Women's Suffrage Movement And Its Methods
The fight for female suffrage and its methods in achieving said suffrage have been debated since its achievement in 1918. In exploring this, historians come under either being supporters of the militarists such as the WSPU (Women’s Social and Political Union) or the constitutionalists such as the NUWSS (National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies) and the methods they used to achieve suffrage. A further separation is between masculinist and feminist critiques of the suffrage movement. This divide has historians in conflict over their perceptions of whether certain figures were fighting to alter gender roles, or in contrast whether their methods and actions were more hysterical in the fight for suffrage. Depending on which of these camps historians find themselves in is central to how their differing views on parts of the debate around the suffrage movement are shaped. The most commonly debated aspects being the impact or even relevance of the war, along with whether the suffragettes were not freedom fighters and instead glorified terrorists. Throughout this essay each of these camps and some of their most prominent historians and their views on the said aspects of the suffrage movement will be explored in their contrasting viewpoints.
Possibly the most well-known viewpoint surrounding the suffrage movement is the militarist school of thought. Militarist historians see the Suffragettes and their tactics, including violence, as having been the most effective in gaining female suffrage and expound the virtues of figures such as Emmeline Pankhurst and the actions of other Suffragettes. Mayhall supports the militant Suffragettes in purveying their focus to be resistance not violence, particularly within the political culture of that period. Mayhall is bringing attention to the fact that it would be myopic to take the violence caused at face value, as it was not just about using violence to force suffrage but also about “redefining citizenship”. The use of violence was the medium in which the Suffragettes could both create publicity surrounding the cause along with demonstrating how women were not the delicate objects of the Victorian era. DiCenzo echoes this sentiment in bringing focus to the militant actions beyond violence, such as pictures and theatre to promote the cause along with retrospective accounts the Suffragettes used to deliberately write themselves into history as counter-historians.
DiCenzo also expounds the benefits of Suffragette elitism which gave the militants a clean break with past suffrage fighters, enabling them to portray themselves as a viable way of achieving suffrage, in the face of a government which had consistently been rejecting suffrage for the past century. Purvis further demonstrates how the violence used by Suffragettes was nothing out of the ordinary in fights for political equality in that period, but women were seen differently due to them being women , linking to her arguments against the militants being terrorists. Purvis greatly opposes this in her comparison between how men achieved suffrage through violence compared to women. Purvis brings light to the fact that the militants never caused blood shed beyond their own unlike when men fought to gain the vote , and it was due to societies differing views on how men could get away with violence as a political act and women could not. This links greatly to the discourse between masculinist and feminist historians, which will be further explored later. Purvis goes as far as to explicitly state the Suffragettes not to be terrorists purely because they killed no one.
Constitutionalists however negate the impact of the suffragettes along with promoting the role of non-violent suffrage fighters. Bearman virulently picks apart the militant campaign, particularly the argument surrounding women getting the vote due to the fear of continued militancy after the war. He cites the expansion of the secret services during the war along with the Suffragette inability to reassemble after the war for the government no longer seeing them as a threat. Bearman also brings attention to the Suffragette campaign not having been at its height at the outbreak of war, but it was in fact at Emmeline’s re-arrest in May 1914. This works in unison with the fact that 1913 averages on militant actions were higher than that in 1914 along with great regional variation with some areas seeing far more than others. Bearman also disputes the claim that the economic damage caused by militant Suffragettes attributed to gaining suffrage. From 1913 – 1914 militant actions cost the British economy £1 - £2 million, far from enough to create a national crisis and evidently did not create concessions from the government. Bearman goes as far as saying militant actions pushed the public away and created more anti-suffrage sentiment across the country, meaning women’s suffrage would only be achieved once the campaign had come to its end. This attributes to Bearman’s conviction that the Suffragettes were terrorists and the actual debate surrounds whether their terrorism was successful or not. Bearman concludes that it was not as the economic damage was ineffective, coupled with him citing his claim they lacked mass public support.
Pugh expresses his support for constitutionalist methods especially the importance of the work done between the NUWSS and the Labour Party in being able to get a bill in and through parliament. His support for the constitutionalists is furthered as they achieved this while the militant Suffragettes were in decline after the war, showing the constitutionalists to have greater effectiveness. Pugh also expresses the importance of the constitutionalists’ continued work campaigning during the war which allowed them to be in a place to get a bill through post-war. Pugh also expresses how this was a compromise for the constitutionalists who wanted equal suffrage unlike the suffragettes who only wanted it for the middle class, even so the constitutionalists did eventually achieve full suffrage through constitutionalist methods once again. This links back to Bearman’s critique of militancy for negating its own cause with violence, whereas the constitutionalists were able to achieve the aims of the Suffragettes before them and then continue after the war to achieve full equal suffrage. Hence as Bearman suggests, militancy brought attention to the Suffragettes, but the violence used almost prevented suffrage if it weren’t for the war saving both suffrage and the reputation of the declining WSPU.
