Why hadn’t women been given the vote by 1913? Was it because of increasing levels of suffragette militancy, such as Emily Wilding Davison’s actions at the 1913 Derby? Year 12 have been considering this traditional explanation, alongside alternative arguments. Did politicians use militancy as a convenient excuse for denying women the vote? Does personal opposition or party loyalty explain the real block at this stage? View the clip again, use your class notes and post your comments to argue your case!
12 comments:
I believe that women had not been given the vote for a number of different reasons.
Firstly, I believe that the Government didn’t approve of the WSPU’s militant methods, and were reluctant to give such irrational women the power of the vote, for the fear of what they would do with it. The WSPU were not proving themselves to be mature and responsible, which is something the government expected from people who would be making important decisions about the running of the country, especially with the threat of war around this time. Militancy also introduces the question of why would the government want to help people who were constantly fighting against them. As we saw with the two conciliation bills, more progress was made with these when the levels of militancy was lower.
As highlighted in class, I do think the liberals strategy of trickery and weakness did prolong the fight for women’s suffrage. By promising some progress, the women are likely to support the party, helping them get into power. As we saw with the conciliation bill, the liberals promised an alternative, and then declared it unconstitutional. The liberals were preventing the women from developing a strong argument, whilst still acknowledging it. This means that the women have to change what bill/legislation they are focusing on, which would hinder their development in the fight for women’s suffrage.
Another reason is the self preservation tactic the Liberal party was using. As parliament was only willing to accept a conciliation bill with a narrow focus, meaning only home owning women would have the vote, this would give the conservatives an immediate advantage as their ideals would appeal most to the upper class. As long as the conciliation bills are still restricted in who they award the vote to, then the liberals will not support it fully, for fear of losing their power over the country. They have no duty to, as the WSPU doesn’t have liberal affiliations, and it hasn’t promised to fight for votes for women. I believe that only when the liberals lose the majority vote will they start to redirect attention to the issue of votes for women. I think the reason this is the reason they haven’t yet given women the vote, and that if there was a chance to give women the vote and still become the majority, then they would do it, because of the benefits it would give them if they could have the support of women. Since the corrupt practises act in the late 19th century, women have proved that politics can benefit from their involvement, which gives them a upper hand when fighting for the vote.
Amy Barker, 12MCB
The government had many reasons behind their idea of not giving votes to women. They were unsure about what role women would play in the political world, would they highlight domestic issues within family life or overshadow proposals from key politicians? Although the government had made steps to ensure that one day women would eventually be enfranchised, the approach was not as direct as the WSPU had hoped for. After the failure to mention the suffragettes in the Kings Speech in November 1910, frustration built up and on Friday 18th November 1910 over 300 suffragettes marched to the House of Commons in protest at the failure of the conciliation bill. This day, deemed Black Friday by suffragette because of the notorious police violence towards women was the responsibility of Winston Churchill. The WSPU’s militant acts played an immense role in the governments decisions. It was almost as if the women where behaving like children, attacking government and private buildings if bills failed or if things weren’t progressing as well as they hoped. I believe this is a main contributing factor to why the government declined bills and amendments.
I do not believe that politicians used WSPU militancy do deny women the suffrage. If members of parliament and political parties were to accept women into the government and allow them a say in the running of the country, they needed to ensure that standards could be upheld and all their hard work would not be undone. The behaviour of the WSPU in these circumstances was not the attitude that the government wanted to bring to politics. While the women were fighting against the government in such a militant way, no major progress could be made. The suffragette militancy portrayed by Emily Wilding Davison’s actions at the 1913 Derby did nothing to help the government decided on whether or not to give women the vote. Actions like hers were not to be looked on heroically but shamefully. These behaviour was not that of a leading politician but of an irrational women who though she was carrying out a successful protest.
Emma Halliday 12 BW
The government had many reasons why they didn’t want women to have the vote. They didn’t like the women and their militancy ways and the government were scared that if they gave women the vote because of militancy, then they could use this method to get other rights as well as if the government were almost responding to militancy by giving the women what they wanted. The Emily Wilding Davison I don’t think had much effect on the movement, but did show that women were passionate about getting the vote. I don’t actually think she was meant to kill herself, but was prepared to do anything to she could that might make an impression on the government. Also they thought that by being militant it showed that women weren’t capable of making such a big decision of voting. If the women did get the vote, they weren’t sure what effect it would have on running the country. I think that politicians would have used this along with other reasons to deny the women the vote.
