Alterative methods would be to use questionnaires instead of interviews, as they can cover a large number of people. It is also cheap and there will be no need for prior arrangements. The people answering the questionnaires will get a chance to consider their response. It will be better than having an interviewer, as there will be no biasness included. However it will require a deadline as well as several reminders. There is also a chance that some people may be illiterate, furthermore not many people will have the historical knowledge needed to answer the questionnaire, whilst in an interview the interviewer could explain to the person and answer any questions they may ask. Many people may not even complete the questionnaires that have been given to them.
Another option would be to set up an interview with an historian or a relative of a suffragette. However there will not be many other people who I can interview, because those women who played a key factor in the suffragette movement no longer live, and it will be quite difficult to find and arrange interviews with historians or relatives. An interview on the other hand will be a serious approach towards testing my statement, and will get me quite reliable information. It would be completed in one go, and it would enable me to ask in-depth questions. I would also be able to record the interview as a backup data.
On the other hand, the interview will need to be arranged, and therefore be time consuming. Also before the interview I would need to prepare a set of questions beforehand. There is also a very likely chance that my own hypothesis may cause some biasness in certain questions, and my approach to the interview.
What I am hoping to achieve in this coursework, is to gather information and various sources, which will help me to find out, whether the following statement is true: ‘Woman got the right to vote in 1918 in results of suffragette violence’. Furthermore whether people in this society think that woman gained the rights to vote due to suffragette violence.
I hypothesize that in the end of this enquiry, I will find that the violence committed by the suffragettes, did not influence the government in allowing them the vote. In my opinion many people would have been injured by their extreme actions, and instead of gaining the public’s support and making the government listen to them, it would have had instead the opposite effect.
What in my opinion allowed them the right to vote was the positive contribution, and effect they put in helping their country during the war. This won over the public, and in my opinion would have shown what good, responsible citizens they were.
The violence they showed would probably turn the government against them. Newspapers would report their daily antics, and although it would generate publicity, it would be negative. The public in my opinion would not have seen them as being capable of handling the right to vote in parliament with maturity and responsibility.
Many people would nowadays agree with me, that the war effort was what allowed woman the right to vote, and not the violence that they committed. The reason for this, is that even in this society when people do campaigns which are violent, they do not often get what they want from the government, nor do they receive much support from the majority of the public, and so it is probably very unlikely that in the Victorian era, they would have allowed woman the rights to vote in parliament by using violence.
Furthermore, if the government at that time had allowed woman the rights to vote, because they were using violence, and causing a lot of trouble, it would have meant that many other people would use the same strategy that the suffragettes were using, to get the government to give them what they wanted, and so causing even more trouble for the country, and the people.
In the time of the suffragette’s woman had to behave in a certain manner, with elegance and demeanor and calmness, and so showing this violence would have been a great shock to the people. It would astound them as well as intimidate them. I don’t think that would be a positive thing, in fact I think it would make more people against them, as it would generate fear due to the fact that they thought that society and old views were beginning to change.
Millicent Fawcett the leader of the suffragists, believed violence or any other acts which could lead to trouble, will give men the opinion that they cannot be trusted enough to vote. In 1911 she said: “I wanted the NUWSS to show the world how to gain reforms without violence, without killing people and blowing up buildings and the other silly things men have done when they wanted the law altered”. Millicent Fawcett said that her movement was like a glacier; it might be slow-moving but it was a powerful force and unstoppable. I believe that Millicent was right, although her campaign was slow; at least she was not making the government and public go against her and her campaign.
Who the suffragettes were:
In 1903, some women became frustrated that men wouldn’t give them the vote, and so they formed a new organization. This was called the Women’s Social and Political Union, but they were known as the suffragettes, and they were prepared to use violent and aggressive methods such as chaining themselves to railings, setting fire to the contents of mailboxes, smashing windows and on occasions setting off bombs, to get what they wanted. The leader of the Suffragettes was a woman called Emmeline Pankhurst. . They did not want members of the public to get hurt during their violent campaigns; however a lot of people did get hurt during these acts as well as themselves.
