Although, as it is before 1914 (the start of World War I), the speech may have only denoted their past attempts at trying to gain the vote, because as we know later on in 1915 etc. tactics changed and the WSPU became actively involved in war work. But this wasn’t the same for all the suffrage campaigners, some were Pacifists meaning they would not fight, for their belief that war and conflict damaged community and whole nations, and so by aiding the government they would have been actively encouraging other women to do the same. Other activists were trying to help in other ways, for example the East London Federation of Suffragettes (ELFS), which didn’t aid the war work but did assist in other effects of the war.
Additionally, it was then after this in 1911, that Asquith announced Liberal plans to introduce votes for all men and a smaller section to “deal” with women. This aggravated the leaders of many groups, and most of all the supporters of such societies. And as a consequence all campaigns became more violent and instead of the public just becoming neutral to this idea of enfranchising women, they became completely opposed.
Source B is a visual representation of party line, in this case the Suffragettes. The two different sections, both indicative of the indifferent attitudes at that time, show men and women and their particular rights regarding the vote. It is shown that women could become extremely highly regarded in society, with such occupations listed as Mayor or Doctor, whilst for men it varies greatly. It is shown for the latter that they could have been a drunkard or even a convicted criminal and still reserve the right to vote, and this also applied to current “owners of white slaves”. The fact that this piece of party propaganda was during the campaign of violence in the early 20th century, in 1910, suggests that this piece wasn’t a main campaign strategy product by the suffragettes, but rather part of a structured operation trying to produce supporters.
On the subject of Bias, it is apparent that the postcard is overwhelmingly one-sided and characteristic of suffragette opinion. The main aim of the piece is to show that women could be greatly triumphant and to provide for some women an incentive to show what they could achieve. Furthermore the postcard denies the entity of men, and focuses, in my opinion, harshly on what the facts actually were. For example on the “Owner of White Slaves” section it has a rather movingly dressed gentleman holding a coat of arms outline and a person crying in the core. For my part, I believe the purpose of the source was to create an image in women’s minds of the sort of lives they could live, were it not for their social smears. Of course it had other points which it tried to get across, namely one directed at the government alerting them to the actions of men and their rights and the actions of women and their consequences. It therefore agrees with the fact that without the existence of World War I, women would not have gained the vote in 1918, well, at least for over 30’s and householders etc.
In 1912, Lord Curzon (the then leader of the opposition and Conservative Party), stated in speech [Source C] that there were multiple issues involved with giving women the vote. It [the speech] indiscriminately generalised women who were seen to be “an effect on the government” (when referring to its current efficiency) and were seen to have “insufficient knowledge” to vote. This, as stated, was in 1912 and so was made after events such as: the first hungers strikes by prisoners, namely Marion Wallace Dunlop; the introduction of Force feeding; the failing of the campaigners impression on Asquith’s vote plans; and Black Friday, where over 300 women suffragettes campaigned outside Parliament in the midst of news that the Concilliation Bill had failed. So this may have had some influence of his speech. But it would be important to note that the status of working women before the war reflected the traditional view that women's work was of lesser value and therefore deserved lower pay. And this was an idea played keenly by Curzon who was seen to do little for people in other parts of his job, both before and after this speech was made. I wouldn’t really see this speech as biased on the face of it but if I were to divulge then I’d probably take note on the unsympathetic regard Curzon puts to women, with the inclusion of all his insults.
As far as I can see, the purpose of the source or indeed the speech, was for Curzon to convey his views which may have offended some but most probably he was trying to discourage women from trying to support the campaign, but evidently, it did quite the opposite. The speech, as well as many other sources provided, was made before the war and so the title would not be collateral from the speech. And so the resulting conclusion is that the speech does also agree with the statement, as it confirms that the opposition was in fact not going to enfranchise women (and as they were becoming a dominant opposition to the Liberal party, it would have been good idea to persuade them first).
Source D is a visual depiction of attitudes towards women during the World War I era. The patriotic illustration of a soldier and a woman holding the Union Jack (representing the United Kingdom) gives a picture of changing approaches on women. However the reality was quite different. This view obscures the true effects of the war on women. Nearly a third of British women were already working in condition like this when war broke out, and it was only after strenuous other attempts failed that women were chosen. Other releases at the time such as ‘Women's Industrial News’ magazine, gave reports of conditions where the work was as good. However, they never did truly reflect that, that was experienced. And even after World War I it became obvious that still some stubborn areas of society viewed women as mothers and house-keepers rather than capable employees as demonstrated during the war. The opinion and bias viewpoints are that even the magazine in June 1917, was produced most probably by women it does represent not only the effort of women but also men, i.e. soldier. Also in the contents it shows comments from the Archbishop of Canterbury and War time Religion, so not even solely dedicated to women inside the book either. However, even though this is only one publication, many others that were similar to this used the same technique, so it would employ a greater range of knowledge and attract a larger readership. The purpose of the publication was to get the message across to women that their help was needed, although as this is dated June 1917 they had probably gained most of the support they needed in the munitions factories and jobs previously done by men, by then. Furthermore, the monthly doesn’t discriminate against men, as the title “The War Worker” shows. The origin and therefore, accuracy, of the magazine is somewhat questionable, as it is made by women and so therefore may be biased to their opinion, even if not largely.
Source E is a written record of the male attitudes towards women in the workplace during the First World War. The creation of World War I made women flock from the homes they had previously reserved 24 hours a day, 7 hours a week, every year. The new need for women to take the place of men who had vacated their positions, to go to war in France of Belgium or assist in any other type of defence work, let women become the only true option for people to choose. The mere imagination of women as the workplace, fuelled weaker sex opposition, and sabotage became commonplace in many work areas. Society perceived women as not only unwilling to help others, but even (some might say ironically) unable to help themselves. Two separate but interconnected problems became to influence women in the workplace. Firstly, there was a belief that women were unsuited for wage-paying work and therefore they shouldn’t be allowed into the workplace. But this still came about, even when it was obvious of the national shortage of workers. Secondly, there was the threat that their lower wages presented to male workers, and the fact that the growing numbers of women employees make force more male conscriptions. Male employees were seen to be quite brutal in their opinions and their actions upon them – for example – women’s lockers were frequently damaged and burnt, with the valuables inside. Unfortunately, in addition to low wages and male hostility, women lacked time (and often energy) because of the demands of domestic responsibilities, which still plagued women in the early 20th century.
The source, IMO, doesn’t seem to be anyway biased, opinionated, and to me shows a strong provenance. This is due mainly to the date stamp of the work – Rex Pope, 1991 –, which demonstrates to me that after 73 after the end of the First World War, that Rex Pope has most probably got a wide-range of facts and evaluated the different opinions and grasped a better, independent, knowledge on what happened between 1914 – 1918. There is no single purpose to the source, as it was produced in the late 20th century and so many people that would have been influential enough to read or even take action on what was wrote, may have already died. Rex Pope seems to have seized many sources at his disposal and created a sovereign view on what occurred, for purposes of people wanting to learn about the suffrage campaign and its concepts.