The liberals trickery and weakness I think also held back the suffrage. Women had been promised to be enfranchised, but the last step was never followed through. The liberals seemed to agree with the vote for women, but wouldn’t commit themselves to the suffrage. The liberals main aim was to keep votes, and by supporting the women’s suffrage, they may loose out on many votes. By giving women the hope of the vote, the women put all their effort into the idea of the government franchise bill, which was then said to be unconstitutional. This meant that the women had left its previous idea to get the 2nd reading passed again, to get the vote, to this new idea from the liberals which fell through, so any progress they had made previous to this, was lost.
I think that the women should have supported the liberal party all the way through the movement, so that they could have had their support all throughout the movement. By not always supporting the liberals fully, they may have hindered their chances to get the vote. The liberals seemed to be the only party that were interested in the women’s suffrage movement, and spent time on planning how to help the movement. Although this didn’t work with the government franchise bill, it did help the movement with their general support. Although I believe that they may have progressed further in the movement by backing the liberals more, I think that they needed to appeal to all of the parties as well, and found common ground between all the parties to get the general support for the votes for women.
Lizzy Ambler 12ECT
I think that there are various reasons as to why women had not been granted the vote. As we have learnt in class, and can see from the video feauturing Emily Wilding Davison, the WSPU and sugragettes were not opposed to using militant tactics in order to make their point known and show why they wanted the vote, however i feel that this had the opposite effect on the government. I think that the government were not impressed by the various militant acts which the WSPU initiated such as throwing stones, breaking windows and pouring acid on golf courses, as this comes across as childish to a certain extent, and not as 'refined' as the methods used by more pacifist organisations such as the NUWSS, who seemed to fit in much more with the ideals and morals that the government and men in general wanted women to possess. I agree with Amy's point about the idea that the WSPU were not proving themselves to be mature and responsible and i can see to a certain extent why the government would not want to enfranchise women for the fear of the unknown and what women would actually use their vote to do, and i feel that some of the old ideas were still present such as the idea of the public and private sphere becoming fused, and i think that some of the more conservative political figures would still have been afraid of this, and i think this idea is highlighted through the conciliation bills which always seemed to pass the second reading at least, which gave women some hope that things would be changed and they would be granted the vote, yet it was then taken away from them- the government wanted to look like they were doing something in order to pacify organisations such as the WSPU and gain their support, but i believe they had no real intention of giving women the vote.
Felicity 12BW
The government had many reasons why they didn’t want women to have the vote. This is partly because of the uprise of militancy between 1910-1913 as well as the liberal government and the use of their power. So women were partly the reason why women didnt recieve the vote at this point, this is because of the uprise of militancy and the fact of antics such as throwing stones at political places like 10 downing street as well as pouring acid on golf courses... etc. however the action of Emily davison died for women suffrage showed that some woman were show passionate abotu women getting the vote. However the militant methods such as breaking windows, wouldnt have pleased the government and because of the uprise in militant action made the government change there mind about enfranchising women because of the way the woman are acting. this is because the government believe that the vote is a serious matter for adults but if women are acting in this chidish way the government and mps are going to change there minds of about woman having the vote. This is because the government would begin to fear if women got the vote what would women do with it and would these miliant action continue, but for other demands. In addition to that you can see that this did occur within the government this is because of the concilliation bills and the fact the 1910 and 1911 were passed but when the 1912 concillaition bill occur it failed, which showed that militancy had produce fear in the government. In addtion to that other ideas also prevented women having the vote such the public and private sphere roles as well as more conservative men and women would still look at the effects upon the family as well as fear for the change of women roles, this is because women are now seen as these political fighters and it broken the perception of the image of women as the angel of the house.
As highlighted in class, I do think the liberals strategy of trickery and weakness did have an effect to prolong women suffrage as well. This is because of the main example of the concillation bills and how they were accepted but not passed due to such reasons like government didnt allow more parlimentary time. The fact the liberal government made up excuses such as not enough time to make women hopeful that they are getting around to women suffrage thus prolonging it.in addtion to that you could also say that women suffrage was prolonged due to corruption within the government. For example before the manhood suffrage bill was going to be decided the day after, which would also enfranchise women. however the night before Llogd george went to the house of the speaker of the house of commons and who had strong views againist woman suffrage, however after that day llogd geogre then express how alternate amendment would be unconstiutional.
also they was other factors of why women didnt get the vote up until this point. this is because of things such as political worry. this is because liberal belived if women were given the vote it would help the conservative party out because women would vote for conservative and at that time liberal had just won the election but a little margin which shoke the liberal government and created other problems which they had to deal with rather then women suffrage if they was to stay in office.
