Did the Suffragettes really win women the vote?

[IwantToRetire]

Is violent disruption the way to go? The answer, 105 years after votes for women were legislated, is not simple. And perhaps there are indeed some present-day parallels.

www.spectator.co.uk/article/did-the-suffragettes-really-win-women-the-vote/

Is this revisionism or closer to the truth?!

I think they were closer to organisations like the IRA than many like to admit - even if their end goal was irrefutably a righteous one.

You never hear about their failed attempts to bomb the Theatre Royal, St Paul's, etc, which would've killed lots of civilians if successful and aren't really that different from the Ariana Grande bomb attack. They also blinded/disfigured several innocent postal workers with their letter bombs.

Personally, I think their actions are indefensible and anybody whose child/loved one had been killed by one of their bombs would no doubt have agreed - it was luck rather than judgement that the bigger public bombs didn't detonate.

Its too late to be reading all that but what I will say is...

No one ever talks about the Suffragists. Broadly speaking, the Suffragists were activists of non-violent means so set about trying to obtain the vote through petition, peaceful protest and debate. The Suffragettes believed violent insurrection was the only way forward.

Ultimately, WWI did a huge amount to forward women's rights since it thrust women into spheres that had traditionally been the reserve of men.

There's more to it of course, but it's late and I think as a 3 point response covers key bases :)

The women's suffrage movement was also terribly snobby btw - working class women and those of ill repute need not apply.

The problem with history is that everyone these days is looking for a new angle to sell a book, tv programme or film so they come up with alternative theories, which may or may not hold water. How can we every day people know how to separate imagination, exaggeration, presumption and fact?
I watch lots of history programmes and I've seen just as many say that the women's war effort won the vote as I have that it was the suffragettes.

I'm not convinced the suffragettes helped the cause in the long run, although the suffragettes would have argued that the suffragists had been trying to get the vote for 50+ years peacefully without success. The suffragettes argued that extreme measures were necessary.

WWI changed things for a lot of people, including women. Previously, 40% of men over the age of 21 did not have the vote either. I am inclined to believe WWI and the women's war effort made more of a difference than the violent actions of the suffragettes.

I think it was how women behaved in World War 1 that finally sealed the deal. While the menfolk were at war, women were looking after the land, ensuring that the country had enough food, some of which would have been sent to the front line, they staffed ammunition factories, worked as nurses and ambulance drivers on the front in horrible conditions and sometimes risking their own lives in the process. That won them loads of respect and ultimately made men decide that they deserved the vote.

If you actually look at the course of events it was the war that changed the political landscape, not the actions of the suffragettes.

And as others have mentioned the quiet campaigning of the suffragists.

The initial bill for womens votes was introduced by a male MP decades before it eventually became law

I've heard this argument before, @Prescottdanni123, but if that was the case, why was it middle class property-owning women over 30 who got the vote first?

Bit like Mandela really. A ‘terrorist’ responsible for guerilla war fare. All is fair in love and war.

It was a side effect of the political desire to extend the franchise to non property owning men.

I absolutely agree with the point about suffragists. It’s worth reading one of the excellent biographies of Sylvia Pankhurst, who was an amazing person.

I went to an excellent talk years ago about this. And it applies to most big changes in society. Think civil rights, corn laws, women's rights, environment, etc
Basically you need three things to bring about change:
Population awareness
Political will
Violent protest

There had been lots of awareness raising peaceful protest for decades, nothing changed.
The violence ramped it up.
The politicians were embarrassed but unwilling to back down to look like they'd 'lost'
The first world war allowed everyone to calm down, reset, reframe the argument, 'reward' women because of their good behaviour during the war.
But the violence did indeed propel the issue forward.
It's an interesting pattern to o apply to lots of big movements to bring change.

From the article:

’In short, the Suffragettes raised the profile of the suffrage issue, but made its opponents more intransigent, and sometimes more brutal.’

The Suffragettes weren’t responsible for others’ brutality.

I think the class system played a part too. I think once working clsss men got the vote after ww1, the idea that upper and middle class women couldnt vote wouldn't have worked. Then it wasnt long until universal franchise as once you've decided some women can vote its harder to justify that some women cant.

I haven't read the article but taught this topic a few times when it was part of the GCSE History syllabus. I think it was mostly women's war work that made the difference (most suffragettes stopped campaigning during the war and focused on war work) but the suffragettes and the suffragists raised awareness of the issue before the war.

It's a terrible article..

So women should have waited until men decided they were ready to bestow the vote.. change to the status quo does not come about because the oppressor wakes up one day and decides to change. How many times have we heard - yes, I can see your point, but it's not the right time, there are other priorities..

