Whilst The Suffragettes and Suffragists did have similarities, they had many more differences. The most obvious difference between them was that The Suffragettes applied militant tactics whereas the Suffragists applied more constitutional methods such as marches and petitions. The Suffragettes believed that they had to fight for the right to vote and believed that reckless behaviour was the best way to do this, eg burning post boxes and bombing churches. Suffragists, however, believed that they would get the right to vote eventually so they wanted to speed up the process without criticism for anti-social methods. Instead they used less disruptive tactics like writing letters to politicians and only supporting political parties committed to female Suffrage. A common cause led to the more desperate tactics of the Suffragettes and the laid back methods of the Suffragists.
Public opinion differed over the tactics of the Suffragists and Suffragettes. Some said that the militancy of the Suffragettes was too masculine; they believed that there was no such thing as bad publicity and many people believed that their methods would delay women getting the vote because they made women seem irresponsible. The Suffragists were dissimilar to the Suffragettes in their belief that responsible behaviour would earn the vote. They were criticised for being ineffective as they did not receive enough publicity because their actions were not as headline grabbing as those of the Suffragettes.
A further difference between the methods of the Suffragists and Suffragettes was that the Suffragists were willing to befriend influential men to help their cause whereas Suffragettes were sometimes described as, “Anti-men.” Suffragists believed in all non-violent methods of campaigning including befriending politicians to get their voice heard in Parliament to help the cause. In contrast, the Suffragettes believed that men were the reason that they did not get the vote so refused to contemplate men as helpful to their cause.
The introduction of new groups that were campaigning for women’s Suffrage such as the WFL (Women’s Freedom League) showed that some people thought that neither group offered the solution to their aim, for example because they thought that the Suffragettes were too violent and that the Suffragists did not receive enough publicity.
The campaigners’ actions resulted from both their membership and from their leadership. Membership of the Suffragists included men; therefore they were unlikely to go round setting fire to post boxes and smashing windows if this would gain disapproval of their male members who would eventually be deciding if they were to get the vote. Suffragettes were anti-male and did not have men in their membership so were freer to do what they please without upsetting their members.
The leadership personalities differentiated the two groups. Emmeline Pankhurst who headed the Suffragettes was a tough, uncompromising character who believed that women should not be afraid to take strong action to get their point of view across. Possibly, it was this style of leadership that led to dissention and splinter groups amongst members of the Suffragettes. Millicent Fawcett, however, held the belief that any violence or trouble would lead men to believe that women should not be trusted with the right to vote.
Overall, I believe that the two groups had differences of style and tactics but shared a similar desire to be heard in their campaign for female Suffrage. Or as Paula Bartley puts it: “The Suffrage movement was one story with several subplots rather than totally different sagas…they shared a common goal – votes for women – and only differed on the ways to achieve it.”