The Schalter

Written by: Louise Morgan

When Boris Johnson displaced Ken Livingstone as Mayor of London, there was a running gag for a while that he had been elected solely because of his hair - by women. Much the same was said about the election of Tony Blair after the New Labour victory of 1997… and when David Cameron sported his much-discussed centre parting at PMQs recently, there was speculation he was trying to reach out to female voters (he was, apparently, simply suffering from a case of helmet-hair).

Seeing a pattern yet?

This year sees the eightieth anniversary of women being granted the right to vote on equal terms with men: a right won after almost a century of lobbying and direct action.

Eighty years. That’s within living memory. And after such a long struggle, why are we so eager to joke about a right that was bought so dearly?

To put things into perspective, New Zealand was the first self-governing country to grant women the right to vote: all women over the age of 21 were enfranchised there in 1893. In Britain, however, things were different. Until the mid-nineteenth century, even male enfranchisement was limited; it wasn’t until the 1867 Reform Act and the 1886 Suffrage Reform Act that the majority of men could vote. And despite philosopher and jurist Jeremy Bentham’s advocacy of universal suffrage as far back as 1818, it didn’t look like things were going to change.

In 1894 - a year after New Zealand granted full female enfranchisement - the British government made a concession. Women were permitted to vote in local elections - but would continue to be denied the right to vote on a national level. They would, the argument went, be too easily influenced - either by their male relatives or by the looks of the candidates (that old chestnut again) to be trusted with a wider-reaching responsibility. Only men could grasp the full importance of government.

The women of the day had other ideas.

Frustrated by the continued lack of response to lobbying, and seeing the 1894 Local Government Act as a brush-off, the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU) began to take more direct action. In 1905, they began a campaign of civil disobedience: protests, destruction of public property- even (good lord, no!) spitting at policemen. Banner-waving women chaining themselves to railings outside Downing Street became an everyday sight and thanks to the Daily Mail, the term “suffragette” soon became common parlance. Previously unheard-of numbers of ‘respectable’ women of all classes were arrested and imprisoned - and in July 1909, Marion Wallace Dunlop went on hunger strike, instituting what was to become a major WSPU tactic. Terrified that she might become the first ‘martyr’ to the cause, the decision was made to release her.

Two months later, force-feeding of imprisoned suffragettes began. In a practice that can barely be described as brutal, a woman would be tied to a chair, her mouth held open by a steel gag and a long rubber tube forced down her throat. Liquid food would be poured down and then the tube roughly removed in a practice many likened to rape. Resistance was often met with more force: it was not unusual for those who struggled to have their teeth knocked out.

On their release, imprisoned suffragettes were awarded medals by WSPU - but much of the population believed the stories of force-feeding and beatings to be mere propaganda in an increasingly dirty and bitter campaign. It took the actions of Lady Constance Lytton in 1910 to change things: she was arrested for protesting - but released immediately when the authorities found out who she was. Believing there to be a strong prejudice against those less-fortunately connected, she disguised herself as a working-class suffragette and was duly arrested. This time, she was subjected to no less than 8 rounds of force-feeding: an experience which is thought to have shortened her life considerably.

One of the most dramatic protests carried out by a suffragette was that of Emily Davison, who threw herself under the King’s horse at the 1913 Epsom derby. She died four days later as a direct result of her injuries - but it is unknown whether she had intended to simply disrupt the race.

With the outbreak of the First World War, all WSPU activity ceased, with all suffragettes being released from prison. Other women’s rights groups continued to lobby peacefully for female enfranchisement but most suffragettes diverted their energy to the war effort, led by Emmeline Pankhurst who had called on the Trade Unions to allow women into traditionally male industries.

Emmeline Pankhurst addresses a crowd

It was their work on the home front which gave them the final ammunition they needed in the battle for the vote: a contemporary poster highlighted all the things that a woman could be: teacher, doctor, factory worker… and still not be entitled to vote.

The world after the war was a different one - and finally, in 1918, the Representation of the People Act granted the vote to all women of property over 30. While not universal suffrage, it was a significant step forward - and ten years later, women were granted the right to vote on equal terms with men.

That’s not to say, of course, that all men were enfranchised before the 1918 Act - until this point, (male) domestic servants and soldiers were also denied the right to vote, and it was as a result of both sexes’ contribution to the war that reforms were finally made. Never, however, was there a movement like that of the suffragettes amongst the men. Not only did it redefine the role of women in political life, it changed the way they were viewed by society in general: the use of force to subdue and arrest female protestors shocked the wider British public into taking note of the cause.

Eighty years. It’s really not that long, when you think about it. Chances are that many of us have living relatives who were born before that. And still there are countries in the world where women’s suffrage is denied or conditioned - countries where men’s suffrage is denied or conditioned. How can we in all good conscience afford to be apathetic about our right to vote - particularly the women of our society, knowing how hard-won that right is?

And next time a candidate with an Eton hairdo, or stacked heels, or a winning smile happens to win an election - however unlikely the odds may seem - don’t blame us. It’s not necessarily that we’ve voted for the prettiest one, or the most charming, or the one who clearly knows how to moisturise: it’s just that we’re equally as capable of making the odd iffy political decision as you are.

Popularity: 10% [?]

Click here to read more by Louise Morgan

This post is tagged Women