| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Welcome to Mock Parliament. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Suffragettes vs Suffragists | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 30 2006, 12:36 PM (411 Views) | |
| Boohistory | Sep 30 2006, 12:36 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Minister for Awesome
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Who do you think had the more influence over female emancipation? The Moderate suffragists who campaigned since the 1860's? Or the radical Suffragettes who shocked the patriarchal society? Or neither, was it WW1 and increasing globilisation which forced the hand of Lloyd George?
|
![]() |
|
| Admin | Sep 30 2006, 12:49 PM Post #2 |
|
Admin
![]()
|
It was politics in the end, plain and simple. The Liberals were collapsing by the end of WWI - their coalition had disintegarted and they had no hope of winning the next election (or, for that matter, any election ever again). They were losing votes to the Labour party, which had promised to give votes to women, so the Liberals decided to try and do the same to save their skins. Also, all the soldiers had lost their right to vote, so they needed to pass a new law, and there was no way they'd be able to do that without granting the vote to women as well. Also, the arguments had all collapsed: Women had proven during the war that they could be responsible citizens. |
![]() |
|
| Boohistory | Sep 30 2006, 12:56 PM Post #3 |
![]()
Minister for Awesome
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Women had been working in factories long before WW1 came about, i think that the theory that women "proved themselves" during the war is rubbish. I think simply that the government could not be bothered with another wave of female attacks in post war britain, and thus granted them a very limited franchise to shut them up. GO SUFFRAGETTES! |
![]() |
|
| Admin | Sep 30 2006, 01:01 PM Post #4 |
|
Admin
![]()
|
Also, the suffragettes harmed their cause much more than they helped it. Their action were, quite frankly, stupid. For example, they bombed the house of Lloyd George, who was then the Chancellor. Make sense? NO, because he was one of the few cabinet members who supported votes for women! The suffragettes divided supporters of suffrage, and they played into the hands of people who claimed that women suffered from a mental illness and were irresponsible. If it weren't for the Suffragettes, I think the right of women to vote would have been granted sooner. |
![]() |
|
| Boohistory | Sep 30 2006, 01:05 PM Post #5 |
![]()
Minister for Awesome
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Suffragists had campaigned for 40 bloomin' years before the suffragettes came along, and got nowhere. zippo. their policy was to show how sensible women were, and they were simply ignored. Yes the WSPU were radical, but they got the story in the front pages of the media. The NUWSS was going nowhere. |
![]() |
|
| Admin | Sep 30 2006, 01:08 PM Post #6 |
|
Admin
![]()
|
Ah, but things were changing. With the threat of the Labour Party emerging, the Liberals would have certainly passed an act on Women's Suffrage. Instead, they had to pass the Cat and Mouse Act to deal with the rapidly esculating violence. Also, while the militancy was going on, there was no way that the government was going to give them voting rights - no government wants to be seen as giving into what are essentially terrorists. |
![]() |
|
| Boohistory | Sep 30 2006, 01:12 PM Post #7 |
![]()
Minister for Awesome
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
*cough* CHARTISM *cough* anyways the suffragettes left a nostalgia and legacy that the suffragists could never have achieved. I just love their propaganda campaign, and to be fair the opposition to suffrage produced extreamly good examples of their own, even if it was wrong |
![]() |
|
| Admin | Sep 30 2006, 01:16 PM Post #8 |
|
Admin
![]()
|
Okay, I'll give you that point. The suffragettes did make history more interesting.
|
![]() |
|
| Boohistory | Sep 30 2006, 01:17 PM Post #9 |
![]()
Minister for Awesome
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
This has to be one of the most endering images of the period, along with the cat and mouse poster, which is my favorite
|
![]() |
|
| didhe | Sep 30 2006, 08:46 PM Post #10 |
|
Grand Supreme Lord of Nothingness
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
hmm, I'm a bit rusty on this since I haven't looked at it for a few years, but here's my view based on what I can remember. (the chronology of this may be messed up) I reckon that each of the factors each had an effect on the situation. The nuwss may have not been the most radical group but it brought the issue to the attention of parliament, true it may not have achieved much but it made politicians aware that there was an issuse there in the first place. Also the wspu split from the nuwss so in a way without the nuwss the wspu would never have existed. The wspu had an effct in a different way, while the nuwss may have alerted politicians to the issues of votes for women the actions of the wspu alerted the public to the problem. Things like bombing Lloyd George's house and Emily Davison getting run over by the kings horse at Epsom reached the front page and so made more people aware of the campaign. People may have disagreed with the violence of the wspu but now that they were aware of the issue of womans suffrage they may have become involved by joining the more moderate nuwss, further strengthening the movement Then the war came around and women played a big part in keeping the country running while a large proportion of men were away. People argue that this was the final reason that woman were given the vote in the reformed voting laws, but without the work of the suffrage groups bfore the war there wouldn't have been any initial pressure on the government to include women in the voting bill in the first place. So like I said I don't think there is really one single thing that finally gave women the vote but more a culmination of a group of factors. |
![]() |
|
| miniyoda008 | Oct 6 2006, 08:49 PM Post #11 |
|
Master of the Force
![]()
|
I agree. If it had just been the suffragists, they would have been ignored, and wouldn't have done anything. If it had just been the suffragettes, they would have been noticed, but the government would not have been able to be seen giving into terrorism, so they would not have achieved what they wanted. Even with both of them, the situation may have just stayed as it was before WWI, with neither side giving way. In conclusion, as with most things in history, all factors combined together to ensure the final outcome. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| « Previous Topic · "Real" Politics · Next Topic » |






![]](http://z1.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)






1:03 AM Jul 11