The Suffragettes
wrote in her autobiography that:
The suffragettes interrupting many meetings would have caused a lot of frustration. You weren’t allowed to interrupt when people were talking in meetings especially woman. They showed a lot of courage by doing so, and maybe people admired that, and saw that woman could be strong and courageous. On the other hand, however, they may have thought that woman were irritating, stubborn and too head strong. They could have gained support through sympathy, as many would have been horrified at the way they were violently treated. This source does not support the idea that suffragettes got the right to vote by using violence.
Emily Davison joined the suffragettes in 1906 and this is her prison record below:
Emily Davison was an educated woman, this prison record of her shows the serious of the violent acts she committed. It could have influenced the people to think that if educated woman acted like this, imagine what uneducated woman would act like if they were given the power to vote in parliamentary elections. Lloyd George was a politician who supported woman’s rights, so even thinking of attacking him, would be ridiculous, as then other politicians would not stand by them. It also shows how other people were getting hurt by their actions such as the vicar. The stone throwing could have hurt innocent children, and hurting people is not a way to gather their support. This source does not support the idea that suffragettes got the right to vote by using violence.
This source says women gained a lot of publicity by their actions, and it supports the view, that the fear that may have been generated by the actions of the suffragettes may have influenced people to give woman the right to vote. So that they no longer had to endure the violence and trouble they caused. This source supports the idea that suffragettes got the right to vote by using violence.
Emmeline wrote in "My Own Story" that Emily decided that only the loss of life
This picture is taken of Emily Davison throwing herself in front of the king’s horse, and as a result killing herself. These actions that were committed by the suffragettes, caused themselves serious harm, and so we should appreciate I suppose the risks that they took. However I don’t see how jumping in front of the horse could have benefited the cause, instead I think it damaged it by making people think that woman were mad, and so incapable of being allowed the vote in parliamentary elections. However perhaps this spirit and commitment they showed to their campaign may have caused some to rather admire women’s strength.
I chose this cartoon as a source, as I feel that it portrays what some of the people thought of the suffragettes. This cartoon shows that many people felt that woman were trying to dominate the men, and so many men would have felt intimidated at the thought that their authority may be taken from them by the woman. Therefore they would have been against the votes for woman, as it would have seemed that this was the first step for woman to override them. This source does not support the idea that suffragettes got the right to vote by using violence.
We have tried every way, but we have had contempt poured upon us. Violence is the only way that we have to get the power that every citizen should have.
Emmeline Pankhurst, speaking in 1912.
I felt that as Emmeline Pankhurst was the leader of the suffragettes, her reasoning on why they committed violence to get what they wanted was important to my historical enquiry. It seems as many of the suffragettes felt that they weren’t being listened to or taken seriously. I feel that violence in a way did get them to be taken seriously by the government and the public. Furthermore it did lead them to have a certain power over these people.
This 1906 cartoon shows Suffragettes trying to fight their way into the House of Commons. It portrays woman as being rather wild and untamed. This is one of the many cartoons I found which portrayed woman in a very negative light. I chose this one as it shows clearly how woman were thought to be uncontrolled, without the grace and demeanor that woman were thought they should posses at that time.
Haven’t the Suffragettes the sense to see that the very worst way of campaigning for the vote is to try and intimidate a man into giving them what he would gladly give otherwise?
Lloyd George, speaking in 1913.
I think that what Lloyd George said was quite important, as he was one of the politicians who thought that woman should have the right to vote. However what he says about the suffragettes is that he was very against their violent antics. As a politician he would know how to influence the public and fellow members of parliament. Therefore if he thought that the violence that the suffragettes were committing was the worst way in which they could gain the right to vote, it must have meant that many people went against them rather than stand by them.
