Source’s Question : Women’s Right to Vote
Nick Graham 11WS
Source's Question : Women's Right to Vote
) The main reason why the Suffragettes wanted the vote is that they believed that it was unrationable that women didn't have the vote, even though they had extremely responsible jobs like Mayors and doctors. This source is a very persuasive poster, as it gives examples of the very irresponsible jobs that some men do, such as a brothel keeper and a drunkard. The female jobs that are shown cover a wide range of classes from working class factory workers to the upper class as illustrated by the Mayor. The covenance of the source tells us that the Suffragettes who usually used militant methods wrote it, and this is more characteristic of the Suffragist movement. The examples shown in the source are very biased as they pick out the worst possible jobs that men did. From the source we can learn that women must be able to vote in local elections, as there is a female Mayor. We can also find out that the poster was made at the height of the Suffragette's campaign in 1912 and this tells us that they were willing to try any method to attain the vote.
2) The writer of source B, a woman called Marie Corelli is obviously against the whole principle of votes for women. We know Marie is against the concept, as in her opening sentence she says "'Votes for Women' is a shrill cry of a number of discontented ladies". She blames the mothers for not raising their children to treat women as equals and so they aren't getting the vote.
In source C, which was written about the same time, the Suffragist is saying a rhetorical question, and mocks the Suffragette, as she isn't helping the cause. A man who is against the methods used by the Suffragettes, and implies that they are counter-productive wrote this source. We don't know if he supports the Women's Rights to vote, but says men are right to say women are irresponsible. The caption uses the same sorts of language used by source B as it says "shrieking sister" which is like "shrill cry". The Suffragist is better dressed than the Suffragette and shows the class division between the two groups. The cartoon is portrayed outside a Liberal meeting, who were the party in Government, as they were the only party with power and they were split on the issue. The Conservative Party was completely against the concept of Votes for Women, whereas the new and small Labour Party was in favour of it, maybe just to get support. The source seems to be against Politicians, as they wouldn't grant them the Vote.
3) This source was written by the leader of the Suffragette campaign, Emmeline Pankhurst, in 1912. It seems to be her justification of the Suffragettes militant actions, as it is a biased source some may not be completely true. She said it is all because they need to get publicity to their cause, as all the other major headline grabbers such as home rule for Ireland, strikes and Anglo-German rivalry. Their short-term aim is publicity but overall they are trying to get the Vote for Women. When she says "Now the newspapers were full of us" suggests that ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
3) This source was written by the leader of the Suffragette campaign, Emmeline Pankhurst, in 1912. It seems to be her justification of the Suffragettes militant actions, as it is a biased source some may not be completely true. She said it is all because they need to get publicity to their cause, as all the other major headline grabbers such as home rule for Ireland, strikes and Anglo-German rivalry. Their short-term aim is publicity but overall they are trying to get the Vote for Women. When she says "Now the newspapers were full of us" suggests that they had achieved their primary objective, and now they had public opinion, and in democracy that is how things get done. The second paragraph says how the government had done nothing for them, and now says that public opinion got them nowhere, and so they would return to the violent methods they used before. Many people called them terrorists, and some moderates were turned away be her methods and the no-male members rule. I think that their actions overall hindered their cause, but did get them some good publicity which was needed, as the non-violent methods used by the Suffragists didn't get any newspaper coverage, but it gave the cause a bad name. We know that they did however use some non-violent methods, such as source A, the poster. Around the time this source was written women were getting more and more freedoms, like being able to work, and in the same year this was written Harriet Quinley was the first women to fly across the Atlantic ocean. From source C we know the Suffragettes tried to get the vote from the Liberal government, but they had recently formed a coalition with Irish nationalists and so were more interested with getting home rule for Ireland. The year after the source was written Emily Davidson jumped in front of the King's horse at the Derby and that got a lot of newspaper coverage and shows that they were still using their violent methods.
4) Source D is written by the leader of the Suffragettes, and she is justifying her actions and says how they needed to get publicity to attain the vote. Source E is from the other side, a Member of Parliament who has some political importance and influence. This respected man says "I have no hesitation..." which tells us he has made a definite decision against giving the vote to women. He seems to be scared of women ruling the country as he says that giving women the vote would "put control of the government into female hands". I personally think that if the government gave into the violent methods, it would make them look weak and then other issues would be pushed forward using militant methods.
I think that the main reason that women didn't get the vote is because of the government not wanting to give in to pressure. It may also be because the Suffragette's actions turned moderates away and made them look like they were having a tantrum and that they wouldn't stop until they got what they wanted. We know that the Suffragist disapproved of their methods because of source C, and we know there were some women who didn't want the vote at all, like Marie Corelli who wrote source B. Another reason why they hadn't got the vote by WWI is because of the other issues like Anglo-German rivalry, home rule for Ireland and many more like the Rail & Coal strikes of 1911.
