Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

To what extent did the militant campaign for female suffrage change up to 1912

1,507 views

Published on

Stuff for school. Everyone does the slides with the sources they looked at in class.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

To what extent did the militant campaign for female suffrage change up to 1912

  1. 1. Group 1<br />To what extent did the militant campaign for votes for women change in the years to 1914?<br />
  2. 2. Definition of ‘militant’<br />The definition changed as feminist campaigns took place.<br />Predating the sources:<br />1860s- attending a public meeting and daring to speak<br />Early 1900s- carrying banners and ‘heckling’ ministers and MPs<br />1912- window smashing and arson<br />
  3. 3. Emmeline Pankhurst<br />The first ‘suffragette’, believed to have begun the female suffrage militant movement.<br />Unimpressed by NUWSS, she believed that to progress, women had to “lift themselves out of their subordinate position and campaign”. <br />First ‘militant’ move from her was unfurling a pro-suffrage banner at a meeting and allowing Annie Kenney to ask “will the Liberals give votes for women?” in 1905. <br />
  4. 4. Source 1A - 1908<br />Banners<br />Shows a mass gathering of female suffrage supporters.<br />Organised demonstration, with people from all over the country gathering to show support in a peaceful meeting, both men and women.<br />300,000 attendees- even by today’s measures, it was huge.<br />Large meetings and use of banners would, however, be seen as militant back then.<br />No violence<br />
  5. 5. Source 1B- 1908<br />Standing above men<br />Woman addressing a gathering of men- unusual, as women were not expected to speak out in public.<br />Standing on a chair, above men- showing authority.<br />Not afraid of saying and doing what she wants to.<br />Going against the customs of time by not submitting under the control of men.<br />Men were involved in suffrage- similar to Source A.<br />Refusing tradition and the authority of men<br />
  6. 6. Source 1C- 1910<br />The supporters could be identified amongst other people.<br />Similar to modern political merchandise<br />Showing support via merchandise<br />Group colours that can be used to recognise supporters- still used today (e.g. political party demonstrations). Once again, organised campaign. <br />Not suggesting any violence.<br />
  7. 7. Source 1D- EmmelinePankhurt’s speech1912<br />Materialism above life, hurting people would not bring any results.<br />Suggestion of chaotic action<br />Organised violence<br />First source that mentions violence, both on timeline and the order given.<br />States that property is far dearer than a human life to the government.<br />Calls the suffragettes to commit vandalism to get the government’s attention.<br />Suggests that physical violence towards people is to be avoided, as Emmeline Pankhurst did not see any point in it.<br />
  8. 8. Source 1E (regarding 1912)<br />Planned, and not spontaneous.<br />She is rather calm and confident too. <br />Vandalism by a woman<br />Shows one woman’s actions, suggesting that it was a response to Emmeline’s speech and that she was a supporter.<br />Certainly doesn’t fit in with the ‘angel in the house’ ideal and very shocking behaviour for a woman, particularly back then.<br />The suffragettes had planned their attacks.<br />Only property was targeted- she lets the couple move on before striking as to not hurt them.<br />Property (shops) targeted at random?<br />
  9. 9. Source 1F- 1913<br />Wealthy property<br />Confirms that the suffragettes did not intend to physically hurt other people, or even animals.<br />Property was not targeted at random, like in Source E. They went for a wealthy house of a known opponent, which would be the most effective attack.<br />The attacks carried on months after Emmeline’s speech.<br />Specific target<br />Only property damage<br />
  10. 10. Consequences of Emmeline’s speech<br />Looking at the sources, it seems that Emmeline’s speech in 1912 has brought a change to suffragettes’ behaviour:<br />Sources A, B and C do not mention violence but rather peaceful support.<br />Source D calls for violence.<br />Sources E and F respond by depicting it.<br />The speech had provoked a new form of militancy that was previously unmentioned in sources dating to 1908-10 but can be clearly seen in post-1912. <br />Less than a decade after the unfurling of the first banner, property damaging had become an official part of the campaign.<br />
  11. 11. Change in attitude<br />Although it could be called militant, though mostly peaceful campaign up to 1912 tended to use well-known tactics of the suffrage- public meetings, carrying banners etc.<br />After Emmeline’s speech, things quickly took a violent change, but remained militant as they were still organised. <br />Unseen actions for a woman before (i.e. window smashing and arson), they brought about a radical change in attitude of the campaigners and helped revive the cause. <br />It all happened in a short amount of time. <br />Emmeline’s speech<br />Source A<br />Source B<br />Source D<br />Source E<br />Source F<br />Disruption of the meeting<br />Source C<br />1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914<br />

×