Poster by 'A Patriot', showing a suffragette prisoner being force-fed, 1910. I think it was important on how the government tried to deal with the suffragettes and their violent antics, so I chose this poster to see how the suffragettes turned this against the government. It shows clearly how woman were being treated in prison. It shows a doctor pouring liquid food down a tube which has been stuffed up the struggling suffragette's nose, while prison officers hold her down and tie her legs to the chair. The poster addresses to the people to stop the torture ' of woman by voting against Herbert Asquith the Liberal prime minister. It caused an outcry in the public, as only lunatics were force fed. Perhaps due to this out cry and the pressure of not knowing how to deal with the suffragettes may have made many politicians think of allowing woman the vote.
This cartoon was drawn in 1906. On the top are the women of the past; on the bottom is what women seem to be becoming. I chose this cartoon as it is quite unique, and show another point of view. This cartoon shows that many people thought that woman were becoming and acting like men. I think this created fear, as it would change the traditional roles of men and woman that have been in place for such a long time. Perhaps the violence that was caused by the woman, portrayed to the many people that they were acting like men, and were loosing the grace and calmness that they were thought they should possess.
The suffragettes gained a lot of public attention, I wanted to see whether the newspapers, a powerful source of media were standing by the woman or were going against them. This article reports that the suffragettes caused a lot of damage, which would cost a lot of money to repair. I feel that this would have angered the public, and as the newspapers had a lot of influence on what people thought, it seems as they would have been very against the suffragettes and their cause.
It seems that Emmeline felt that as they were getting the public’s attention they were making the government listen to them, and so getting their way. I think Emmeline wanted to show what woman could do when they were united. It seems that she thought that if they showed they could be as violent and powerful as men, they also deserved the right to vote. It seems that she thought that they succeeded in doing that.
This 1907 cartoon shows women taking control over men, I chose this cartoon as it has quite a big and powerful impact. It shows how many people thought that woman were being very hostile, and that the men were victims of woman’s abuse, and as many people saw this happening they would have been quite influenced by this cartoon .
In this 1909 cartoon, the suffragette lists all the trouble she has caused, and then wonders why she still hasn’t got the vote. I found this rather amusing but quite serous. It seems that many cartoonists were trying to make woman seem like fools, and to undermine their actions. Cartoonists were a major influence, and I have found many that were against the suffragettes, ridiculing them and making them seem like fools. I have not found a cartoon which supports the suffragettes so far.
I chose this source as I felt that a letter from a politician to his wife would give an insight on what his private thoughts on the suffragettes and their actions were. It seems by this source that he was rather intimidated and yet angered with them. After all he calls them harpies, and makes them sound as if their quite insane and not human. Winston Churchill was an influential politician so to have made him against them would not help their cause, and he perhaps made people think what he thought about them.
I used this source as it shows what some people thought. It seems as Robert feels that the suffragettes actually endangered their cause, and instead of helping it were destroying it. Yet he agrees in letting woman having the vote. It seems by my sources that many people agreed in letting woman vote but were put off by the suffragettes antics, and felt that they were not helping the cause at all.
Male attitudes to women workers during the First World War
Attitudes to women workers remained, in many cases, negative. The ability of women to take on that had been men’s work meant that increasing numbers of males were vulnerable to conscription.
Some women doing skilled work had the full co-operation of male employees. Many other women were restricted to less skilled work and were victims of hostility and even of sabotage.
From War and Society in Britain 1899–1948, by Rex Pope, an historian, 1991
From The Times 5 June 1913
I have chosen this article as a source as it clearly shows how the general public reacted and felt towards the violence that the suffragettes committed. It seems many people feared them, and felt that they were in danger. The newspaper clearly gives the view that the suffragettes won’t be helping their cause at all and that they had to be wicked and unstable, newspapers were influential so many people perhaps thought this.
A poster (1912) by John Hassall for the National League for Opposing Woman Suffrage
John Hassall was a well-known artist of the time. He was commissioned to produce this poster by the National League for Opposing Woman Suffrage
I put this poster as a source because it was from a well known artist which means it would have gathered a lot of attention. It clearly goes against what the suffragettes wanted.
I chose this source as it was the opinion of a well known and respected historian. She believes that the effort woman showed towards the war was what gained them the right to vote, and got them on the good side of the public which gained their support.
