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.