Suren Dayalji 12RGS
I think that the goverment did use militancy as an excuse to not give women the vote by 1913 because cases such as Emily Wilding Davison at the 1913 derby show that women were causing trouble, and this event ending in the way it did shows that maybe the women campaigning for the vote did not think things thorugh and were irrational with there descisions, and this could reflect to what would happen if they got the wote. and this may have been seen as no way of getting the vote. Also the goverment did not want to give women the vote, this may have been because they were scared of how the women were going to use the vote and how much power they would actually get from having the vote.
Politicians were unsure of what role the women would exactly take on in the goverment. They did not want women to bring domestic issues or family issues into goverment if they were going to take priority over some of the issues raised by men in the goverment.
David 12ECT
i think that women were not given the vote because of the behavior, the government did not approve of the militancy. they may have seen they behavior as childish and not lady like, because of they behavior the women were not presenting them selfs a respectable manner. we have to remember at the time there was still the idea of public and private sphere and at that time for a women to step out of her door with out her husband may have been seen as going out of the private sphere. so what the militant women were doing must have been seen as outrageous behavior. also if the government gave the women the vote because of they militant ways they might have thought what will the women do next? also they thought if they gave women the vote the women would bring in they domestic issues and the political issues wouldn't be taken seriously by them. in way they had a worry for the country and what would become of it if the women were given the vote.
Humayra Noveen 12LRB
When looking at political parties from any era, it is important to remember that their primary aim is to either gain or remain in power. Therefore the incumbent Liberal Party are not likely to accept a women’s suffrage bill that brings women who are largely expected to be Conservative voters into the frame, as was the current proposition. And a political stalemate occurs, as neither party wants to give in and either concede or simply not gain a potentially substantial section of the vote. This much is clear, and it is principally a case of playing politics, rather than politicians who believe in equal rights voting for something they think is just, regardless of their political persuasion.
I also think that the concept of trickery of weakness in the Liberal Party is something borne out of party politics, rather than manipulation or flaws on any politician’s part. I firmly believe that when Lloyd George set out his idea for a bill which increased male suffrage, he felt that the idea of an amendment which would allow women to vote a good and worthwhile thing to do, and something that was likely to occur. In fact, it was less trickery and weakness that caused the suffrage movement to remain unsuccessful for the period that it did than it was bureaucracy in government, and the lack of consensus throughout the house on whether or not and on what grounds the bill should be accepted into law.
Some would argue that the tactics of the WSPU were although successful in gaining the attention of the public at large, a contributing factor to the lack of women’s franchise from 1909 onwards, as if a political party gave them the vote it would send a message to other pressure groups and people who believed in causes that militancy worked with regard to getting the government to pass laws that you believe passing. So even if parties or politicians were in principal pro-votes for women, they could be hesitant about giving them the vote, in case other militant groups were set up to fight for other, more extreme causes, and undesirable tactics were being used by people who are trying to push a political issue. So in some respects militancy is an easy excuse for anti-suffragists to deny women the vote, but at the same time it would also discourage people who do believe in suffrage to support acts of parliament that allow women the vote, as they would be sent to be supporting militant action.
Patrick Dowson 12MCB
women hadn't been given the vote by 1913 because of many reawsons; it would be impossible to list them all in such a shotr amount of text, but the mnain ones are that there was huge male and female opposition due to prejudices and stereotypes aroudn at the time, there was a divided front for the womemn on the whole, so tey weremn't fighting for the same thing, some were fighthing for universal, amnd some for selective suggrage. This all meant, that they were a very weak movement as far as movements actuallky go, because; although they had tens of thousands of supporters, iot took them many years to ACTUALYL attain any success. This suggests that there are many weak factors aroudn the movement, such as leadership etc, so thus they will have greater ddifficulty getting the cvote.
i do not think that it was totally because of increased levels of women's militancy, becvause there had been militancy for many years; and they were already regarded as the low of the low, so the increased militancy would not have had as great a negative nor positive impacyt as it might have done.
personal opposition and party loyalty are possibly a reason why they hadnt got the vote, but this could aggain be tied into the factor of the weak leadership; and the divided, and thus weak, movement.
The fact that the woman in the clip was insane enough to risk her life for something so petty as votes for women in a single county, shows that some of these women were near fanatical about the cause, which i quote "no longer think that votes for women is the cure for all evils", means that they have to be exceedingly into the cause (as it is not, retrospectively, THAT big of an important issue, compared to, say, slave labour, proved by the quote). This means that they will have some strength, as people like that are rarely easy to convince otherwise, but this alone would not at all have secured them voting rights.
Jake McClelland 12sev
I agree that the main reasons women did not have the vote by this point was due to the WSPU's increase in militant tactics and a decease in political support.