This source is from a lecturer and I chose this, as it showed a different viewpoint to that of the historian above. She believes that it was not entirely the effort put in by the woman during the war that got them the vote
This source again shows another viewpoint, she believes that it was actually the non-violent groups that gained woman the vote, and not the suffragettes who used violence instead of their intelligence. These non-violent groups gained support from the Labor party, and so got politicians on their side instead of intimidating them and turning as enemies.
A leaflet describing the force-feeding of suffragettes at Walton Gaol, Liverpool, December 1909
This leaflet was given out by the suffragettes and I believe that it may have influenced some members of the public to side with them at the mention of the cruelty and violence that they were persecuted with and how they are torturers of woman may have gained attention and caused an outrange by the public towards the government. However going against the government and turning it into an enemy would not have helped their cause in gaining the vote.
This image I have chosen as a source, as I feel that if it had been put into a newspaper or been shown to the public they would have been appalled at the treatment that the woman received. This may have helped their camping for the rights to vote and in pressuring the government in allowing them the vote.
I chose this source as it shows Emmeline as a heroic person a real martyr to the cause. I think it was try and make people see how committed they actually were, and how they would even sacrifice their life for this cause in getting woman the vote.
All the sources below on this page are from http://www.comptonhistory.com/year9/whowerethesuffragettes.htm
A painting of Thomas Carlyle, from the National Portrait Gallery which was damaged by a Suffragette who slashed it three times with a knife. Many people would have probably been annoyed with them doing this. I don’t think it helped their cause.
Five Suffragettes holding a broken window in its frame, the woman on the left is Adela Pankhurst, daughter of Emmeline Pankhurst.
A racecourse stand set on fire and destroyed by the Suffragettes in 1913
This is very dangerous many people could have been hurt or killed. I don’t think this source supports the idea that suffragettes won the vote due to violence.
I went and asked some short prepared questions to twenty random people in town about whether they thought that the suffragettes got the woman the right to vote. From these twenty three are sampled below. I chose these three out of the twenty as they expressed different views:
Interviewing Sarah:
Me: Hello I was wondering if you can answer some questions for a historical enquiry that I’m doing.
Sarah: Yeah Ok
Me: Do you know who the suffragettes were?
Sarah: Yeah weren’t they a group of woman who wanted the vote
Me: Yeah they committed violence to try and do that. Do you think woman got the vote because of the suffragettes?
Sarah: Yeah I think they did, if they hadn’t campaigned for the vote and showed how committed they were, it wouldn’t have been taken seriously. I think it’s good that they showed some girl power.
Me: OK thanks for your time
Interviewing Margaret:
Me: Hi do you have some time to answer some questions of mine it’s for an historical enquiry that I am doing?
Margaret: Sure
Me: Thank you I was wondering if you knew who the suffragettes were
Margaret: Yes I do they were woman who wanted the vote
Me: Yes they used violence to try and get their way; do you think they were the ones who gave woman the vote?
Margaret: Erm… I think they contributed but I don’t think they were the only ones who won woman the votes. I think the suffragists did a lot more
Me: Alright then thank you
Interviewing Frank:
Me: Hello I was wondering whether you have time to answer some questions it’s for a historical enquiry?
Frank: Go on then
Me: Thanks do you know who the suffragettes were?
Frank: Yeah I do they were a group who used violence to try and get the vote
Me: And do you think they were the ones that achieved this?
Frank: No not really I don’t think it was the violence that got them the vote I think it was because of the woman helping in the war effort
Me: Thank you
I have put all the information I obtained from my interview in a graph below:
From the sources I have obtained, I have come to the conclusion that the suffragettes did not win the rights to vote due to the acts of violence. In fact from the sources that I have gathered, it seems that it actually damaged the campaign for allowing woman the vote. The reasoning for this is that, many of my sources show that the violence of the suffragettes actually produced fear among the public and many of the politicians, who then did not support them. Many of the cartoons in my sources, although rather amusing, show that the public were actually scared that the woman were taking over. It seemed to them that they were abusing and controlling men, and taking away traditional roles.
