"Unladylike Tactics": The Militant Actions Taken by the WSPU

            The June Purvis article titled “ 'Deeds, Not Words': Daily Life in the Women's Social and Political Union in Edwardian Britain” is especially important to the study of the women’s movement in Europe because she outlines the details of actions taken by WSPU members as well as other lesser known women’s suffrage organizations. Purvis reveals that the point of separation between the WSPU and these other organizations, as well as the reason why the WSPU’s fame continues today, is their “unladylike tactics” (CP 229).  This did not occur accidentally, as Purvis explains in the article, Christabel Pankhurst and Annie Kenney made a plan in October of 1905 to heckle male politicians in order to get arrested and gain attention for their cause (CP 229). The media attention that the women received that day was the beginning of the WSPU’s turn towards militancy.

                During its infancy, the WSPU seems to have been similar to other suffrage organizations that are now rarely discussed. The Women’s Freedom League and the National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies are two of the groups which Purvis calls ladylike and law-abiding. To be more distinct, she calls these women “suffragists,” while the WSPU members are most commonly known as suffragettes, a thin but important difference. An example of their ladylike tactics includes campaigning at socialist and trade union meetings as well as creating posters and participating in marches (CP 229).

Although their “unladylike tactics” began in 1905 with minor offenses such as heckling politicians and spitting at officers, the actions taken by the WSPU women in 1912 were definitively militant in nature. June Purvis writes that the women burned golf courses and empty buildings, they cut telephone wires, and there was mass property damage at the hands of the WSPU including broken windows (CP 229). For being so militant, these women actually tried their best to remain ladylike throughout their protests. Purvis includes a quote from a suffragette in her article which reveals that the WSPU was concerned with acting humane. The suffragette stated, “Mrs. Pankhurst gave us strict orders about these fires: there was not a cat or a canary to be killed; no life; we were only allowed to give our lives” (CP 229). Clearly, the actions of the WSPU were well planned out and their intention was not to cause harm to anyone, but only to make people listen. The smile on Annie Kenney’s face in the picture below shows that she intended on being arrested so that her mission could get the publicity it deserved. 

Lytton's Speech: Self-Hurt Equals A Political Statement

  On January 31, 1910 Lady Constance Lytton gave a speech at the Queen's Hall addressing the issues of her treatment in prison. At the center of her speech is the issue of being force-fed and the reason behind the hunger strike as well as the pain women endured in order to make a political statement.
  When the hunger strike was called by Ms. Pankhurst all women suffragettes began to starve themselves. According to Lytton, "But what the women of this movement have specially stood out for is that they will not kill, they will not harm while they have other weapons left to them. These women have chosen the weapon of self-hurt to make their protest, and this hunger-strike brings great pressure upon the government. It involves grave hurt and tremendous sacrifice, but this is on the part of the women only, and does not physically injure their enemies" (CP 226). The hunger strike was not meant to cause pain to anyone but the suffragettes who were trying to get the government's attention to allow their voices to be heard. As a result, the government and medical officials did respond but it was not with reasonable actions but instead it was with forcibly feeding these women and causing tremendous pain not only to their bodies but to their mindsets as well.
   Often the force-feeding involved a tube being shoved down the throat and then liquefied food was poured into the tube that deposited the food into the woman's stomach. Choking and vomiting were common as Lytton writes, but one of the greatest tolls on the body was the "moral poisoning of one's whole mind" (CP 227). The doctors ordering this inhumane treatment were not thinking of the moral and physical damage that was being done to these women but instead were focused on the idea of returning the women to the home to complete their "womanly work". Meaning, these women were to be sent home to cook and raise children as they were supposed to have been doing all along. The idea was solely not to return these women to a healthy state physically but was to remind them of where their place was in society and that male officials would allows have control over them. I would argue that the force-feeding was used as a metaphor to show that the government would always have control over women; women did not have control over their bodies but the government did. Therefore, officials could make the decision on whether a woman could starve to death or would be forced to live through being force-fed.
Question:
-Do you all think the force-feeding had a metaphorical meaning behind it or was it strictly for medical purposes?

Works Cited

"Lady Constance Lytton: A Speech Delivered at the Queen's Hall, January 31, 1910." In Women In European History Coursepacket complied by Dr. Shelley Wolbrink. Spring 2014. 

Images from Google.

Lady Constance Lytton's 1910 Speech

Lady Constance Lytton was a woman born into the most privileged class in Great Britain, however she ultimately rejected this background and became an outspoken member of the Women’s Social and Political Union. In 1910, in a speech she delivered at Queen’s Hall, she recounted the treatment she received during her imprisonment and the forced feedings she endured. She also brings up how differently she was treated once her true identity and title was discovered and she was subsequently released. Throughout her speech, she emphasizes the importance of the hunger strike that they participate in and how inhumane and cruel the forced feedings she and others endured were. She vividly describes the forced feeding procedure that she endured, once saying, “I felt as though I were being killed-absolute suffocation is the feeling.” And further how much the experience haunted her, “what was even worse to me than the thing itself was the positive terror with which I anticipated its renewal.” (CP 227)
Though throughout the speech, she never forgets to mention that while she did suffer these forced feedings, there were many more women who suffered it worse or were still suffering at the time she gave the speech. In the beginning of the speech she states, “…yet they must remember this fact, that thirty-five other women have been treated as I have been treated, and of those women I have suffered the least.” (CP 226).  She even recounts an event in which she was arrested during a protest under her own name and was released, while a women who had been much less involved was held for longer and force fed.  This aspect of the speech emphasizes the vast differences that women of different classes faced while being involved in the suffragette movement, that while both working-class women and women of the aristocracy might be involved in the same hunger strike or protests, they faced very different punishments if caught.

