Extended essay - women

However, there is evidence to suggest that politicians just ignored the Suffragists. Their success can be questioned, as all 40 of the Private Member’s Bills were rejected, and in the 2nd Conciliation Bill, MPs voted against enfranchising women. Also, without having the support of Asquith, Prime Minister at the time, the Suffragists were never going to be able to gain women the vote before 1914. It is clear that some politicians did not see the Suffragist campaign as much of a threat, as in 1905 they held a mock debate, where MPs discussed a measure that would force horse and cart owners to have lamps, just to avoid even debating women’s suffrage. This angered many members of the Women’s Movement, the group of upper middle class women who wanted to gain more political rights and a more prominent place in society for women, and some even broke away to form their own, more forceful Women’s Movement.

This breakaway movement was formed in 1903 and named the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU). Led by Emmeline Pankhurst and her daughters, Sylvia and Christabel, they took on a militant approach in attempting to gain women the vote. Nicknamed the Suffragettes, they were rather extreme, with some of their tactics including pouring acid on golf courses where the MPs played, cutting telephone wires and even chaining themselves to railings during loud and often violent protests. It is arguable that their militancy set the cause back, as seen by the rejection of the idea of votes for women in the results of the 2nd Conciliation Bill, and Asquith’s refusal to consider concessions until all militancy stopped. Many men were also opposed to women having the vote, and in 1909, a petition by the Men’s League Opposing Women’s Suffrage was signed by thousands of males. These factors all seemed to prove that the militant approach did not work, and when Sylvia was kicked out of the WSPU in 1913, it was regarded that the Suffragette movement was too radical and aggressive by many. Their tactics angered politicians, who claimed that they showed that women were untrustworthy and unworthy of the vote. When Asquith agreed to meet in 1914, he only met with the East London branch of Suffragettes, not all Suffrage organisations.

This meeting, however, suggests that the Suffragette’s militancy did work, as Asquith seemed to have changed his mind about granting women the vote, and in 1918 he backed the Bill to enfranchise them. It is also arguable that the war just delayed the ‘inevitable’ decision to give women the vote, and that had there not been a war, women would have been enfranchised before 1918. Furthermore, the Suffragette militancy took the cause to the attention of the whole country. For example, the Cat and Mouse Act of 1913, which was passed as hunger strikes were making the Suffragette prisoners ill, so they were sent home from prison to recover, then ordered back to serve their full sentence, allowed the whole nation to see how serious these women were about the cause, and at what lengths they would go to, to get their point across. Britain’s awareness was further raised when Emily Davidson ran out in front of the King’s horse at the Derby in 1912, subsequently killing herself. In addition, the Suffragettes proved to politicians that they were responsible and dedicated to helping the nation when they ceased their campaign when war broke out in 1914.

The Great War was significant in the decision to grant women the vote, as women made a vital contribution to the war effort, and their work convinced the Government of the political and strategic importance of women in a “total war” situation. The war increased the rate of social change, and the suspension of the Suffragette campaign allowed the Government to grant votes to women once the war had ended. Moreover, the creation of a National Government in 1916 helped the women’s campaign, as it brought sympathisers into Government, especially when Lloyd George became Prime Minister. Women now had much more of a chance of gaining the vote, since the PM was in favour of ‘votes for women’.

On the other hand, the war can be seen as a hindrance to granting women with the vote, as it set the decision back. Also, the 1918 Representation of the People Act did not reward the women who contributed most during the war. It gave the vote to women over 30, but many of the female munitions workers were under 30 and were left disenfranchised. Even after the Act was passed, there was still a lingering sense that women could not be trusted with the vote, as a result of traditional perceptions of women and the violence of the Suffragette campaign. Immediately after the war, there was a severe backlash of women in the workplace, and they were treated as though none of their war work mattered anymore. This shows that for many, the women’s war work was expected and was not seen as the women’s capability to survive in what was considered a man’s world. The Great War was the best opportunity for women to show that they were responsible enough to have the vote, and of serious use to the country when it needed it most, although the Act which followed it did not please many of the women who had worked during the war in the hope that they would be enfranchised. The war accelerated changing social attitudes, however, which had already been in existence before 1914.

Pre-1914, women had had a considerable impact on Britain. It can be argued that the cause was more or less won by 1914, and that women receiving the vote was inevitable in the near future. During the late 19th and early 20th century, women were advancing in the workplace, being employed as secretaries and typists, and working in offices. They were granted a better education in the late 1800s. The range of subjects taught to young women was broadened and improved, and some women were even permitted to go to university; a change which would have been seen as unacceptable in previous decades. However, educational opportunities were very different for working class women and middle class women. They were offered different access to education, which led to unequal job opportunities. These new educational rights for women benefited the middle class, but reinforced the working class’ domestic role by limiting their educational choice. Women were granted more legal rights, such as being able to divorce their husbands if they were being violently abused and gained more rights over their children and money. They were even granted the right to vote in local elections in the Municipal Franchises Act of 1869, but only if they owned property themselves. Gradually, the traditional perceptions that a woman’s role in society was to cook, clean and to look after their children, were eroded and generations of men, women and politicians witnessed the growing influence of women. When all women who owned property and were over the age of 30 were granted the vote in 1918, it was said that not all women received the vote due to practical considerations, like the fact that it would be impractical to grant the vote to women who did not have a very high income, or to women under 30 who were considered not mature enough. The changing social attitudes before 1914 can be considered as the biggest impact in the decision to give women the vote, as without them, possibly no one would have ever wanted ‘votes for women’.

Overall, the Women’s Suffrage campaigns had very significant importance in the decision to grant women the vote in 1918 because they demonstrated that women were not just illiterate housewives who were of no use, and that they were smart and determined people who had a dedicated desire for society to change to include women more. The Great War was important as it proved that women were more skilled that originally thought and gave politicians the chance to recognise this, but postponed the decision to give women the vote. However, without changing social attitudes towards women before the Great War, it can be assumed that Britain’s people would never have supported women’s suffrage and thus the vote may not have been granted to women by 1918.