What Was the Short Term Significance of Suffragette Militancy 1900-1920

3162 Words13 Pages
It is undeniable that the suffragette movement had a profound effect on the course of women’s history. Many believe they were directly accountable for granting women suffrage. Yet, for others, their audacity caused ‘more harm than good’1 , and their militancy delayed enfranchisement. Some sources assessed here share that opinion and suggest militancy caused harmful publicity that deterred other women from joining them. In general, however, the sources suggests that in the short term the militant’s methods had great, positive significance. It seems their actions resulted in changing the public’s opinions, becoming more sympathetic towards female suffrage, but also that of high-profile, influential people. Furthermore, thanks to frequent news coverage and changing perceptions of suffragettes, their ‘deeds not words’2 eventually put the issue of women’s suffrage onto the political agenda. Starting from 1900 this analysis includes the formation of the Women’s Social Political Union (WSPU) ,1903, to the Representation of the People act ,1918, ending in 1920. Due to their constant coverage in the national press, the militant suffragettes were never out of sight. This proved to be a positive thing. Consequently, attitudes held by high profile individuals in the press started to alter. This is seen an article by the Liberal newspaper ‘The Star’ in response to the force feeding scandal in 19063 . This evidence comments on the handling of suffragettes in prison: exposing their mistreatment and calling for prisons to treat them as ‘Political Prisoners, Not Common Criminals’. The article explains the ‘injustice’ of suffragette treatment by comparing them with the Jameson Raiders who were treated with 'courtesy and consideration’. This can be enlarged to the case of Lady Constance Lytton showing how much class played a part in the
Open Document