An artists rendering of the forced feeding procedures  from Illustrated London News, 27 April 1912

Lady Constance Lytton with other suffragettes, including Sylvia Pankhurst

http://www.imow.org/community/blog/viewEntry?language=es&id=21

Starving Suffragettes

With the continuation of women’s suffrage, the document containing a speech given by Lady Constance Lytton at Queens Hall on January 31^st 1910.  This speech addresses the aspect of suffragettes involved in a hunger strike.  Lytton explains that the involvement of women during this strike is like using a weapon against the government.  She states that “these women have chosen the weapon of self-hurt to make their protest, and this hunger-strike brings great pressure upon the Government” (CP 226).  Lytton then confronts the government by accusing it of unreasonable, even torturous methods of abuse towards the suffragettes. Lytton explains that “when the Government retaliated with their unfair methods, with their abominable torture and tyranny of feeding by force, did you expect the women to drop their weapons” (CP 226).  Lytton goes on to provide a detailed account of the treatment she received from her “torturers” by explaining that she was forced to pour food down her throat, which created the sensation of choking (CP 227).  While telling her story, Lytton creates a perspective of the good and the bad.  The Suffragettes being good, and he Government being bad.  She creates a call to arms for women and does not stray from her views.  Her experiences of torture only fuel the fire of her words, and allow her to stay the course as well as convincing other women to do the same.   

Source: Womens History Coursepacket compiled by Dr. Wolbrink

Disguise to Discover the Truth

(Lady Constance Lytton, photographed in her Jane Wharton disguise.)

Lady Constance Lytton told a story that needed to be shared with the public. She told the story of how privilege was influencing how women were treated in prison. It was not just the terms of their sentence, or what they had done that determined their treatment, no this was determined by something very different. This treatment had all to do with one thing, social class. Those women who came from influential families, or knew influential families held privilege even in prison. The wardresses, the wardens, the guards, even the doctors who force-fed young women knew the value of certain women. She referred to a specific influence where her connections saved her while another suffered, “I said that in the same prison where I was, there was a woman, a first offender, who had done much less violence than I had, and she was fed by force without having her heart tested as all” (CP 226). Lady Constance Lytton knew of her privilege when they refused to force-feed her and instead released her after a hunger strike.

               

In the reading, she goes into detail explaining how she decided to follow the lies of the government with lies of her own. She said, “Lies, and nothing but lies! Well, I thought, you choose your weapons, I will fight with the same weapon, and you shall take my life, and do with it what you will” (CP 227). She created a new persona; she became Jane Wharton. Jane Wharton was a working class woman, with no influence and no impressive connections. As Jane Wharton, Lady Constance Lytton endured seven forced feedings before her ruse was discovered. Then because she was once again Lady Constance Lytton, she was immediately released due to her “weak heart”. Yet for many of the working class women, as proven by Lady Constance, none had their hearts tested, checked or monitored during the force-feedings. These individuals in power did not care to harm the small nameless women; they knew no-one would stand up for them. Yet with the proof Lady Constance discovered as Jane Wharton, outrage spread like wildfire both in the feminist circles as well as through the general public. Now everyone knew the terrible atrocities that were occurring in these prisons, the attacks these women faced for nothing more than fighting for their rights.

Emmeline Pankhurst "Why We Are Militant"

Emmeline Pankhurst’s speech, “Why We Are Militant,” convinces the audience that the militant element is necessary to persuade the representative government of England. For instance, Pankhurst states,” nothing ever has been got out of the British Parliament without something very nearly approaching a revolution.” (CP 207). She discusses how men were able to gain what they needed from the Parliament through violence, she states,” men got the note because they were and would be violent,” (CP 207) unlike woman who were are more patient and nonviolent. She states,” woman did not get it because they were constitutional and law-abiding” (CP 207). She believes woman are too patient but why should they if the Parliament does not take their words nor actions seriously? for instance, she states,” I am by nature a law-abiding person, as one hating violence, hating disorder-  I want to say that from the moment we began our militant agitation to this day I have felt absolutely guiltless in this matter” (CP 208). She expresses how important it is that militant element is the last resort and how the Suffrage movement has come to this, she states,” I tell you that in Great Britain there is no other way” (CP 208). 

Photo above is Mrs. Pankhurst speaking at a rally. 

Here is another one

This one really catches my eyes. 

