| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Just Stop Oil Have Won | |
| Posted by: | Tricia Arbuthnot | |
| Date/Time: | 31/03/25 08:43:00 |
| It is some time ago but I studied the question of how influential the Suffragette movement was and it is very had to make a case that direct action was important in the decision to grant women the vote. We tend to celebrate the more headline grabbing of the suffragettes but it is likely that the patient but dull letter writing and lobbying of the suffragists was more important in moving the cause forward. This was the approach that worked so well in other countries that implemented votes for women far earlier than the UK. I'm sure that headline grabbing actions caused some to reconsider views opposed to votes for women but they will have also resulted in some hardening their opinions or abandoning previous support. We will never know how this balanced out but it is a safe assumption that suffragist efforts slowly garnered support for their cause. Ultimately it was the war that led to the very limited increase in the franchise. The contribution of women to the war effort was important but one of the key arguments against women voting, that the man represented the views of a household and his family could influence him, was undermined by there being so many households without men due to the carnage. Having read the correspondence of both suffragettes and suffragists, I formed the impression that the former were often narcissists who didn't have the attention span for a long campaign whereas the suffragists were determined and committed women who recognised that their goals could be achieved but it would take time and patience. Perhaps there is room for both types of campaign on any issues but in my view the real heroes of the votes for women campaign were the thousands of unnamed individuals who for decades sought to change the minds of those in positions of authority with the power of reasoned argument. |