April 2015- Suffragette: My Own Story by Emmeline Pankhurst

[Jennifer W]

Welcome to April's group read of Suffragette: My Own Story by Emmeline Pankhurst.

Enjoy!

[Ally]

I absolutely loved this book. A real page turner. Can't wait to see what others think.

[Pink]

I'll try and start this early in April.

[Judy]

I've just picked up a lovely new paperback edition of this published by Vintage - have only read a few pages so far, but I'm really enjoying Pankhurst's dry style of writing.

I liked her comment: 'A girl's education at that time seemed to have for its prime object the art of "making home attractive" — presumably to migratory male relatives.'

It was also very interesting to learn that for a time some people thought women had been given the vote under the Reform Bill in 1866 because the wording "men" was argued to include women.

[Val]

Do you think she would have been content if it had?
It would have given around four thousand women in Manchester the right to vote, but still excluded the vast majority of women and men. She is very dismissive of the idea of a universal suffrage bill ever being passed through Parliament.

[Judy]

I haven't read very much yet, but I'm already sure she would have carried on campaigning for universal suffrage, as you suggest, Val, even if a small number of women had been granted the vote at that stage. I don't think she would ever have been content with the vast majority of people being excluded from voting.

[Pink]

I'm about 1/3 through this at the moment and thoroughly enjoying it. So glad it's this month's non fiction book.

[Jaylia3]

I'm about 15% into this book and loving it. Pankhurst writes wonderfully, with wit and intelligence and her book is a great follow up to the joint biography of Mary Wollstonecraft and her daughter Mary Shelley that I just finished Romantic Outlaws: The Extraordinary Lives of Mary Wollstonecraft and Her Daughter Mary Shelley. Wollstonecraft and Shelley lived before and during the beginning Victorian years and among other accomplishments both were early feminists so Pankhurst picks up the story where they leave off.

[Barbara]

I'm really enjoying this so far. It seems that she was writing it for an American audience, perhaps to encourage them in their own suffrage efforts. She translated the money into dollars and several times explained British legal procedures. I was interested in what she had to say about interruptions and heckling (by men, at any rate) being an accepted part of British political behavior.

Even though this is not news to me, it never ceases to shock and amaze me how long and hard women had to fight to gain the vote.

For anyone who's interested in the American struggle for the vote and women's rights, the book Seneca Falls and the Origins of the Women's Rights Movement is excellent.

[Ally]

I detected a bit of sarcasm in the writing that kept me really engaged. She recounts the history of the fight beautifully and in a much more detached and illuminating way than I could have done ...and she was still fighting as they hadn't 'won' at the time she was writing.

Her explanation of British Political culture and legal set up is very important because it shows all of the legitimate ways a person can lobby for change. The vote is only one way to access democracy in England but it's such an important right to be able to oust a corrupt or unsatisfying government. The wheels of state kept rolling over the Suffragettes despite their initial attempts to work with the system. It was only when thwarted that the women began militancy...very late in the day! Pankhurst explains this very well in comparison to what the fight might have looked like if it was a mans fight and by drawing attention to the differences in treatment compared to male political prisoners such as those involved in the Struggles.

I was angry, very angry, while reading this account. I wonder which group of people the wheels of state are rolling over right now!

[Val]

It does seem at times as if she was writing for a US audience Barbara, but if I was reading this without knowing anything about British history I would have formed the impression that men already had the vote.
(Only some men did - around 20% before the various (Liberal) Representation of the People Acts.)

[Michael]

I've been reading the thread on suffrage, I note not many men (none) have commented.

Mrs Pankhurst was a fellow Mancunian. Electoral equality in the UK was woeful even for men until 1832 when even though only very few could vote, after then the reforms were slow.

Mrs Pankhurst grew up in Moss Side a very rich area at that time, huge double fronted 3-4 storey town houses now all flats/apartments and sadly Moss Side was more known for the riots in the 1980's.

I really need to read up on UK electoral reform and social and political history of the UK. I think the perception of the role of women has changed little for many. They are still seen as providing for the family in the home rather than being the provider of the home, even with the vote.
Mrs Pankhurst was middle class and therefore does her version of equality differ to that of say the working classes.