Does Emmeline Pankhurst "Why We Are Militant" speech convince you that woman during this time should act militant to get the Parliament to take them seriously? What do you guys think? 

Sources: CP & Google images 

**Wrong week by accident, I read the syllabus wrong, LOL

Sylvia Pankhurst: November 9, 1909

Through Sylvia Pankhurst’s account on November 9, 1909, we can learn interesting aspects about WSPU women other than the Pankhursts. While this letter primarily discusses force-feeding and its dire consequences, other curious facts arise from it as well. Miss Brown, according to Sylvia Pankhurst, was imprisoned due to an incident in Guild Hall on Lord Mayer’s Day (CP 225). Sylvia Pankhurst stated that “Miss Brown, having carefully selected a pane of the stained-glass window upon which there was no ornament, and which she thought might be easily replaced, stooped down, took off her shoe, and smashed the chosen pane in order that her shout of “Votes for Women” might be heard by those below” (CP 225). From this recollection, we can determine that though militancy was the preferred method of gaining attention, some WSPU women, like Miss Brown, took thought into what they were destroying. In Miss Brown’s case, she chose to break a pane of no consequence, most likely because she did not want to destroy precious and beautiful property. Breaking a plain pane would likely have gotten the same attention as breaking a precious one would. I believe Miss Brown’s actions may show that these WSPU women had a sense of courtesy even while they destroyed property.

Another interesting aspect of this account was the utter contempt Sylvia Pankhurst and other WSPU women had for the iconic British leader Winston Churchill. According to Pankhurst, a Miss Theresa Garnet “resolved to humiliate Mr. Churchill, both as a member of the Government which preferred rather to imprison women than to enfranchise them and to torture them rather than to extend toward them the ordinary privileges of political prisoners; and also on his own account for his slippery and disingenuous statements in regard to the Votes for Women question” (CP 225). While many today perceive Churchill to be a hero of World War Two, it seems that his thoughts towards women may have been misogynistic.  

Questions:

Do you think taking into account what they were destroying and how valuable it could be made WSPU’s militancy any more justifiable?

When considering Iconic figures in history, such as Churchill, do you think that their chauvinistic tendencies towards women should alter your view of them? 

I chose this image because it closely relates to how Miss Garnet accosted Mr. Churchill. 

Lady Constance Lytton Speech

In her speech delivered in 1910, Lady Constance Lytton seems to draw on two different, yet collaborative and interweaving tones in order to address her audience and support the suffragette movement. For one, she employs an assertive, declarative tone focused on laying out an argument in justification of the violence or “self-hurt” used to wage the suffragette war. For example, she states “weapons must be used. The weapons for which we ask are simple, a fair hearing; but that is refused us in Parliament, refused us by the Government…Then we must have other weapons….These women have chosen the weapon of self-hurt” (CP 226). In essence, she sets up the framework for understanding the way in which the suffragette movement was forced to operate, forced to employ “weapons” to be heard. This part of her speech reflects a tone of strength, a sense of “not backing down,” and a portrayal of the just cause at hand. The tone begins to differ more so when she relates her experience with forcible feeding. She utilizes a more illustrative, sensory account, stating, “I felt it was all too hideous….I got to hate the blindness, the prejudice…I tried to think of…all the martyrs, all the magnificent women in this movement, and I felt a tremendous gratitude to them, an admiration which overpowered me” (CP 227). In this way, her words firstly confirm that the suffragette movement was, in some ways, the culmination of women throughout time attempting to exert agency and power. At its basic, she is demonstrating that she had many predecessors, who came before her and worked towards a similar end. Secondly, she demonstrates a much more flowery, emotionally-based picture, like when she uses words like “overpowered” and “hate.” However, although she appears to play into a stereotypical link between women and emotion, she actually uses it as a tool of empowerment in a way. Specifically, her wording is somewhat reminiscent of the visionaries of the Middle Ages, who were respected for the special role they could play as women and who capitalized on the unique position of authority they held in society. Altogether, her speech exemplifies two approaches in gaining attention for the movement, one that is forceful and dominant, yet, at the same time, uses a striking conveyance of feeling to elicit support.

Question: Which of the tones encapsulated in her account is the most effective? Why did Lady Constance Lytton give such a vivid picture of her force-feeding? 

Image Source: http://goodgentlewoman.wordpress.com/2012/10/24/lady-constance-lytton/

The British Women’s Suffrage Movement On the International Stage

                The Twentieth Century observed more women gaining the right to vote than during any other time in history. Few women gained suffrage prior to 1900 and astonishingly a few countries still deny women this essential human right in 2014. Women’s suffrage movements especially took off at the turn of the century, and there was an international component as female suffragists began to travel and saw both the injustices and freedoms experienced by women in other countries. This is exemplified in the 1915 and 1919 conferences held by suffragettes and social reformers from Germany, England, and the United States. Over one thousand delegates attended the anti-war conference in 1915 and formed the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, meeting again in 1919, in Zurich, to promote world peace and to advocate for the rights of women and other minorities (CP 205). Clearly by this point, the women’s movement had reached an international scale and while focused mostly on the suffrage movement in their own countries, suffragettes such as Emmeline Pankhurst were definitely aware of the events and circumstances of women in other areas of the globe.

