So a former Suffragist, Emmeline Pankhurst, founded the Suffragettes in 1903. They had the same aim as the Suffragists, but was determined, if necessary, to endorse their message using a more direct approach; violence. Initially they had some success with their campaigning; they were much more direct than the Suffragists and gained much publicity for their cause as well as showing a high standard of organisation by publishing their own newspaper and continually organising marches, proving their resourcefulness; this gained a lot of respect for their determination. However their feelings of frustration were eventually vented through violence in 1912 when once again the government rejected their right to the suffrage, and they ran through London, smashing windows and performing arson. More instances of such behaviour occurred, and in 1913 Emily Davison became their first martyr by running in front of the King’s horse during the Epsom Derby. This behaviour made the government adamant not to give in; if they stepped back upon this issue, more similar groups would start using Suffragettes’ tactics to achieve their desires, which would cause chaos. They were also proving the men who had stereotyped them as irresponsible true, and so failed through their weaknesses to achieve their aim as the Suffragists had.
The government itself was a presiding factor in women’s failure to gain the right to vote, as well as male attitudes in general. Most men were against women’s equality for a number of reasons, a large one being that they believed if women were to gain the suffrage, it would undermine their authority and importance as they were, or so they believed, the superior gender both mentally and physically, and especially since the government were all male; women would become a threat. They did not think women capable of dealing with such important matters, accusing them of being too emotional and irresponsible to have objective opinions on politics. These beliefs were reflected in a speech made by the current Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time, who remarked, ‘They are for the most part hopelessly ignorant of politics, credulous to the last degree, and flickering with gusts of sentiment like candles in the wind.’
Women failed to gain the vote between 1900 and 1914 because they were not given a real chance to prove their equality to men. This chance came in the form of the First World War where they managed to prove themselves as equal to men by performing the same duties men did and working under the same pressures. However, women also in part had themselves to blame for their lack of success; in particular, the Suffragettes’ use of violence, which could have resulted in drastic repercussions, although their reasons for violence were understandable. Male attitudes were possibly the largest contributor to women’s failure to gain the suffrage, as had they supported women’s rights, there would have been no debate to begin with.
Full Name: Candidate Number:ssssssss
Centre: Centre Number:dddddsssds
Syllabus: AQA Specification B (Model B) Examination session: 2004
Title: Changing attitudes to women & and their right to vote
- “Without the First World War British women would not have gained the right to vote in 1918.”
Do you agree or disagree with this interpretation?
Explain your answer using the sources and knowledge from your studies. (15 marks)
Before the beginning of the First World War, the fight for women’s right to vote had been spiralling out of control; the Suffragettes, one of the main women’s activist groups had been causing controversy with their use of violence in order to achieve their aim. The government had been responding by beginning the initiative that was later known as ‘The Cat and Mouse Act,’ and retaliations gradually began to escalate. However, this enmity was forgotten immediately when the World War 1 broke out; Emmeline Pankhurst, the leader of the Suffragettes, decided that the cause of patriotism was more important than continuing the fight for equality, and promptly stopped campaigning and began helping the war effort, which was a wise decision as had they continued at that time, it would have turned the public against the Suffragettes.
The First World War helped to promote women and their cause in ways more peaceful times could not, and indeed contributed to their eventual winning of the right to the suffrage. Women, for the first time, were given the opportunity to do work other than that that was stereotyped for them, such as manual labour growing food in fields, and working in the engineering industries; over 800,000 women were working in this field, which mainly included munitions. This was so that men could be freed to fight in the war, and although the government was very pleased with this result, many men weren’t; Source E, an account of male attitudes to women workers during the First World War, written by an historian in 1991, indicates just this. Its intention is to describe how the taking on of men’s work by women meant that more men were vulnerable to conscription, which created a lot of ill feeling; this extract was taken from a textbook and was hopefully written by an objective historian, so it’s reliability should have been fairly high, although it was written much later on, and has it’s limitations because it is biased towards male opinion and does not indicate what female opinion on the issue was.
Women, especially groups such as the Suffragettes, involved themselves in recruiting men for the war effort, starting movements such as the White Feather campaign and the Mother’s Union campaign in an effort to encourage men to go and fight for their country; this once again was greeted with a mixed reaction, with the government pleased with the results and some of the men whose jobs they’d taken resentful, though of course the government’s opinion was more important. However, women also gained the respect of the male public by putting up with prejudice that they encountered at work, being criticised, patronised and paid lower wages than their male counterparts; it was their skill and success at their work that won many people around. Source D, the monthly ‘War – Worker’ magazine, produced by the government, demonstrates this new realisation of equality, showing a man and woman standing side by side holding the Union Jack, effectively portraying new attitudes; women were finally receiving the recognition they deserved. The source itself appears reliable, although it’s producers, the government, may have made it appear so positive in an attempt to boost morale at the time; to keep the women who were working hard producing food, munitions etc happy. This Source contrasts starkly to Source C which was made by the Conservative leader in 1912 which firmly opposes votes for women by arguing that women had other duties, did not have the experience and were badly educated and thus unworthy of the vote. This speech typifies a majority of male attitudes at that time, and only a few years later, as a result of the war, may of these attitudes had changed.
However, before the First World War, women had already begun to receive recognition as a gender. Effective campaigning had already resulted in much pressure being put upon the government, and had it continued, had the war not occurred, the government might have given in. An example of this is Source A, an extract of a very shrewd speech made by Emmeline Pankhurst advocating women’s’ cause and the importance of the vote in March 1908, four years before the group first used violence to endorse their message. It persuades the readers that women should have their point of view put across in matters such as ‘what kind of homes people are to live in’, which appeals to the men who stereotyped a woman’s territory as the home, whilst reassuring the reader that giving the vote to women would only change things for the better as it would give more meaning to a woman’s traditional duties. The Source is incredibly convincing with regards to its target audience, men, as well as reliable, coming from a speech made to the government, and clearly shows the skill the Suffragettes possessed in persuasive language.
Source B also shows this talent, which again indicates that British women could have won the right to vote in 1918 without the First World War. It is another piece of effective propaganda produced in 1910 by the Suffragettes, paralleling women to lowly men, with the slogan above pictures of women, such as a mayor, mother and doctor/teacher reading ‘What a woman may be, and yet not have the Vote.’ The slogan below pictures a group of socially unacceptable men such as a drunkard and convict, with the slogan reading ‘What a man may have been, & yet not lose the Vote.’ This is an incredibly poignant piece of propaganda, and although it is clearly biased, the message comes across very clearly; women who are either socially, trustworthily or academically above men are still regarded as beneath them.
On balance, I agree with the interpretation. Women’s actions in the First World War changed a majority of men’s opinions about them, including the ex – Chancellor of the Exchequer Asquith who has once remarked that women were ‘hopelessly ignorant of politics and credulous to the last degree’, who during the war declared, ‘We see them doing work which three years ago we would have regarded as being exclusively men’s work… I would find it impossible to withhold from women (the right to vote)’. This shows the amount of change in one mans beliefs, and I do not believe this would have happened by 1918 without the war Yes, women would have eventually won the right to the suffrage had they continued campaigning in the way Sources A and B show, but not within the time span of four years when you consider the length of time the campaign had already been running; attitudes such as that in Source C would never have been changed had it not been for the First World War.
