed women's
rights in other spheres. Frank's contradictory
positions might also have served a strategic
purpose. Whether consciously or unconsciously, her
adoption of some traditional views likely allowed
her to be more daring in other area. Had she pushed
only for radical changes, the Jewish community
might well have ignored her instead of embracing
her.
|