The next debate comes between the feminist and masculinist historians. The feminist critique of the suffrage movement tends to glorify the acts of the Suffragettes, espousing the virtues of their violent acts, seeing the movement as something more than just the acquisition of the vote. Mayhall surmises this perspective in stating that the focus of the movement was not surrounding violence but about re-defining female citizenship and enabling themselves to have a role in the public sphere of life. Mayhall goes on to state that whilst acknowledging the counter-productivity of being named terrorists, violence was still the best way to promote the cause and create discussion surrounding suffrage in the public going beyond the violence that was used. Purvis echoes this sentiment and explores it in further detail bringing attention to the way men were expressing their political opinion whilst women were committing a crime. Purvis also goes on to critique the masculinist historians and their unfavourable treatment of the WSPU due to preferring the constitutionalist methods. Purvis states that in doing this, women are being engendered by men, claiming it is sexist by blaming women and single-issue politics for women not getting the vote sooner.
Purvis then counters this from the feminist perspective that it was not a single issue but instead it was a sex war to challenge societal boundaries; and letting it be viewed as only fighting for the vote is myopic to the reality of the cause. Purvis critiques socialist historians, who often use the masculine perspective to critique the more right-wing Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst due to not putting class as a focal point in the fight for women’s voting rights. Purvis even criticises the afore mentioned masculinist historian Pugh specifically, citing his negative attitude toward Emmeline and Christabel and claiming he holds it due to the lack of men in their lives whilst being emphatic toward Sylvia Pankhurst. Purvis also brings to the reader’s attention that Sylvia was also socialist which causes the attraction to the masculinist viewpoint for more socialist historians in order to promote Sylvia through criticising her mother and sister.
The masculinist perspective aims mostly to critique the feminist viewpoint of glorifying the members of the Suffragette movement and their actions, taking aim at the feminist idea that they were not just causing violence but were also creating social change. Bearman brings attention to the suffragette targets being more opportunistic rather than having been thought out to create societal change with targets being the most easily accessed, flammable and least well-defended rather than most economic damage. Bearman links this to the Suffragettes having claimed any suspected fire along with having had many failed acts, suggesting the suffragettes were purely going for numbers and creating attention for them rather than having thought out the consequences of the acts and the kind of publicity they would receive. Bearman almost belittles militancy and its importance in stating only around one hundred suffragettes took part in militant actions with the Suffragette leadership having a tight grasp on events. This insinuates the militants to be somewhat hysterical for the most part whilst the elite leadership pulled the strings and enacted their plans. Bearman also takes it a step further claiming the Suffragettes had little public support beyond their own ranks; causing more anti-suffragism than popular support which hindered the movement as a whole.
Pugh expresses his militant viewpoint in his statement surrounding the war going with the grain of politics at the time, enforcing the idea that only married women should get the vote. Pugh is regarding men as having seen women in work during the war as temporary even going as far as furthering the gender roles feminist historians say the suffragettes wanted to change, due to women being more valued as mothers and wives as a result of the huge amount of men dying in Europe. Hence, Pugh is diminishing the argument that the Suffragettes were altering women’s role in society as by the time war broke out nothing had changed with how men viewed women; at a time past the height of the suffragette movement meaning that if that was the intent of the Suffragettes as feminists suggest then they had not achieved it. Ultimately, the historiography surrounding women’s suffrage is greatly variable in different historical perspectives, which constantly clash on issues such as the impact of different suffrage groups, methods and their roles in relevant events.
Despite this discourse the achievement of the partial female vote caused no “avalanche effect” as said by deVries, but it did begin the long struggle for female equality which still goes on today beyond female political participation. It is also important to note how the figures of the Suffragette movement are now being recognised now, as icons of not just feminism but also equality in modern society just over 100 years since the first women were able to vote. Suffragism and its figures have become one of the most integral and well recognised figures in public history appearing in major events, cinema, statues and more to recognise the female struggle beyond the historical disputes surrounding the figures and the movement.