Even now I get looks and quips, because I cook and iron my own shirts & laundry etc. In fact there is nothing in the home where I feel inferior or superior to a women - we are equal, if it needs doing I do it, although I might need reminding a few times though lol.
Do you think I'm a rare male in that way or are times changing in your experience too?
I have heard it said, by a women and here I paraphrase, if a women cannot provide home comforts for her man then how does one define the role of a women and how does a women keep her man. My reply was such that surely your man doesn’t stay because he married a house maid? That comment was not well received.

But that's not the issue, it is how the state allows equality to happen or in some cases just seen to be happening and not just on gender grounds either. But at what point does equality of the genders become immaterial, as you move towards true equality on all matters not just a few including the vote then does the gender become less important?

Another issue is to what extent are the masses educated enough to make an informed decision, was it not once thought women were unable or disinterested in such matters, wrongly of course. By removing education or access to the truth and understanding we can determined how the electorate vote.

Sometimes I am completely undecided on certain issues and feel ill-informed enough to vote on a particular single issue, so it not a gender issue but an information issue.

It was commented that, it was felt that it was written for women in the US rather than a man in the UK, maybe to cause a similar ‘revolution’ perhaps rather than just to sell books. Those having read the book do you think Mrs Pankhurst ultimately achieved her objective or are those barriers still there?
Sorry this is along comment but I hope it gets the thread some interest. Given all this, would I as a man miss a lot of the book’s meaning or intent?

[Pink]

Yes this is definitely written for a US audience as figures are stated in dollars rather than pounds and some terms are explained for an American audience to understand. Perhaps Emmeline Pankhurst was asked to write this for American publishers?

Michael, from your comments above I assume that you haven't read this yet? It's definitely interesting from a historical perspective, learning about how government worked at the time and the different avenues open to getting new legislation passed. Obviously having an interest in the Suffragette movement helps, but I don't think it's necessary to be female or even have feminist ideals to be interested in what Mrs Pankhurst had to say. I think everyone can appreciate this book and understand the meaning whether male or female.

[Val]

I think you would have been a very rare male in the nineteenth and early twentieth century Michael (or a wealthy man's valet).
There was a difference between the classes as you say, most working class women would have been working women as well as doing most of the housework and childcare, while many middle class women did not work. Mrs Pankhurst does show that the suffragist and suffragette movements attracted members from all social classes however. She made her organisation about a single issue, the parliamentary vote, so it was independent of party allegiance, social reform or class.
There was a perception at the time that women had different concerns to men, so women could vote in local authority elections which dealt with schools, health and sanitation, social welfare, local policing etc., but not national elections to the government which dealt with laws, the economy, defence and other 'serious', 'male' concerns. Even today there is better female representation at local council level than national government level, but I doubt anyone would suggest that it is because women are only interested in local and domestic issues.

[Judy]

I've just been reading an article about women voting in some local elections in Victorian times and the position seems to be very complicated - here's a link for anyone who is interested:

https://victoriancommons.wordpress.co...

This is also an interesting article on the history of women's suffrage in the 20th century, which fills in some of the background to the book we're reading:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/...

[Val]

Thanks Judy, that Independent article gives a good overview.
Voter registration and franchise was very complicated at one time and the rules differed between constituencies, so thank goodness that all got sorted out, even though it didn't help women!

[Judy]

Thanks, Val. After reading further into the book and also reading that Independent article, I've realised my earlier comment about the suffragettes striving for universal suffrage was wrong - at this time they were campaigning votes for women on the same terms as men, so they were focusing on those with property qualifications.

[Val]

The campaign was for votes on the same limited basis as men, but it is not clear from Emmeline Pankhurst's own words whether she supported universal suffrage or not (hence my query).
I think she was probably in favour of it, but believed it impossible. She also wanted to attract women opposed to it to her organisation (as well as those in favour).

[Pink]

I think you're right Val. As men still didn't have universal suffrage, it was probably thought impossible that women would be granted this. Much more realistic to campaign for equal rights, even if more was wanted.

[Val]

The irony is that female suffrage was granted on the back of universal male suffrage, not from a Women's Suffrage Bill.

[Pink]

Yes, I suppose men gaining full suffrage was the only way the government could swallow women getting any rights....still behind the men.

[Val]

It is also the only way they could have won a vote in the Commons, let alone in the Lords. Even opponents of votes for women were reluctant to vote against votes for soldiers in 1918.
Mrs Pankhurst could not have predicted that before the war of course.

