Rebutting the Straw Men/Owning up when "it's a fair cop, guv.

You are correct re Sylvia Pankhurst, although Millicent and Christabel were enthusiastic supporters of the war effort. Sylvia put her energy into left-wing causes during most of the war.

But what about the main issue? I say the war helped the cause of women's suffrage, and let it happen with hardly any more struggle after 1914.

Sylvia Pankhurst was opposed to WW1. She did not hand out white feathers.

I have to disagree there. It's factually wrong to say "Women were eventually given the vote after much arsing about after the war" when everyone should know that women got the vote in February 1918 (though not on an equal basis to men until 1928).

It's also annoying to see people forgetting that although the Pankhursts suspended their campaign during the war (and handed men white feathers instead) Millicent Fawcett kept up her non-violent pressure all along, and of course many women took up jobs that supported the war. There was also another injustice to deal with, the fact that a lot of men had no vote either, when all men might be conscripted for the war. With one thing and another, it became impossible to deny women political rights by 1918. And besides, everyone's attention was elsewhere. Votes for women wasn't such a gigantic issue any more.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_of_the_People_Act_1918

The First World War helped

You are funny. And wrong, as Cailin shows.

Odd, don't you think, that the "Suffragettes were terrorists" line gets trotted out so often, and is so well known, whereas the terrorism perpetrated against the women in prison for daring to demonstrate is hardly commented on.

Mary Leigh was force-fed in September, 1909:

"On Saturday afternoon the wardress forced me onto the bed and two doctors came in. While I was held down a nasal tube was inserted. It is two yards long, with a funnel at the end; there is a glass junction in the middle to see if the liquid is passing. The end is put up the right and left nostril on alternative days. The sensation is most painful - the drums of the ears seem to be bursting and there is a horrible pain in the throat and the breast. The tube is pushed down 20 inches. I am on the bed pinned down by wardresses, one doctor holds the funnel end, and the other doctor forces the other end up the nostrils. The one holding the funnel end pours the liquid down - about a pint of milk... egg and milk is sometimes used."

Pictures are of the equipment used to force feed women, and the second is of a woman being force fed (which might be upsetting)

Eh? WW1 didn't help. Asquith was about to give women the vote in 1912, then changed his mind because he feared they would vote against him. That was entirely off the back of the work of the suffragettes. WW1 slowed things down because the suffragettes decided to suspend activity during the war. Women were eventually given the vote after much arsing about after the war. In no way was the war a cause of that.

It's a bit fucking rich for men to accuse the suffragettes of being violent when the only ever hurt themselves or property. How many people do men kill every year?

I agree with all of you

When I spoke to ds1 I told him that history is written by the victors

In the case of women in history men have written the vast majority, he then trotted off to check who had written the school text book

Luckily the book had been written by two men and even if it hadn't been it wouldn't have mattered

Even if WW1 was the reason the men gave (because obviously women needed to be seen to be worthy of having a vote ), the suffragettes raised the consciousness level. They never would have given women the vote at the end of WW1 if it hadn't been put on the table originally through their campaigning.

It is such bullshit and erasing women's history, again.

And those who do should perhaps be made to sit and a room and watch this over and over until it sinks in.

Hmmmm I think that is the line that was given so as not to give credit to the suffragettes. 100% the suffragette movement was responsible for securing votes for women.

Do we really believe they were going to give it anyway out of the goodness of their hearts?! France had the same situation in that the women were active during the war but no votes for them until the 40s. The only difference being that France didnt have a fully developed suffrage movement before the war.

Teachers really shouldn't spout nonsense like that really.

The First World War helped

Obviously there has to be more as almond said...but that was the first answer he gave

messy

The war

I think the theory was that women did such a good job of ensuring that the country kept running they were rewarded with the vote

Or something like that. He has gone out and I can't ask him

Whether or not they (and various other political movements) were successful is supposed to be explained based on the extent to which the government used force or concessions in their response to demands:

That is answered based on:

Extent to which influential figures considered the cause just.
Extent to which each group was considered a credible threat to law and order.
Evidence of force used against the group by the authorities.
Evidence of concessions given by the authorities.
A general understanding that any success happened through the authorities starting out with a response of force, the number of protestors growing, the authorities giving concessions (in the case of the suffragettes the vote).

According to the model answers given in the mark scheme.

If the suffragettes were unsuccessful what was the reason that they were given the vote? According to the teacher?

But you honestly don't believe that, say, considerably more women than men receive the message that looks matter?

If you can accept that posters who have repeatedly told you that they don't mean it's shit to be a woman are not lying and that your absolutist interpretation of posts like "women are told..." is far from their intent, I suspect discussions would be more productive.

Fancy giving it a try?

I don't think it makes much difference. I don't agree with it either way.

I interpret those statements as "girls/women are told X considerably more often than boys/men are told X". If you interpret them as "all women/girls are told X" then it's less surprising that you sense negative hyperbole and also less surprising that you so often think women on this board are setting out to contradict your experience.

Tell me, if I post "Kids like Roald Dahl books", do you think I am being hyperbolic or contradictory if you know some kids who don't?

Wrote a huge post and can't be arsed to do it again

Suffice it to say I've just showed ds1 this part of the thread...he still thinks I'm wrong. And I still think he is

In all seriousness I've just said that he is going to struggle at A level if he thinks there is only one way to view history

The suffragettes were the ones seen as more violent, and the suffragists as more respectable. Teachers are supposed to teach students the GCSE syllabus. That means answering questions such as looking at cartoons from the time, and discussing whether or not people at the time were sympathetic to the suffragettes, whether people thought the suffragettes were a credible threat to law and order, how successful their methods were compared to the Luddites and so on. Because that's the kind of questions that get asked in the exam.

And it is taught within the context (at least for OCR) of modules on protest and reaction, taught alongside other modules on terrorism and life in Nazi Germany (including a lot on attitudes to women). So they're pretty aware of the one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter stuff.

(I'm not a teacher. DD is doing History and we have the papers/ syllabus in the house)

Yonic The sort of comments which stand out for me are the " Girls are told...." ones. "Women arent allowed to..."

Maybe they don't stand out for you, but they do for me. I think "by whom? " or I must have missed that memo as did my female friends and contemporaries.

Do you have some specific phrases or posts in mind, Lass?

I was responding to Yops, Lass.

And just as you see sweeping generalisations and hyperbole, I do not and neither do many others.

Re terrorists there were plenty of leftie idiots in the UK who supported the IRA. Julie Burchill wrote a wonderful demolition piece on them. It stuck in my mind because whilst she is more often wrong she occasionally hits the target brilliantly.