Brought to trial in 1912 for
conspiracy to incite destruction of property, Emmeline Pankhurst used this
trial as an opportunity to explain the situation she and the rest of the Women’s
Political and Social Union (WSPU) were forced into. It was her argument that
the so-called militancy that she and WSPU were being accused of, was a militancy
that came as a last resort. For Pankhurst, the blame for militant acts lied not
on the women, but rather the men. Several peaceful petitions were brought by
Pankhurst and her followers to the House of Commons. But instead of receiving
these petitions gracefully, these men would rush to avoid the female petitioners,
and even on some accounts, had them arrested (CP 203). Referring to the 1909
incident, Pankhurst claimed, “Had these judges in 1909 decided that women had
the right to petition there would have been no organized violence, there would
have been no stone throwing in this agitation” (CP 202). Pankhurst did mention
that a “very great many women…tried to do useful public work to show that they
were fit for the rights and responsibilities of citizenship” (CP 203). Indeed,
she rightfully pointed out that these women were doing a greatest service for
the greater good of all than many drunken men who care for no one but
themselves (CP 203). Yet, with the laws in place, these men were able to vote
and women were not. As Pankhurst stated, “since there [was] no distinction in
sex where brains [were] concerned…I was forced to the conclusion that so far as
our enfranchisement was concerned, we had been wasting time” (CP 203). In other
words, doing good deeds, working with other Parties to push enfranchisement of
women, trying to peacefully talk with members of the House of Commons, these
were all acts that ultimately led to no results. Militancy, then was the only
option of “forcing [men’s] attention to the question [of women’s suffrage]” (CP
203).
When
Pankhurst discussed her militancy, she also mentioned the ironies of it. While
women were accused of militancy, men who committed similar acts on women’s
meetings were given no such title. Pankhurst directly mentioned such double
standards to the judges at her trial: “I ask you, gentlemen, whether, if that
had been done by men, the word militant would have borne any construction” (CP
203-204). She also referenced the courage these women had in their militancy,
for while they acted alone, men who “came to interrupt women’s meetings…came in
gangs, with noisy instruments, and sang and shouted together…stomping their
feet” (CP 204). This, to me, seems like a direct hit because of its
implications of cowardice in foolery in men and courage and bravery in women.
Pankhurst’s final irony was the one of her trial. As concluded by her, “We say
in England that every man is tried by his peers. I might have been justified as
a woman, if that the opening of this case I had said you are not entitled to
try me for this offence. What right have you, as men, to judge women? Who gave
you that right, women having no voice in deciding the legal system of this
country, no voice in saying what is a crime and what is not a crime?” (CP 204).
The irony lies in the fact that women, who had no say in the makings of the
law, were still required to obey it and then, in Pankhurst’s situation, be
punished for breaking it. It was a
flawed system. And Pankhurst, striving to make the judges realize this, urged, “Well,
Governments have many times been mistaken, gentlemen, and I venture to suggest
to you that Governments are mistaken again” (CP 204). In this last-ditch effort
to convince them that WSPU’s cause was just, and that their punishment was not
deserved, Pankhurst managed to sway the jurors of the trial enough to grant
clemency on some of those accused. While she herself was still convicted, this
clemency to many others marked one of the first signs of favorableness towards
women’s suffrage.
Questions:
Do you think Pankhurst’s actions for militancy were truly
justifiable? Based on the slogan “Deeds, Not Words,” WSPU seems to think so,
but does not this speech by Pankhurst and its results show that words can sometimes have a big impact?
WSPU was made up of working class women, aside from
Pankhurst and her daughters, who then took up the leadership roles. Do you
think Pankhurst supported the social hierarchy? Would she have continued to
support it if her strives for women’s suffrage had been successful?
No comments:
Post a Comment