                Included in the Introduction to Emmeline Pankhurst’s Suffrage Speech at the Old Bailey is the statement that  the “Women’s Social and Political Union, founded in 1903 by Emmeline Pankhurst, attracted large crowds at suffrage demonstrations and adopted the militant tactics of the Irish independence movement” (CP 202). This statement alludes to the fact that the suffragette’s decision to turn to violent demonstrations did not occur in a vacuum.  There were events happening in Europe that had a direct influence upon the movement. In Pankhurst’s 1912 speech, delivered during her trial at the Old Bailey criminal court, she plainly expresses why WSPU members were forced into militancy. They experienced violence from the government and were treated as common criminals for simple acts such as creating petitions, banners, and attending political rallies and asking politicians about their stance on women’s rights. Between 1903 and 1912, Pankhurst and many other suffragettes were imprisoned and treated with excessive cruelty and punishments compared to their crimes. The example of women involved in militant acts abroad as well as Pankhurst’s view that violence was necessary undoubtedly added to the WSPU’s turn towards militancy.

                At the end of Pankhurst’s speech, she uses the example of an Irish woman’s trial in which she was being charged with murder. Because she was young and unmarried, the judge ruled that her father needed to be present and held partially responsible for her actions. Pankhurst uses this example from Ireland to show that if she was guilty of something, because she was a woman and had few rights, men should actually be held responsible for her violent actions. She asks how men can judge her in court when her sex has no say in British laws nor are they allowed to participate in the judicial system. Because the suffragettes were only reacting to harsh treatment from the authority, Pankhurst asserted that “If we are guilty of this offence, this conspiracy, other people, some of the members of His Majesty’s Government, should be in the dock by our side” (CP 205). Pankhurst’s speech demonstrates that she understood not only laws in her own country, but that she was also aware of legal circumstances of women in Ireland.

Emmeline Pankhurst being arrested.

Alias "Poly Dick"

From this weeks reading, the account of Mary Richardson and the Venus by Velasquez provides an interesting account of Ms. Richardson's perspective and involvement in the suffragette movement. As is explained in the document,  Richardson initializes a plan to destroy the famous painting of the Venus.  Throughout the article, Richardson refers to the suffrage of women, and uses this ideal to explain why she must sabotage the work of art.  Richardson states that "I must make my protest from the financial point of view, therefore, as well as letting it be seen as a symbolic act" (CP 212).  Richardson hopes to use the destruction of art as a symbol for suffragettes; in order to bring attention to women's suffering, Richardson feels that an act of vandalism will allow her views along with other women to be brought into the public eye. 

Richardson's account also provides her experience while in the museum and accomplishing the deed.  She explains that she had purchased an axe in order to create the damage in which she had planned (CP 212).  Upon entering the museum, Ms. Richardson had devised a plan as to how to conceal the tool of destruction.  "My axe was fixed up the left sleeve of my jacket and held in position by a chain of safety-pins, the last pin only needing a touch to release it" (CP 213).  This quote represents Richardson's plan to destroy the artwork, and provides and account of the detail in which she had undertaken in order to follow through with her plans. 

Once Richardson had completed her goal of slashing the painting,  she explains that the security guard along with a few others had quickly apprehended her (CP 214).  This excerpt is particularly interesting because of the way in which Richardson chooses to portray herself.  In the beginning of the article, Richardson's tone suggests that her motives are an act of protest.  Once she is detained,  Richardson portrays herself as the heroine, and the detectives as the hot-headed antagonists.  She states "I was deposited in a corner and left to 'cool off,' as one detective put it.  In fact I seemed to be the only one who did not need to cool off.  The detectives, the police, even the police inspector who appeared, were purple in the face and breathing heavily, rushing backward and forward like ants which had been disturbed" (CP 214-215).  This statement suggests that Richardson is trying to portray her actions as heroic, and the law enforcement officers as individuals standing in the way of justice.  This concept allows Richardson to openly stand against her enemies, and fight for women during this time. 

If Richardson is choosing to portray herself as a heroine and the security officers and the antagonists, could this symbolize the portrayal of women vs. the justice system? If so, could Richardson's entire account symbolize the destruction of era that oppressed women?

Sources: Coursepacket Compiled by Dr. Wolbrink

Lady Constance Lytton Speech in 1910

I chose to post about Lady Constance Lytton as Jane Warton who was forcibly fed whenever she was going on a hunger strike. She delivered her speech at the Queen’s hall, January 31, 1910 (CP). Her speech was describing her experience with the hunger-strike, she explains that woman unlike men do not need to resort to violence and use weapons for what they are trying to protest for. If the government, parliament, and the courts all refused what they are asking for which is a simple fair hearing, than they must do what they have to do to get their attention. And that is why these women have chosen the weapon of self-hurt to make their protest (CP). She also goes further with her explanations that even if the government continues to use their “unfair methods, with their abominable torture and tyranny of feeding for force” (CP), women are still not going to give up on what they deserve.