As for criticising the movement for violence that it did not inflict on people but might have done is ridiculous. Men are responsible for far far more violence than women, in all spheres. The very small amount of violence carried out by these women pales into insignificance against the continued violence that women are subjected to at the hands of men, the failure to recognise rape in marriage before 1991 and the continued failure to successfully prosecute rape beyond 1% of those reported.

Women should not have patiently carried on pushing gently on an open door. There were several factors at play, but the brick through the window approach played it's part.

I salute you, women of the suffragettes, you have given us role models to follow. We cannot sit around and wait for men to decide what is right for us and our daughters, we must continue to make our voices heard.

When we talk about violence - let's look at where the real violence is coming from. It is overwhelmingly from men as it always has been. Rare examples do not change that.

This seems spot on to me.

Fascinating.

I posted the link because as has been said up thread, there is usually a reason that the author wants to get their name linked to something, put thought it might be of interest.

Although in this instance I think it is the claim made by some, that the protests for the Women's Votes are what Extinction Rebellion are today, was part of the motive for the artic.e.

Personally I think this is a really stupid comparison. ER seem to think that by inconveniencing "ordinary people" they will then respond by saying oh yes of course I will now lobby my MP, change my lifestyle, and forgive you for stopping me getting to my dad's funeral. As opposed to dragging drivers out of the cars or worse!

I know there is one branch of left politics that thinks if you make life hard/er for ordinary people they will rise up and overthrow the oppressive government. Unfortunately this never works and too often the public turn round and ask the government to crack down on those causing upheaval. Just as the tories have been able to bring in a bill that restricts public protest not as some delusions lefties think because they have been a problem, but because silly middle class people have been blocking roads and interferring with most people's daily lives. So two losses. Being turned off from the issue as it seems to be the pre-occupation of middle class people with too much time on their hands and are able to play silly games, and a win for the Tories in getting a bill past with harsher restrictions than might have been pushed through.

So there is a difference between having a march, and some of the Votes for Women marches were huge, and acts of violence against political targets, and acts of violence that can harm innocent by standers or postal workers.

I think as others have said that the limited right to vote came in because of WWI - but my understanding was that there was actually a "deal" that women would stop demonstrating and support the war effort and their reward would be the vote.

Wasn't it this deal that caused even more friction between the Suffragettes and the Suffragists and / or ... ?

100% and how I was taught by my wonderful A Level history teacher (never beaten by my BA/MA tutors). Wish Millicent Fawcett got more love.

No, the suffragists won women the vote, not the suffragettes.

And the only reason why women got the vote initially was to counter balance extending the vote to working class men.
The government feared that working class men would all vote Labour. So to offset the impending imbalance, they added married, propertied women aged 30+ thinking that these respectable middle class and upper class wives would vote Tory with their husbands.
Then by doubling the Tory vote, they would outnumber the new working class male Labour vote.

It was purely political strategy and nothing to do with women proving themselves in WWI. WWI was why working class men got the vote though…after so many had died in the trenches it was realised they should at least have the right to vote.

With historical movements you always also have to look at the larger picture. There was a general changing of thinking around voting - it really wasn't a long time that most people had a chance to vote. How people's thinking about voting expanded is all interconnected.

@ChateauMargaux
Letter bombs are still “real violence” and they did actually set back the cause for the vote by decades. That’s the truth. The suffragette extremists were not good role models at all.

There's a reason it was Millicent Fawcett who got a statue in Parliament Square, not Emmeline Pankhurst. The suffragists worked patiently and systematically for years, understood it was a long game and they needed to get men on side and work cross party. The suffragettes were brave af but damaged the cause as much as advancing it. (Prob like some environmental groups feel about Extinction Rebellion.)
The war was also a big accelerant, as was the fact that most of the major suffragist and suffragette groups swung behind the war effort.

Personally, I think their actions are indefensible and anybody whose child/loved one had been killed by one of their bombs would no doubt have agreed - it was luck rather than judgement that the bigger public bombs didn't detonate.

I suggest you read accounts of the forced feeding and look at the strictures of the "Cat & Mouse" Act, before you start calling the suffragettes "indefensible."

Or you could look at the evidence of the sexual assaults on suffragette women, both in prison, and in public protests. Often assaults carried out by police. (Plus ça change).

Or you could just reflect on a world where you were not permitted to vote, take a degree at Oxford, or own property independently of a man.

Or you could reflect on a world where you were not given custody of your children on divorce. Or be safe from being incarcerated in a mental asylum if you were a lesbian.

suffragists, not suffragettes, and that has been mainstream accepted history for at least 50 years