Advanced search

To remind us that not only women died to get us the vote

(36 Posts)
trufflehunterthebadger Thu 23-Jun-16 13:20:24

But that many members of the Chartist movement were injured and 15 men killed by charging cavalry at the Peterloo Massacre while rallying for the extension of the franchise in 1819

I always feel sad that the significant contribution to our democratic rights made by the chartists is overshadowed by the suffragettes

LucilleBluth Thu 23-Jun-16 13:21:48

Yes but the Chartists didn't even think of extending the franchise to women. Two totally different movements with different objectives.

redexpat Thu 23-Jun-16 13:23:36

I thought the chartists were about extending the vote to all men? I dont remember reading anything connecting them to the suffrage movement.

LaContessaDiPlump Thu 23-Jun-16 13:25:36

Yes, let's not forget the men!! Poor things, always overlooked......

witsender Thu 23-Jun-16 13:30:28


LottieDoubtie Thu 23-Jun-16 13:31:26

Gutting isn't it how men are totally overlooked in history in favour of women.

Snarkmaiden Thu 23-Jun-16 13:33:01

5 of the Peterloo victims were women. Please google properly before posting grin

ChiefClerkDrumknott Thu 23-Jun-16 13:36:37

Yes, let's not forget the men!! Poor things, always overlooked......

Won't somebody think of the menz! grin

PrettyDumb Thu 23-Jun-16 13:40:19

The horse died too sad

MargaretCavendish Thu 23-Jun-16 13:40:23

I once said to my husband that I always think about those that died for my right to vote when casting it and that he should do the same. He pointed out that as a white male well-off property-owner his rights had come with rather less of a struggle than mine...!

Theydontknowweknowtheyknow Thu 23-Jun-16 13:40:32

Ooh look OP! I can google too grin

"A particular feature of the meeting at Peterloo was the number of women present. Female reform societies had been formed in North West England during June and July 1819, the first in Britain. Many of the women were dressed distinctively in white, and some formed all-female contingents, carrying their own flags.[67] Of the 654 recorded casualties, at least 168 were women, four of whom died either at St Peter's Field or later as a result of their wounds. It has been estimated that less than 12 per cent of the crowd was made up of females, suggesting that women were at significantly greater risk of injury than men by a factor of almost 3:1. Richard Carlile claimed that the women were especially targeted, a view apparently supported by the large number who suffered from wounds caused by weapons.[68]"

So basically, not only were women targeted (probably seen as too uppity) they put their lives at risk to fight for the rights of people other than themselves?

Wowser. Thanks for bringing that to my attention OP, although I'm sure that wasn't your intention.

MargaretCavendish Thu 23-Jun-16 13:41:28

(Which is one of the reasons that he is proud to call himself a feminist)

thatsn0tmyname Thu 23-Jun-16 13:42:59

I remember learning that the Suffragists were both men and women. When the men got the vote and the women didn't, Suffragists became Suffragettes because the -ette ending is belittling to women, such as Smurfette, Brosette etc.

FreshwaterSelkie Thu 23-Jun-16 13:46:44

Brilliant post, OP, making exactly the opposite point than you thought you were making grin. Unless it's a subversively cunning reverse? Arf!

KERALA1 Thu 23-Jun-16 13:50:38

What a strange op.

Snarkmaiden Thu 23-Jun-16 13:52:47

Surely you're aware of Gilray's famous cartoon, OP -what with you being a political animal an' all. You know, the one with the woman and child at the centre.
The first casualty was a 2 year old boy, and several children were among the dead.

But let's have a minute of silence for the men.

KERALA1 Thu 23-Jun-16 13:53:03

My great grandmother was one of the first women to graduate from university. Her grades in top third. Yet, like the few other women who also graduated she wasn't actually given a degree - just a "permit to teach". Which was nice of them hey?

Furiosa Thu 23-Jun-16 13:54:07

The history of democracy and suffrage in the UK is a hugely important topic. The change in power from the elite to the common man and woman was long but every step was worth it and every step should be acknowledged.

I've often thought it was strange how only one part of suffrage is generally covered in schools. The history of woman's right to vote is very important but I think it should be taught in the context of universal suffrage in the UK, all the way from the formation of parliament to the present day. I think it would give children a better understanding of the growth, power, and responsibility of democracy. No more so now when it seems the elite are back in power and our right to vote on essential topics is denied by a "nanny state' government. Who knows it might increase the number of voters.

Furiosa Thu 23-Jun-16 13:58:22

Sorry, made a massive assumption that all schools have the same history curriculum mine did.

For clarity we only covered the suffragists and the suffragettes. Everything before was left out confused

ghostyslovesheep Thu 23-Jun-16 14:00:03

thanks OP for the edumacation - men are so often left out of HIStory after all

ghostyslovesheep Thu 23-Jun-16 14:00:24

thanks OP for the edumacation - men are so often left out of HIStory after all

FreshwaterSelkie Thu 23-Jun-16 14:02:21

I'm an old gimmer, but that is how it was taught in my school days, Furiosa. The whole process of how we came to arrive at modern democracy - from gradual erosion of the power of kings, the reformation and the restoration to the early days of a parliamentary democracy, from the rotten boroughs and the pocket boroughs and the great reforms of the late 19th century, and then finishing up with women's suffrage. I don't think we've ever been in any danger at all of specifically women's issues ending up being talked about disproportionately, at any stage in history.

FreshwaterSelkie Thu 23-Jun-16 14:03:41

A balanced approach might be 50% of the curriculum devoted to how men got the vote, and 50% to how women did, no? wink

milliemolliemou Thu 23-Jun-16 14:21:18

Fresh I think you made a point. The problem with history teaching nowadays appears to be to go for the comparatively simple single issue stuff. Female emancipation - let's do it three times over between primary and A Levels. Let's not put in context of kings/nobles/uprisings/economies/plutocracies and the development and resistance to full democracy. Let's do the Greeks and Romans and WW1 three times over, too, but ignore the development of polities. Clearly the women's movement within the Chartists was overlooked. Clearly the role of women in history was overlooked until the mid 20C by most, but the baby seems to have gone out with the bathwater. falls off high horse

WellErrr Thu 23-Jun-16 14:28:20

A balanced approach might be 50% of the curriculum devoted to how men got the vote, and 50% to how women did, no

But how?
Men got the vote because patriarchy.
Women took a slightly longer and bloodier path, but got there in the end, bless them.

But don't forget the men that helped! They're overlooked in so much of the world, at least let them have the suffragette movement.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now