Many cartoons portrayed woman as being untamed and wild, some of the newspaper articles said that only wicked or unstable people can commit such violent acts. It generated fear in the public, and people became suspicious of woman.
Many politicians such as Lloyd George thought that woman should be given the vote; however he was still a victim of some of the violence committed by the suffragettes. This perhaps put off other politicians in joining their cause, as they were afraid that they and their families may become a target of the suffragette violence.
Emmeline Davinson was an educated woman, and jumping in front of the king’s horse and killing herself, made people think that if educated woman acted like this, imagine how the uneducated would act like, and so they did not like the idea of woman becoming involved in something complex as politics.
Society was scared of change, and I think the violence that was produced by the suffragettes inflamed this fear into paranoia, so that many people were against the idea of allowing woman the vote. As they thought it may be the first step in a vast change, where woman will take over. Instead some of my sources point to the view that the responsibility, courage and strength that the woman showed in the war effort, was the main course in allowing them the vote. As they showed that they were capable of being good citizens. This supports my hypothesis, where I thought that women were allowed the vote due to the effort they put in during the war.
However my graph contradicts this, it shows that more people nowadays actually think that the suffragettes were the ones who allowed woman the vote. I think as this is a historical enquiry, it is very hard to come up with a conclusion, as the historical evidence that I obtained is secondary data and mainly views of others.
My enquiry was quite successful, but if I were to do it again, I would not interview the public as a way to obtain my data. I found it very time consuming, and also many people were caught off guard, and so didn’t really have a chance to think about their answers.
Some people did not have the historical knowledge to answer my questions. Furthermore due to my own hypothesis I may have included some biasness. Next time I would probably either interview a historian, or give out a questionnaire. A historian would have the historical knowledge needed to answer my questions, and they could also provide me with some additional sources. Questionnaires are less time consuming, and will give people time to think of their answers, and so their views will be more thoughtful.
Next time I would ensure that a pilot study is done on the questions that I would ask in my interview, as then it would make sure that my questions are less bias, and so the answers that I receive is not influenced by the way I have structured my question.
I think the amount of questions I asked was reasonable, as many people were in a hurry. However a disadvantage was that I never really had a good detailed answer. I also didn’t get the time to interview a great number of people, perhaps next time I will set up a group to help me, and so a greater number of people will be asked, and so making my output data will be more reliable.
The sources that I gathered were very important to my enquiry and my conclusion. However, as my sources were secondary data, it means that my outcome is not very reliable. It would have been very difficult and nearly impossible for me to collect this data myself, as this is an historical enquiry. The only way in which I would be able to obtain probably more reliable sources is from museums and historians.
I have noticed that many of my sources are from the internet, and I think that if I were to do this enquiry again, I would use a wider range of resources. This would enable me to obtain more views and make my sources more reliable, if they were the same as the sources I found on the internet.
I also feel that many of my sources are either news articles or comic scripts; this gave me a good insight into what the public thought about the suffragettes and their violence. However, I think I need more sources such as letters written by politicians and things that were said from them concerning the suffragettes, as they were the ones who would have allowed woman the vote. It would have also given insight into seeing whether they were intimated by the violence of the suffragettes, and so by this fear allowed them the vote. It would also have made my conclusion more reliable.
Perhaps I could have expanded my enquiry, by comparing the suffragettes violent campaign with that of the suffragists peaceful campaign, to find out whether sources, historians and the general public thoughts on which was more successful in contributing in getting woman the vote.
Modern World History by Cambridge
Modern World History by OCR
During the beginning of the 19th century, about two thirds of adult men were given the rights to vote in parliamentary elections. Women, prisoners, the poorest men along with those who lived in mental institutions, were not entitled to this vote because they were believed to be second-class citizens. It was believed by many men that having woman involved in politics would be an unsuitable role for them in society, and that they will not be able to understand the political issues that were involved in parliament.