There was a very fine line between too much headline grabbing and not enough and many of the things the Suffragettes did were over the margin and consequently turned people away.
5) Source F is obviously a piece of propaganda from the government and was made in 1916, the year when conscription was introduced. It shows us that the government wanted women to work, so that it would release more men from their jobs so they could go off to war. The poster makes women look very important to the war effort and persuades them to get jobs; this poster concentrates on munition factories. The words "Enrol at Once" feature on the poster and make it seem urgent that women should work. There is a hint of women can help their husbands (the picture of the man in the background) by making bullets, shells, guns, and doing other things to help the war. On this source we have no indication of how successful the poster was. The woman is smiling on the poster and maybe implies that she enjoys working and is accepted by men. It was produced during the war and must show that women were needed to win the war, and that's why it is a munition worker.
Source G could be used to interpret how good source F was at attracting women to
work. It is a very selective source as there are only four jobs featured and it doesn't quote agriculture, nursing or education, the traditional female orientated jobs. It would be better if there were fifteen or twenty jobs, and more snapshots as there are only two years shown, and 1918 could have been a year when a burst of women started to work. The source shows that source F was a success, as in metal and chemical industries there was a 250% increase and a massive increase in Government office workers. The source is a piece of carefully selected statistics that can be used as propaganda. The three war industries grew largely, but the food, drink and tobacco female employment only grew by about 15%, as it wasn't perceived to be as important.
I think source G is a better source for someone evaluating the contribution of women to the war as we actually have an indication of how many women started to work. We can also use it to see how successful methods like posters were. Both sources have their limitations, but I think that source G is less of a piece of propaganda as it was published in the 1980s, and should all be fact.
6) The covenance of both sources show us that they are both secondary sources written in 1980, which should mean that they are quite balanced, useful sources. They both seem to be knocking back the idea that the women's efforts in the war gave them the vote as source H says "a very simplified view..." and source I says "a rough generalisation..." would be that the war gave the vote to women. Source H tells of how the government tried to create the image of women getting a warm welcome at work, as it says "in the newspaper reports" which were controlled by the government. In reality they were "greatly resented" so the war didn't change men's attitudes to women working. The source goes on to say that men expected women to do traditional jobs like be "nurses, providers of refreshment" and to be the mothers of future warriors. The government added insult to injury by "rewarding" mothers with the vote. They agreed that they had to be thirty because of the greatened sex imbalance of 52% of the country being female and 48% being male and also thought they would vote like their husbands, even though men could vote at twenty-one. The government always used to say women were irresponsible because of the Suffragette activities, but were now saying they are "more sensible", but they were scared that the Suffragettes militant methods would start up again after the war.
Source I says "during the few years of conflict a tremendous mood favourable to change had been created" which teaches us that many issues benefited after the war and the politicians wanted to create a "land fit for heroes". One of the other issues that they tackled was they gave Ireland some independence. The men felt that they should reward the women with the vote saying they thought it wasn't a necessity that the women had the vote.
Overall I think that the authors do agree that it wasn't just the war that gave women the vote. Source I doesn't really mention men's attitudes to women at work, but source H does so I don't know whether the writers agree about men's attitudes to women working.
7) I agree with the writers of sources H and I, as I believe that the statement contains an element of truth. Source J was written by the ex-Prime Minister Herbert Asquith when he wasn't in office. It was written at the same time as it's about, and is therefore a primary source unlike sources H and I. He was still an influential man and had been Prime Minister before as well as during the war and so would have felt and seen the Suffragette's activities firsthand, and would have been stopping them getting the vote. He agrees with the above statement, as he doesn't want to look the fool, and give in to the Suffragettes and look weak, and so used the war as an excuse like all the other MPs. He is very vague about what he wants the to get, and is very careful about what he says so that the public opinion doesn't go against him. He gives two main reasons to why they should get the vote; their contribution to the war effort and they have been responsible and not resorting to violence during the war. After the war nearly all women wanted to get the vote because of the confidence they had got in the war, and so the Government would have been put under even more pressure if they didn't give women the vote. Another reason is that women could already vote in local elections, and it was natural progression for them to get the vote in national elections.
Women made a huge contribution to the war effort, but it's far too simplistic to say they got the vote due to the war as there were many other reasons for them getting the vote. MPs got off the hook due to the war, as they didn't want to look weak giving into violence, but also didn't want it to start up again after the war.