[Pink]

That's a good point, I didn't think about that aspect. Do you think that women's suffrage would have come so early without the war? I'm guessing that it wouldn't have happened until years later, had the war not changed everyone's life by 1918.

[Val]

I would guess that too Pink.
Some countries which had universal male suffrage earlier than the UK were very slow to grant the same to women.
If equal (but not universal) women's suffrage had been granted there were fears that it would prevent or delay universal suffrage. I don't know to what extent that was the case, I suspect that in 1832 it would have made little difference and in 1910-1912 quite a lot.

[Ally]

Mike, you're right, not many men have commented and it would be great to get some more male opinion.

You make an interesting comparison with the historical suffrage fight and today's attitudes. I'm not sure we're really there yet and I have heard it said that women don't reach the highest seats of power today because they're not interested in things like international affairs (... Out of interest, how many women have been foreign secretary or deputy of the equivalent in other countries?) and that politics turns women off. The set up of our political system is male orientated due to the long hours and adversarial culture. If we changed the way Westminster worked would that make a difference to the number of women at the top?

Interesting too about class. Yes this autobiography does talk about that. there was mention of a rich and well connected lady dressing as a working class woman so that she didn't get any special treatment in Prison and Emmeline Pankhurst was a strong advocate for equality in treatment for all her fellow prisoners regardless of rank and status. She fought hard for the status of political prisoner.

I think you'd really enjoy the book Mike, it really is Gripping and a page turner and would appeal to men too.

[Nigeyb]

Well I think I'm the only other currently active male member of the group. I have too much else to read at the moment so am not going to be reading this selection. That said, here's a few thoughts...

Any kind of inequality or discrimination is wrong. Gender inequality is one of the most ridiculous forms of inequality. We still have so far still to go to bridge the inequality gap. A gap that does neither gender any favours. Both groups (and those that fall in-between) are pressured to fulfil societal expectations that restrict and inhibit us from being ourselves and fulfilling our potential. Emmeline Pankhurst, and all the other brave activists, are an inspiration who remind us all to do all we can to accept and encourage each other no matter what gender, race, religion, sexual preference etc., and to fight and confront prejudice and intolerance.

[Michael]

Well I've bought the book so lets see how it goes.

[Ally]

Well said NigeyB. I often wonder what the world has lost as a result of the 'boxing in' of people due to inequality.

I hope you enjoy it Mike!

One little thing that I found interesting in this book was the role of the Suffragette's newspaper (...the social media of the day!) and the fact that the police and government strategy seemed to be heavily focussed on shutting it down. I found it very powerful that they published one edition with headlines and blank spaces - how much impact that must have had! And the fact that Christobel had to direct events from Paris due to the threat of arrest was a bit of an indictment on UK methods of 'control' and censorship.

[Pink]

I finished this book today. It was so much more than I was expecting. I knew a little about Emmeline Pankhurst and the suffragettes, not all of which is favourable, but I really enjoyed reading things in her own words. I also appreciated how in depth she explained the government and systems of the day, giving a real sense of the time period. A very worthy read!

[Judy]

I've read further in this book now and was interested to see a section where Pankhurst explains the thinking behind their campaigning for some rather than all women to get the vote - ie she thought it was impossible for them all to get it at that time. She even says that universal suffrage won't come within the lifetime of anyone reading her book, published in 1914. It came just 14 years later, after attitudes changed as a result of WW1.

[Judy]

I also meant to say I was moved by her descriptions of the suffering of many working-class women at the time - for instance she describes some mothers being prosecuted for child neglect, when in fact they were doing the best they could for their children while living in desperate poverty.

[Pink]

I agree Judy, she just could't imagine that things would change so much. I expect she'd always have demanded full suffrage if she'd have thought it a possibility, as though she was obviously in a privileged position in society, she did seem to care about and campaign for those less fortunate. Although partial suffrage wouldn't have enfranchised everyone, she certainly wasn't campaigning only for the upper classes. I had a lot more respect and understanding of her work after reading this.

[Ally]

I too was struck by how Emmeline Pankhurst used her experiences of social work to inform her views about the benefit of having women take part in political process. It's very rare for us to be as to step out of our social class or our experiences and put on someone else's shoes. Readers of this book were likely to be other middle class women so in explaining her experiences she was ensuring greater understanding of poverty across a wider spectrum of people who might not otherwise be exposed to such things.

