Describe the ways in which the methods of the suffragists and the suffragettes were different

peaceful methods should be used to change the law. These included public meetings, marches, publishing their views in their newspaper and petitioning parliament.      All MP’s who liked the idea of equal rights between genders put forward bills to the parliament. From the years 1870 to 1914 a total of 30 bills were put forward to legalise, but not even one was made an act since they were all stopped by anti-suffragists. These bills included giving the right to vote to female householders.      The suffragists used marches and demonstrations to boost their campaigns and get more men, as well as more women to join them      The NUWSS even staged rallies which they performed against the law, so people who were at rallies were arrested. Rallies were often loud protests, trying to grab the attention of every woman nearby so they could spread awareness of how un-equal they are treated, along with how they are under-educated.      The NUWSS did have many links with many other organisations. These include the Labour party and the radical suffragists. They mostly backed up the labour party due to their campaign promises, such as giving equal rights and future voting privileges.      The radical suffragists were a different type of suffragist; ones who later started performing hunger strikes, only to be force fed in prison. The suffragists were linked with the radical suffragists by common ground; they both demanded the same amount of respect as each other.         The WSPU (the Women’s social and Political Union) was founded at the beginning of the 20th century in 1903 by Emmeline Pankhurst and her two daughters, Sylvia and Christabel. They released their own newspaper called The Suffragette. They did everything the suffragists did, along with some of the more radical approaches including raids, hunger strikes, fires, heckling and even martyrdom.      The WSPU came together when they decided to break off from the NUWSS. They did this because they thought they were not getting anywhere with non-violent campaigns, so they decided to start using more violence.      Between 1903 and 1905, the WSPU used the same tactics as the NUWSS, as they started holding meetings for their organisation, they conducted marches through streets to advertise their campaign and also bring forward education to the public on female suffrage, so the people who yet weren’t a part of a group would go to the suffragettes.      The turning point of the WSPU came in 1905. A women’s suffrage private members bill was ‘talked out’ on purpose. The WSPU saw 40 years of non-violent protests go down the drain, and opted for some physical action. Violence also got suffragettes lots more advertising and it also got worse and worse every time a bill did not become an Act. It was from this point that the methods of the NUWSS and the WSPU differed.     After that, the suffragettes used more physical and psychological actions, as they began to heckle government ministers, they constructed mass rallies and they performed raids to various places. One of the consequences was jail, as Christabel Pankhurst soon found out, as she was the first suffragette to go to prison in 1905.      In the years 1908 and 1909, new tactics were created and were used worldwide. The first couple in 1908 included such things as chaining themselves together and becoming much more violent (e.g. fighting back to police). In 1909 they started hunger strikes, where in prison they would not eat and try to kill themselves for their cause (martyrdom). To stop this from happening, the jail guards held open the prisoner’s mouths’ with metal and put a tube down their throat and pump food in.      The WSPU became more violent because of one reason; the Act giving permission for women to vote. With this they had power and equal rights. Without it, they didn’t even have the power to see their children if a father didn’t want his kids to. When the Parliament talked out their bills, they became more aggressive to prove that they were not just “pretty women,” and that they meant business, so if they were not given the vote then these attacks would continue and serge on.      In my opinion, I think the Parliament took the WSPU less seriously than they should have in the beginning. They treated them as they would treat the suffragists; lock them up in prison and never look back. This was a grave mistake as soon enough, they rose and became more powerful than any other organisation ever.      The WSPU did separate slightly as well, for various reasons including the ones given by members of suffragists. Those with families wanted to be with them, and some stopped protesting after and during the war as they wanted to prove themselves in work. They thought that as they work, they’d be taken more seriously to become independent women.      Their tactics did go to an extreme in 1912, however, as they began to smash windows, burn railway stations, defaced work of art, poured acid into post-boxes, threw pepper in Parliament and even tried to blow up the coronation chair. They did succeed in Martyrdom, though, as Emily Davidson threw herself underneath the King’s horse at the Derby and was killed. She was the first martyr of the suffragettes. By now there was no further cooperation between the WSPU and the NUWSS who saw their counterparts as embarrassment.         I think that the suffragettes (WSPU) gave a better and more long-lasting fight. I do think though, however, that the WSPU did go to some level of extreme where they endangered many other lives in order for themselves to succeed. If there were no WSPU, and the world did not have any violent organisation, I still do think that the Act that gives women the vote would not have come up and women would still live an unequal, dull life where she would spend most of it inside her household, with only a few rights compared to what the suffragettes and the suffragists combined accomplished for the women of today. 09/05/2007