                She explains the force feeding as if “being killed-absolute suffocation” (CP). I like how she explains the horrifying experience of force feeding by using words like painful, suffocation choke, and writhes. And admits at that moment you forget why you are protesting. But then you realize soon after why you are doing this, and it’s because she thinks about the splendid heroes and heroines since the world began, of all the martyrs, all the magnificent woman in this movement and with that she feels tremendous gratitude (CP). Lady Constance describes her terrifying experience not only does it give the audience sympathy but it empowers the movement by convincing the other woman that you too can become a member of their union and be part of the movement.  

                Questions: Do you think the government actually took the woman seriously because there was no violence but self-destruction? Was there any other way for woman to get the attention of the government without hurting themselves??  

Sources: CP and Google images

"Terribly Nervous"

(An newspaper rendition of what the smashing of the windows in West London may have appeared as.)

This week, as anyone who took senior seminar last semester knows, is a topic that I have delved deep into, the Suffragettes. These women stood against the government to fight for their rights, some only desired the right to vote, while others wanted full equality under the law. Yet this reading specified the militant Suffragettes, or those willing to use violent means to accomplish their ideas. These women did not start out as militant individuals; instead, they were forced into it when other options of recourse offered no solutions for them (CP 203). Even though these women felt they had no other options, the media portrayal of them was anything but positive.

The Daily Graphic article on these women proves that the Suffragettes did not have much positive press. In the article, women are described as young girls. Many of whom “were terribly nervous” about destroying the windows. It is interesting because one cannot be sure how the reporter knows these women were nervous, because it is unlikely he talked with any of them. Also interesting is how the reporter said, “The women “furthered their cause” by doing thousands of pounds’ worth of damage to the windows of West London shopkeepers,” (CP 201). The internal set of quotation marks placed by the reporter, lead one to believe that this reporter did not approve of the destruction. The quotation marks suggest that their goal was not accomplished by their destruction of property. Without the media approval anything the Suffragettes did held a negative light.

"Why We Are Militant"- A Critique of the British Government

Emmeline Pankhurst’s speech, “Why We Are Militant,” represents the unique approach to suffrage in England, based on the participation of women from upper social classes, who Pankhurst herself describes as “the fortunate women,” and the element of militancy (CP 208). Pankhurst provides appropriately a strong and assertive defense of women’s use of force in the fight for suffrage. Interestingly, Pankhurst employs the history of men’s enfranchisement to support the argument for militant action for women’s suffrage. For example, she stated in relation to working class men gaining the vote in 1884, “Rioting was threatened and feared, and so the agricultural labourers got the vote…Men got the vote because they were and would be violent” (CP 207). In addition, she emphasized that the militant aspect of women’s suffrage derived from a last resort, in that the women “have tried all other available means and have failed to secure justice” (CP 208). Both such components of her argument are significant to the way in which she actually represents a general critique of how the British government operates. For instance, Pankhurst stated, “Nothing ever has been got out of the British Parliament without something very nearly approaching a revolution,” and in a direct response to Parliamentary measures, “It’s no use gentlemen trying to put us off with sentimental legislation” (CP 209). In essence, she places the overall inefficiencies, negligence, and injustice of the British government in a prominent spotlight within her account. She even further attributes characteristics typically assigned to women in a patriarchal sense, like “sentimental,” to the very actions of the British government. Altogether, Pankhurst appears to defend the militant component of the suffrage movement, not by justifying violence necessarily, but by highlighting the root of the problem, in this case, the government, that necessitated the violence.

Do you think that Pankhurst's speech is convincing of the fact that the militant element was necessary?



The Pankhursts – Christabel, Emmeline and Sylvia – lead a suffragette parade through London in 1911. Image source: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/21/women-rights-march-on-parliament

Old Baily Speech

I find it very interesting that so many different excuses seem to be offered by the men as to why women can vote or have any kind of political power; and the suffrage women at this speech turn each argument against themselves. For instance one of the first things that is brought up is the rules surrounding women petitioning. Women were allowed petition, and they were allowed to present those petitions. This sounds all well and good until it is discovered that if the person in question can simply refuse to see the petition and thus it would be killed. So the rules in of themselves do not make sense. Women are not given the fair and equal chances they deserve and that is made evident from the speech. Another example is the evidence shown that at one point the suffrage women were giving public speeches and believed their voice was getting out to the public. Sadly it turned out that their speeches were not being reported, thus their voice and influence reached few.
     The women leading this speech made it very clear that had they simply been allowed to petition and speak their minds as they wanted then no violence would have occurred. But because their voices were being obscured then it forced the women to act accordingly and began being violent. So in a sense all the violence and destruction that occurred in London is the fault of the men who would not listen or give equal chances to women. Had they simply allowed women to do these things all this destruction would have been avoided. But instead they decided to try and come up with any and every excuse to keep women down.