We're not even at the point today where women share equal volumes of power (...or are seen as equally valid) with men in parliament. Listening to woman's hour the other day when they talked about Hilary Clinton's new campaign I was taken aback to hear about the level of misogyny aimed at her for being a woman, and not even just by trolls, by other campaign managers and respected media vehicles. This is not what I expected from the most powerful democracy in the world. I'm not sure whether Hilary knows much about the reality of lives for the poorest in society being from a political dynasty but she seems to have to 'man up' to be taken seriously rather than campaigning as a strong capable woman on issues that affect everyone. What would Emmeline Pankhurst have made of it I wonder so many years after the franchise was supposedly won?

[Michael]

I've yet to start to read this book, but the quick read of the forward certainly shows a "them versus us" attitude. What also struck me was it was seen as a war against men when in reality it was war against inequality.

This has not put me off reading it because that is exactly how she perceived it.

In response to Ally and the Hilary Clinton issues I always think the dis-respect shown is a mixture of jealously and fear. The fear being is that they will be beaten by a 'girl' and that is misogyny for you.

There have been more female leaders in the world recently and have they been any better or worse than the male alternatives probably not.

We had a female Prime Minister in the UK, how any women voted for her because she was a women and conversely how many men didn't. The US may have the first female president again how many people will vote on gender lines.

Men and women are equal and unequal in the same breath but neither one should be more equal than the other. Much of want I read seems to suggest we need to change society from the top down but surely the policy makers should reflect society's wants and therefore should equality also start from the bottom up, which is more difficult.

We will never have gender equality, I say that because we are physically different and it is the mother that most often becomes the primary carer for the children, due to the natural bond between the mother and offspring and the male is then tasked to pursue the 'breadwinner' role. I know of only one instance where this is reversed. Can we escape this, currently I think not. The only thing we can do is to ensure that there is the viable choice to do so. I wonder how many women given the choice to be a stay at home mother or breadwinner. If my partner earned more than me (actually she does) and there was carer responsibilities I'd gladly stay at home.

So how do we change the political & social landscape, by reason or by force (legislation targets, quotas etc) any ideas?

Anyway the book seems to address the difference in social classes too which I am interested also.

[Michael]

I've finally read some more of this book.
I'm am really enjoying it and my fear that if would be a 'them versus us' and that it would be an emotional view of how women were always the victims under oppressive men simply hasn't come through.
Yes, that certainly comes across but with clear demonstration of the brutally that any attempt to change the status quo was dealt with.
It also sets out how the political system works, or in some cases didn't.
I am of the opinion that equally across the board was never the intended aim , but to have parity in voting which leads to legal parity.
I may finished the book by weekend such is the draw of this book.

[Michael]

Not an update on the book but about Mrs Pankhurst. As you know she was born in Manchester UK. The city has 17 official statutes all male except for one of Queen Victoria. To address this money has been raised to have a Mancunian female honour with a statute. From a short list of 6, the public voted for Mrs Pankhurst. Sorry no links to the article, I found out off the BBC.

[Michael]

Further to my message on 21 Jan 2016. The winner of the that public vote was Mrs Pankhurst. Further to this the neighbouring City of Salford has had a couple of streets named after the Suffragettes........sadly they had been spelled incorrectly a little embarrassing.

[Michael]

I've finally got round to writing about the book. I really enjoyed reading it. I did have a few initial thoughts about the books but thankfully I was very much wrong.

The writing style was easy to follow and it took the reader on a journey of how women being denied the right to vote (a right we take for granted) tried to change the political landscape.

I once spoke with a female friend and asked how female writing differed from the male style, I was told the in general it was a more emotional exploration of a story. Well I thought this would be true of this book it wasn't. Yes it does deal with very emotional and deeply disturbing and dark treatment of Suffragettes in the penal system but the description were far from emotional , I feel Mrs Pankhurst allowed the reader to provide their fear and emotion.

The author showed how her experiences prior to embarking on political reforms gave a difference view point of the family and the vital roles of both genders in a family unit and society in general.

It took the reader through a journey of the political system in the UK at that time and how if the ruling government didn't want to discuss or pass a law there was plenty of obstacles that could and were put in place.........so much for democracy.

If anyone is interested in democracy, not just the fight of gender equality in voting, this book must be on your reading list. It shows that democracy is only as strong as those who fight for the rights of democracy. Every time we as individuals use our vote we should do well to remember how hard fought that right is.