The liberal party make a lot of empty promises to aid womens suffrage as they agree, in principle, with the suffragettes/gists but when actually faced with the power to change a bill they never follow it through. For example, three times has concilation bills promoting womens suffrage passed the 1st or even 2nd reading but never get through to parliment. On a number of occasions the subject has been 'read out' of parliment or simply blocked by Asquith due to lack of time. This shows that the Liberal party do not want to retract their support for the womens suffrage movement (as they don't want the risk of losing support in future election years from the women) but are not brave enough to put themselves on the firing line and actually draft some concrete bills within parliment.
However, the women didn't help themselves with the rise in their militant tactics. At this time it was a incredibly brave but, possibly, stupid move. On the one hand, the women managed to convey their frustration and anger in their highly radical and sometimes violent acts for womens suffrage (Emily Wilding Davison.) Plus, the buzzing media attention connected with thousands of people, bringing the idea of womens rights in as the topical, hot debate.
However, it gave the politcal sphere all the ammunition they needed to completely ignore womens suffrage as a serious debate. It showed up the women representing the womens suffrage as petty, law-breaking violent women that couldn't be burdened with power within the politcial sphere. In this way it was a not very well thought-out method of protesting and, some could say, it un-did the reputations of groups such as the WSPU and even the NUWSS that some women spend years trying to establish.
Sarah Lawson 12ECT
By 1913, the women of Britain did not yet have the right to vote. Women's suffrage campaigns had been around for sometime, ranging from the militant WSPU, to the somewhat more conserved NUWSS. The WSPU's militancy was recognised to have achieved more in 12 months than had been achieved in 12 years pre-militancy. This shows us that at least to some extent - even if not so far as ultimately attaining the final goal - the militant tactics and practices of the WSPU were effective.
During the times of militancy at a low level (pre-1913) the women's suffrage movement were de jure, fairly successful. As multiple people have already pointed out, two reconcilliation bills reached their second reading, at which point they were talked out, and in any case, not passed. The fact that these bills were able to get so far shows that the men of the House of Commons did at least in theory, support the women's suffrage movement.
Party politics is one factor which certainly played a part in the prevention of Votes for Women. The liberal party, as their name suggests, were the most liberal thinking of the two main democratic parties at the time. The liberals were in government at the time that the two conciliation bills got through their preliminary stages. The WSPU appeared to lean in favour of the liberals, though we know from later occurences that this appearance was only created because the Liberal party appeared also to be supporting the WSPU and their campaign for women's suffrage. However, being a political party who need to protect their seats in office, the Liberal party would not completely commit themselves to the suffrage of these potential voters. The majority of women who would initially be elligible to vote would be land owners, the upper-class women. The upper-class women whose voting rights would come about by the Liberal party's passing of this bill were more likely to vote conservative than Liberal; a chance the current party in power could not afford to take. Whilst at the same time not wishing to risk this, the Liberals did want to appear to be trying to get the vote so as to be favoured by the women and as such, pretended to support the bill's passing until they got cold feet and withdrew at the last moment. Twice.
After a rise in militancy from the suffragettes, the next bill for women's rights was abandoned. Government persuasion caused the women to abandon the conciliation bill and support the men's suffrage bill which could then be amended to include women. The WSPU gave support for this, only to be told later that the amending of this kind of law was unconstitutional. Allegedly it was the amending not of the amendment which was deemed inconstitutional; previous changes to bills and laws shows that this was merely an excuse created to stop the women from complaining too much at these men.
Even by November 1910, shortly after the King had omitted Women's Suffrage in his speech, it was clear [from this source] that the suffragists (especially the suffragettes) were not trying to work WITH the government, but were more than willing to work AGAINST them, fighting them so as to require that the ment got fed-up rather than following Milicent Fawcent's path of talking and peace
To a certain extent, the militancy of the WSPU helped their movement to gain momentum and effect. However, I am sure that women such as Milicent Fawcett would agree that this militancy went too far to any longer be helpful in the ultimate aim of Women's Suffrage (though it is clear that in some instances Christabel and Emmeline's vision of the end goal was fogged by the drive to be militant for any cause.
Sam Deo 12BW
I agree to an extent that the militant actions of the suffragettes hindered gaining the vote, as it was hardly appealing to the government's better nature; however I don't think it was entirely the fault of the suffragettes as I think they were the drive behind the movement towards enfranchisement.
I think the main problem was the lack of commitment on behalf of the Labour Party; the fact that they were dangling enfranchisement before them but taking it away when they got too close, which I think is because they were afraid of what would happen if they didn't show they were taking action, yet were even more afraid of what would happen if they followed through. The conciliation bills are classic examples of this; the government started to show an interest but then backed out at the crucial points.
Post a Comment