Emmeline Pankhurst: Suffrage Speech at the Old Bailey

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? 

The Rokeby Venus

 The article that I found most interesting was "The Rokeby Venus" from March 10, 1914. In this article is the account of Mary Richardson who attempted to destroy the painting, the Venus Velasquez that hung in the National Gallery (CP 212). What I found most interesting is Richardson claims that her inspiration for having done this act was the arrest of Mrs. Pankhurst at Kensington (CP 212). Richardson's method was to hide an axe within her sleeve and she waited for the perfect moment to strike the picture. She did not wait until the gallery was closing or when it was empty, instead she planned this attack on the artwork in full-view of the gallery's guests. There were even security guards present which resulted in Richardson only being able to strike the glass a few times and not reach the actual print before she was tackled to the ground and removed.
  Security were not the only people to accost Richardson, visitors of the gallery did as well. Books were thrown at her by visitors and the entire commotion turned into a mob-attack (CP 214). Following this incident, Richardson was taken into questioning as security wanted to know if there were any other of her women in the gallery (CP 215). Her response, "Oh, I expect so" (CP 215). Even though it was a lie, Richardson's response was enough to set the entire gallery on edge; proving that during this era of suffragettes people feared the destruction that followed with these women.
  Some questions that I had when reading this article were:
    1) Why the Venus Velasquez?
         -Richardson mentions its high value and her dislike of the image but I wonder if there was an underlying reason as well.
     2) Were other artworks either destroyed or attempted to be destroyed by the suffragettes?
     3) Art often serves as a response to a political or social issue, is that why artwork was targeted?
     4) If Pankhurst had not been removed in Kensington would Richardson have been able to attack the artwork?
Thoughts?

Works Cited

Women in European History Coursepacket. Compiled by Shelley Wolbrink. Spring 2014.

Image from Google 

Women and Children Coal Miners

  We have previously discussed the different occupations in which women found work in during the Industrial Revolution. Factories and mills were among the most common but one that is not most often thought of is mining. Now I don't know about the rest of you but I typically classify mining as a male profession but in the 19th century, women as well as children could be found working alongside men in the mines.
   According to several testimonies from workers at the South Wales Mine, the work was anything but a walk in the park. One woman even said that working in the mines would make a woman old by the age of 40 due to strenuous hauling of coal and workers in and out of the mines (The Coal Mines Industrial Revolution 1).
    Although women worked alongside men each had very different jobs. According to "The Coal Mines Industrial Revolution", "Teams of women were employed to use windlass to lift coal and workers. Men refused to do such work" (1). Even though both sexes had the goal of extracting coal in order for it be sold, men and women had different tasks. One aspect not mentioned in this article was what the tasks were that were specifically designated for men. Could it be like the handout Dr. Wolbrink provided us with today that said men could be overseers and supervisors while women did the "dirty work"? Were women the ones actually hauling the coal while men just monitored?
   An unbelievable fact that I found from this article was that children were employed to work in the mines. Anyone knows the dangers of working in a mine so why would one endanger the lives of children simply to make money? According to "The Coal Mines Industrial Revolution", "One six year old girl said 'I have been down six weeks and make 10 to 14 rakes a day; I carry a full 56 lbs. of coal in a wooden bucket. I work with sister Jesse and mother. It is dark the time we go" (1). As this quote shows, children were made to carry heavy loads back and forth into all hours of the night. As we saw in today's lecture, even children were exploited during the Industrial Revolution as the focus changed from health and well-being to money and progress.
    Some final questions for you all:
        -Do you think parents encouraged their children to work in such dangerous predicaments because they had no other choice, i.e. no one to watch the kids, or do you think the wages a child would bring home were the focus?
        -What jobs do you think men had in the mines compared to those of the women?
        -This article discussed that one girl was 6 when she began working, do you think children even younger than that were working in the mines?

Works Cited

"The Coal Mines Industrial Revolution." Women In World History. Last updated 2013. http://www.womeninworldhistory.com/coalMine.html.

All images from Google Images.

Why are the books Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility so closely related?

  For this blog post I decided to go a different route than just focusing on either of the Austen novels. Instead I would like to discuss the strong similarities between the two novels Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility. While I have only read the novel Pride and Prejudice I had no idea what the movie Sense and Sensibility was going to be about. I was quite surprised that the storyline is very similar to that of Pride and Prejudice. There are several ways in which the books are similar:
   1-There are at least two sisters who are constantly being compared to one another
   2-There are love triangles galore
   3-Women struggle with financial issues
   4-Men have the upper-hand in society
On Wednesday we discussed that Austen based her writings off of her own life story and the time period in which she lived. I understand why the political and social issues are so similar in the books, being that they were only written two years apart from one another (Notes). What I question is why the comparison of two sisters and their problems with love are so similar? It almost seems as if Austen did not know how to write about anything else other than two or more sisters who are the complete opposites of one another and their struggles with the unbending ways of love. I will have to admit that there were times where I forgot which novel we were discussing in class as the story lines are so similar.
  Does anyone else have any opinions on this comparison between the two novels? Do you think Austen was only writing based off her own life because she knew nothing else? I mean just look at the book covers below, granted Austen does not have a say on the ways in which the covers of her books look but look at how publishing companies have chosen to depict the front covers. The images are almost identical in nature.

