rewind.
Bombing public spaces, endangering innocent people, and violent vandalism do not describe heroes or nationally celebrated martyrs. Most of the population will find it uneasy to criticise or find flaws in the histories of those we deem national heroes. The larger population, only aware of their protests, petticoats, and placards, may not realise that the fight towards equality was not as peaceful as it may seem. Some historians such as Dr Fern Riddell, argue that their militant tactics, their ‘deeds not words’, can only be defined as violent terrorism. Other academics like Prof. June Purvis call them heroes to whom we owe the vote, not terrorists. So, what are the Suffragettes? Can they be both national heroes and terrorists?
Can we ever justify violence for a greater good?
In light of recent violence, riots, and disorder of the far right, it should be made clear that the context of militancy is essential. Regardless of the violent means to a moral end, it should be recognised that the Suffragettes, alongside many other groups and campaigners, all fought for the universal right to vote. Whilst the means of the Suffragettes may be questionable, the moral outcome of female enfranchisement has become a celebrated pinnacle of feminism in the political landscape. Whilst their achievements are widely celebrated, we may question whether we can justify violence for the greater good.
Militancy is largely described as the use of confrontational methods to achieve a political outcome, and in this case, is largely associated with the Suffragettes’ bombing and arson campaigns between 1912 and 1914. Whether this campaign falls under the category of militancy or terrorism is also largely debated and contested. Perhaps a single label is not enough to describe the Suffragettes. In fact, not all the Suffragettes used violent tactics at all, only a select group of women. Most only campaigned peacefully, protesting, and loudly making statements.
Not a single member of the public was killed by the Suffragettes, even during their most violent campaigns. An article covering the arson campaign of the Suffragettes starts with a sentence stating that the first bomb to explode in Ireland was not placed by the IRA but by the Suffragettes. But the comparison of the Suffragettes to the IRA does not seem sensible or comparable without further context. More so, the Suffragettes bombing of David Lloyd George’s country estate is made out in a way to create the image that the Suffragettes were murderous. Emmeline Pankhurst only responded with a simple statement that the Suffragettes only wanted to “wake him up”.
Not a single person, civilian, or cabinet minister was fatally harmed by the Suffragettes. No human life was harmed. The Suffragettes had no intention of endangering lives to the extent of fatality, unlike genuine terrorists across modern history and of our day. Of course, if lives were taken, and harmed severely, it would be difficult to avoid this nature of their campaign, but there was no such danger, so why are some historians still adamant that they should be called terrorists?
Case Study: Emily Wilding Davidson’s Death
Women throughout history, especially women who don’t conform, women who challenge, and women who are seen as threats to patriarchal structures, tend to be demonized. Some feminist historians have concluded that the Suffragettes’ militancy can always be twisted by male narratives of history. The Suffragettes bombed post boxes, domestic homes, and churches with no intention of harming lives, to make a loud statement. Perhaps a woman’s loudness is demonized by masculine, historical narratives to this day. What if violent women are seen as more dangerous and more irrational than violent men, simply because they are women?
This demonization of risk-taking women can be applied to the reactions to Emily Wilding Davidson’s stunt. Most of us know of her infamous story, of her attempt to hang a Suffragette banner on the king’s horse at the tragic expense of her own life. Her ‘suicide’ is not to be compared to a case of suicidal madness. The media portrayed her as a wild, unstable woman. Some papers are more concerned for the health of the king’s horse than hers. But what is often overlooked is that her colleagues were being tortured in prisons at the moment in time, and this educated woman with degrees in classics and mathematics chose to take the biggest risk of all, to make the largest statement she could. Terrorists tend to be uneducated, irrational, and narrow-minded; Emily Wilding Davidson was none of these things.
Conclusions
Debates on the Suffragette’s militancy is still ongoing, by academics on both ends of the spectrum, men and women, deciding whether these women were martyrs or terrorists. Our understanding of how far these women will go, whether they were murderous or not, will remain lost to history. But their actions undoubtedly created the environment we live in today, where women can protest, fight for freedom, stand in political office, and become Prime Ministers, without (most) men doubting their capabilities.
A woman’s aggression may be demonized, may be labelled madness, and even terrorism. But the Suffragette’s aggression could not be ignored for much longer, and their voices were finally heard in 1818 with the Representation of the People Act. Political rights for women were starting to be achieved.
Bibliography
Bearman, C. J., ‘An Examination of Suffragette Violence’, The English Historical Review, 120.486 (Apr. 2005), 365–97.
Cowman, Krista, and Fern Riddell, ‘Suffrage 100: Did Militancy Help or Hinder the Fight for the Franchise?’, The National Archives, Apr. 2018 https://media.nationalarchives.gov.uk/index.php/suffrage-100-militancy-help-hinder-fight-franchise/.
Dowle, Sophie, ‘An Interview with June Purvis: The Demonisation of the Suffragettes’, Bluestocking Oxford, 20th century, Humanities, Interviews (June 2016) https://blue-stocking.org.uk/2016/06/08/an-interview-with-june-purvis-the-demonisation-of-the-suffragettes/.
Purvis, June, ‘We Owe Them the Vote’, The Guardian, 10 Jul. 2008 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/jul/10/women.
Purvis, June, ‘Suffragettes: Militant Tendency’, History Today, 68.3 (Mar. 2018).
Riddell, Fern, ‘Sanitising the Suffragettes’, History Today, 68.2 (Feb. 2018).
Webb, Simon, and June Purvis, ‘Letter Bombs and IEDs: Were the Suffragettes Terrorists?’, Sky News, Feb. 2018 https://news.sky.com/story/women-would-have-got-the-vote-earlier-if-not-for-suffragette-terrorists-11227772.