Skip to main content

Mrs Pankhurst and the Double Standard

When Mrs Pankhurst sought to justify WSPU militancy, she often did so by drawing attention to a double standard that accepted men’s militancy but criticised women’s. “The smashing of windows is a time-honoured method of showing displeasure in a political situation,” she said, adding, “When Englishmen do it, it is regarded as an honest expression of political opinion…when Englishwomen do it, it is treated as a crime.”  

Mrs Pankhurst served a term in prison in 1908 for inciting disorder during a deputation to the House of Commons. After her release from Holloway, she insisted on the suffragettes’ right to be regarded as political prisoners , not common criminals, and directed WSPU members to refuse to co-operate with prison rules unless this was granted. It was this demand that led hundreds of women to adopt the hunger strike.  

Yet the WSPU frequently argued that the Government was prepared to grant male activists political status and tolerate their violence and incitement of others to break the law. During her defence speech in court on 21 May 1912 Mrs Pankhurst noted that while she was in prison (in 1908) “for no greater offence than the issue of a handbill”, the Government had received members of the Young Turkish Revolutionary Party. These men had “killed and slain…while we women had never thrown a stone…we were imprisoned while these political murderers were being feted by the very Government who imprisoned us”.  

The WSPU issued constant reminders of the fact that the male franchise had been extended as a result of male militancy. In 1909, in the days leading up to Liberal MP Winston Churchill’s visit to the city,  Bristol suffragettes circulated leaflets pointing out that the 1832 Bristol Riots had been a factor in men obtaining the vote. It seems Bristol was prepared to riot again: at least the female part of it. Churchill’s visit was the focus of days of demonstrations that included window breaking and heckling him at meetings.  

One suffragette, Theresa Garnett from Leeds, even assaulted him when he arrived at Bristol Temple Meads from London. She broke through the cordon of detectives surrounding the politician and lunged at him with a whip, crying “Take that, you brute!” She was sentenced to a month in Horfield Jail, where she went on hunger strike and was forcibly fed. She protested by setting fire to her cell and was placed in solitary confinement. Eleven days later she collapsed and was moved to the prison hospital.    

On 4 December 1913 Mrs Pankhurst was arrested at Plymouth on her return to England from America, where she had been on a speaking tour. She was released after a hunger strike and went to Paris, where her daughter Christabel Pankhurst had fled the previous year to avoid arrest. Mrs Pankhurst was rearrested in Dover on her return, and went on a hunger, thirst and sleep strike. Protesting against her treatment, suffragettes burned a timber yard at Devonport, near Plymouth, on 15 December. The message, “Our reply to the torture of Mrs Pankhurst, and her cowardly arrest at Plymouth” was left at the scene. A second card left at the scene read, “How dare you arrest Mrs Pankhurst and allow Sir Edward Carson and Mr Bonar Law to go free?”  

Edward Carson and Andrew Bonar Law were leaders of the Ulster Unionist movement, which was pledged to resist Irish Home Rule by force; the armed Ulster Volunteer Force was formed in 1912. When the Bishop of London condemned suffragette militancy, Mrs Pankhurst protested, “Why does he condemn militancy on the part of women while, presumably, he approves (since he remains silent) the preparations made by men in Ireland to destroy, not only property, but human life?” 

The WSPU attempted to petition the King on 21 May 1914, but were turned away from Buckingham Palace by cordons of police. It was a violent affair, with mounted police  charges and brutal treatment of the women by police officers and men in the crowd. Sylvia Pankhurst called it a “day of woman bating indeed”. Mrs Pankhurst was arrested and taken to Holloway. She was released after a five day hunger and thirst strike. Sixty six women and two men were also arrested, and when they appeared in court the next morning there were noisy demonstrations inside and outside, and eight more arrests were made. The protests continued over the next few days. Pictures were slashed at the National Gallery, a mummy case broken at the British Museum, and a portrait of the King in the Royal Scottish Academy was damaged.  

Yet, as Mrs Pankhurst pointed out, while the King refused to receive militant women, on 24 July 1914 he received a deputation of militant men led by Edward Carson during a  conference at Buckingham Palace to discuss the situation in Ireland. Members of Sylvia Pankhurst’s East End Suffrage Federation picketed outside with posters saying “The King must call a conference on Votes for Women”. 

The King did not call a conference on votes for women, and the WSPU continued to protest about the double standard. Men, Mrs Pankhurst said, “have decided that it is entirely right and proper for men to fight for their liberties and their rights, but that it is not right and proper for women to fight for theirs…Well, the Suffragettes absolutely repudiate that double standard of morals.”

 

 

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Dickens and Chickens

On 17 April 1860, in fields near Farnborough, Charles Dickens joined an audience amongst whom were the Prince of Wales and the Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston, as well as a number of MPs and clergymen, to watch the American John Carmel Heenan and England’s Tom Sayers (the Brighton Titch) beat one another blind and bloody in a bare-knuckle fight that lasted nearly two and a half hours. The fight ended in a draw when Aldershot police stormed the ring, forcing the fighters and their illustrious spectators to flee the scene. It was the brutality of this match that signalled an end to the bare-knuckle era and prompted the development of the Marquess of Queensberry’s rules. Dickens’s interest in pugilism was of long standing. In 1848 Dombey and Son , which had been published in serial form over the preceding two years, came out in book form. One of many of his novels that draws on the world of the prize fighter, it introduces the unforgettable Mr Toots, a would-be man about town, an...

The Bristol Boys: The Bare Knuckle Champions and The Hatchet Inn

The Hatchet Inn on Frogmore Street in Bristol is all that remains of a row of seventeenth-century timbered houses dating back to 1606 – making it one of the city’s oldest pubs. It was substantially altered in the 1960s, and these days it stands on a traffic island. But at one time it boasted extensive grounds – and amongst the facilities on offer was a bare-knuckle boxing ring. Plaque at The Hatchet Inn, Bristol The pub’s connection with Bristol’s boxing heroes is commemorated in a plaque illustrating five of Bristol’s champions – one of whom, Hen Pearce, features in Bloodie Bones: A Dan Foster Mystery. Hen Pearce (Detail) Bristol born Hen Pearce, The Game Chicken (1777 – 1809), a former butcher’s boy, became champion of England in 1805. He was a hero inside and outside the ring. In 1807 he climbed onto the roof of a building in Thomas Street, Bristol to rescue a servant girl from a fire. Always a popular figure, this courageous act inspired many eulogies in pr...

'We will have a fire': arson during eighteenth-century enclosures

Join our Winter Solstice Blog Hop! Thirty writers throw light on a dazzling range of topics . Follow the links at the end of this article to be enlightened and brightened by our blogs...  “Inclosure came and trampled on the grave Of labours rights and left the poor a slave And memorys pride ere want to wealth did bow Is both the shadow and the substance now.”    John Clare, The Mores     On 1 May 1794, the writer Hester (Thrale) Piozzi of Streatham Park recorded in her diary that the furze on the common had been set on fire in protest at the enclosure of land “which really & of just Right belonged to the poor of the Parish”. Yet even while she acknowledged that the protesters had justice on their side, she criticised them for not “going to Law like wise fellows” and concluded: “So senseless are Le Peuple , & so unfitted to be souverain”. The senseless poor of Streatham were not unique. During the eighteenth centu...