Works Cited
Google Images
Class Notes. April 9, 2014.

Pride and Prejudice: A Very Amiable Movie

I'll be the first to admit that the 2005 movie directed by Wright and starring Keira Knightly did not accurately portray the Jane Austen novel. And you can go on just about any website to find all of the inaccuracies of the movie rendition. However, I think that Wright managed to portray a few major themes from the novel very well. One of these themes is the constraints on marriage. 

Constraints on marriage are mentioned by various characters throughout the entire movie, just as they are in the novel. Mr. Bingley is at first hesitant to propose to Jane because of Mr. Darcy's insistence on avoiding the Bennetts, whom show little regard for decorum and propriety. But he is also swayed to delay his proposal because of Jane's lack of wealth. As we have discussed, these were important factors to consider in the marriage context of the early nineteenth century. Therefore, Mr. Bingely's hesitations, or rather, Mr. Darcy's hesitations on Bingley's behalf and his own, were very reasonable and rational ones. Marriage was a delicate matter to consider, and all factors needed to be regarded with utmost seriousness. 

And men are not the only ones shown considering the more practical aspects of marriage. Charlotte's out-lash at Lizzy over her marriage to Mr. Elliot also keeps close to the theme of marriage constraints. Charlotte who is neither pretty nor wealthy has few marriage prospects. So when Mr. Elliot offers his hand in marriage, she gladly accepts, for now she has security, protection, and in a way, more freedom. Love, in her mind, is not a requirement to be happy with her marriage. This is something inconceivable to Lizzy, but quite real and rational to Charlotte. Austen and Wright, with the case of Charlotte Lucas, provide the eye-opening view that marriage was a practical and economical matter in the nineteenth century, despite the wishful thinkings of women such as Lizzy. While Lizzy may have, in the end, received all that she ever wanted in marriage, she was one of the rare ones. 

Overall, I enjoyed Wright's movie. I feel that he did a decent job of portraying Mr. Darcy in the beginning as very proud, snobbish, and somber, and then, slowly throughout the movie, as a man conscientious to others' needs, loyal, and utterly devoted to and in love with Lizzy. He was like an onion, and as the movie progressed, the layers were peeled away to reveal the Darcy that we all are smitten with. I also enjoyed Lizzy's portrayal. Though decidedly more outspoken and defiant than the Austen character, Knightly makes Lizzy bold, headstrong, and intelligent, the kind of modern character many long to see in the nineteenth-century setting. I liked this more brash Elizabeth, and it made her interactions with Darcy all the more enticing. 

To conclude, though  you shouldn't watch this movie if you are expecting an accurate theatrical rendition of the Jane Austen novel, you should watch it to be provided with an idea of the whole marriage process in the nineteenth century, to see these peoples struggles, hopes and aspirations, and to grasp their opinions on love and matrimony. 

Jane Austen: Writing What You Know

For this week’s blog, I would like to further explore the parallels between Jane Austen’s life and her novels. Firstly, her life in the country, her education at home, the close friendship with her sister, and her brothers’ careers as military officers are all reflected in Pride and Prejudice, as well as her other novels, through her characters and settings. In addition, she made visits to a brother in London and to a brother who lived on a wealthy estate, while also moving to and living in Bath with her family for a time, all of which indicate settings or travel destinations in her characters’ stories. Like the female party of the Dashwood family in Sense and Sensibility, after Mr. Austen’s death, Jane, her sister, and mother were forced to relocate, dependent on her brothers’ generosity, and eventually living in a cottage provided by one of her brothers. Austen also fell in love with a man who was forced to marry for money elsewhere, while rejecting a proposal from another whom she respected, but was not in love with. This is obviously reflected through the way in which Austen uses her novels to critique the marriage system for its economic priorities over considerations of romantic love.  Finally, Mr. Austen encouraged Jane to write and even promoted her novels, which may indicate a close relationship between her and her father like that of the one between Elizabeth and Mr. Bennett in Pride and Prejudice. Altogether, Jane Austen’s personal biographical information has close ties to the plots, characters, and criticisms integral to her novels. Although Austen was said to have lived a “quiet life,” we can see that she charted the interactions between the middle class and the wealthier classes of society in her novels, as well as pursued settings of both town and country, which relates to her personal acquaintance with a diverse range of people and locales (within England itself). Such a strong link between Austen’s life and novels enables the reader to gain a vivid and somewhat realistic picture of English society at the time, and more importantly, an idea of Austen’s perception of her society’s norms.

Sources:

http://www.jasna.org/info/about_austen.html

http://www.neh.gov/humanities/2013/januaryfebruary/feature/the-mysterious-miss-austen

Chawton Cottage where Jane lived after her father's death.

 http://www.jasna.org/info/about_austen.html

 

 

 

 

Marianne and the emotional state

In the movie Sense and Sensibility, we have been introduced to the two sisters; Elinor and Marianne Dashwood.  Though the two are sisters, they are nearly polar opposites in their social and emotional thinking.  As we have witnessed in the movie,  Elinor takes a more conservative and rational approach to life, while Marianna seems to live by her heart and emotions.  But is there more to these two characters than what meets the eye?  According to Lianna Manukyan,  the differences between Elinor and Marianne represents emotion versus reason (Manukyan).  From the movie,  Marianne seemingly defies the aspect of rationality, while Elinor uses judgment and rational thinking to make decisions.  As Manukyan explains,  the concept of reason over emotion was a value attributed to the 18th century (Manukyan).  Jane Austen essentially captures the two ideas within the characters and plays them off of each other.  Marianne's portrayal allows her to go through many different phases so far in the movie.  Because of her emotional nature, she is more willing to allow her instincts to control her desires, and then act upon them rather than rationally calculating various outcomes.  Marianne's character is essential in explaining the aspect of emotion when compared to reason. Jane Austen's characters have made an impact on women's history.  And the character of Marianne allows the reader to understand the use of emotion in relation to reason throughout the novel. 

Source: http://web.calstatela.edu/faculty/jgarret/467/sample4-2.htm

Mrs. Bennett

While reading Pride and Prejudice I have come to the conclusion that Mrs. Bennett may be one of the main causes that the views on marriage (in regards to women) took an incredibly long time to change. Marriage is viewed as nothing more than monetary contract. A chance to gain wealth that would otherwise be unattainable in the present circumstances. Not knowing any other possible way for her daughters to gain wealth in life, Mrs. Bennett would stop at nothing to ensure that her daughters were married off to some rich man. When Bingley showed up in the story it was difficult to determine exactly who was more in love with him, the daughters or Mrs. Bennett. I can imagine dozens of sidebar conversations going on between Mrs. Bennett and Bingley, with Mrs. Bennett going on and on about wonderful her daughters are and that Bingley should marry them. I feel like she stepped over the line at the point when she sent Jane over to Bingley's house, knowing that Jane would ultimately get stuck there and have to stay. And then refusing to send the carriage to pick her up.

Clearly Mrs. Bennett has no plans on changing the ways that women are treated or how marriage is looked at. Continuing to attempt to send off her daughters to other men. As annoying as I find Mrs. Bennett,how terrible the situation is for her daughters, I can still understand why she does the things she does. Mrs. Bennett is simply a product of her era. To her understanding sending her daughters off to marry wealthy men is the only way that her daughters can thrive and live in this world. Considering that they can not inherit property or business. So in a sense Mrs. Bennett's actions can be seen as acts of love and concern for her children. But unfortunetly continuing with this line of actions will never gain women any progress. It is probably for the best then that Mrs. Bennett's line of thoughts fall out of traditional thinking.

A Rational Creature?

(A photograph showing a first edition of Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen.)

Since this week we are discussing all things Jane Austen, I decided to dive in to a specific idea that has been stirring in my head. This idea relates to Elizabeth Bennet and her supposed “break” from the mold of an ideal woman during eighteenth century England. I refer to her rather dramatic breakdowns in which she berates and blames herself for the situation when in reality it does not help her cause at all. One could argue that Austen does this intentionally to create drama in the story as well as make a more readily identifiable character out of Elizabeth. If she does not have these breakdowns, it is possible less women would relate to the heroine of the story. But by creating such dramatic breakdowns, not in line with the character of Elizabeth, Austen almost harms the character of her heroine by making her inconsistent.

Instead of being “a rational creature” Elizabeth loses herself to the very “foolishness”, she remarks that Kitty and Lydia possess. The reason I question this is a few instances that occur regularly throughout Pride and Prejudice. Two major instances of such breakdowns come to mind. One her breakdown following reading Darcy’s letter, of course some confusion is expected. The fact that she wanders around lost disbelieving for hours on end, and still refuses to believe for a day or two before realizing her flawed logic is extreme. Once she begins to accept the letter as true she still exclaims, “How despicably have I acted! I, who have prided myself on my discernment! I, who have valued myself on my abilities,” (Austen 177). Her exclamation does not end after this, confusion is acceptable, so is disbelief, yet it should not last for pages while she internally debates the situation. It comes across as overkill, at least to me personally. The second instance of such a breakdown is more extreme; it is when she realizes that Lydia has run off with Wickham. She blames herself for the whole thing, just because she did not divulge the secret of Wickham’s character she did not share. Elizabeth says, “When I consider, that I might have prevented it! I who knew what he was. Had I but explained some part of it only – some part of what I learnt, to my own family,” (Austen 231). God forbid she looks at the situation logically and recognizes that this behavior from her sister is expected, if it was not to be Wickham surely it would have been another. Or that she remembers that in fact she did tell someone about Wickham, she told Jane. So she cannot be blamed for the whole situation. All these instances of Elizabeth being dramatic seem contrived and places Elizabeth in a poor light.