Student Paper F991-03
Fall 1999, Section II
Reviewer comments

Men of the l7^th and 18^th centuries in Europe made great achievements in securing their natural freedoms. However, this great struggle for the inalienable rights of man against an oppressive government did not apply to women. The revolutionary thought of the philosophers and social theorists simply did not consider the rights of women. The irony is that these same men who fought for their freedoms, however, were blind to their own roles in the oppression of women. The progress made in the 17^th and 18^th centuries for the rights of men, which disregarded women and allowed further oppression, justified any attempts made by the women of the 19^th century who fought to end this oppression. The suffragists proved that in order for the further progress of their nation, the government must grant equal rights to women.

The oppression of women by men persisted through these revolutionary times. Women had no rights to own property, initiate a divorce, or challenge a law. Most occupations were closed to women, and when women did work, they earned only a fraction of what men earned. Women had limited chances to gain an education, which further keept [sic] them subject to men. Their role in any social, political, or religious affair was communicated through their husbands. Most importantly, women were forced to submit to laws and pay taxes when they had no vote in their formation. This tyranny over women robbed them of their self-confidence and self-respect and made them totally dependent on men (#6).

The ideas of these oppressing men were deeply rooted in traditional views of women and supported by current changes. The woman's place was in the house. Her main goals were to raise children, feed and clothe them, and obey her husband (#6, p. 559). Women were taught by imitation that they must be sweet, tender, submissive, unhesitating in their domestic duties, and an object of pleasure and comfort for men. Rousseau claimed that the place of women was based on reason because of her biological differences. He bluntly states, "When woman complains on this score about unjust manmade inequality, she is wrong" (#6, p.624). Because of the Industrial Revolution, men began to work outside the home for wages, furthering gender distinction between work and home. The urban atmosphere was unsuitable for women, because "a woman's life was vulnerable and precarious" outside of the home (#6, p.559). Women were considered too emotional, irrational, and uneducated to be allowed to vote. Their customs and traditions had desensitized men and women to any form of degradation. For these pervading reasons, women had no place in the action of public affairs.

In a time of such idealistic political philosophy, women believed that their mission was to help their countries keep their egalitarian promise for its citizens. The disenfranchisement of one-half the people must not be tolerated. Women of all classes suffered the same inequalities that the "social stratification" placed on members of the working class (#1). The upper classes, represented by men, were endowed with power, privilege, wealth, and authority. However, some changes occurred for the lower classes, but not for women. The Reform Act of 1832 opened the vote to more men, and the 1867 Reform Act gave the vote to every male adult homeowner (#11). In such a governmental system that gave privilege to a few, women were considered no higher than "criminals and children" (#7). Women questioned how their suppressed position was an example of a just government.

The idea of the equality of women and men was not new to the l9th century. One of the earliest documents of the equal rights of women was the Women's Petition of 1649. In response to the Petition of Right, women asserted their equal right to protection from arbitrary power and to due process of the law (#5). In France in 1791, Olympe de Gouges called for women to take action in opposition to the inferiority of women presumed by society and displayed in the Declaration of the Rights of Man (#4). She pleaded for women to claim their rights and to gain equality by joining in "all the activities of man" (#4). On the other hand, Chaumette attacked the ideas of the equality of women by emphasizing women's biological differences and stating that "anxieties of maternity," not those of society, were women's labors (#8). He displayed the effrontery to further state that those women who fight for equal rights are "impudent women who want to become men" (#8).

Mary Wollstonecraft offered a rebuttal to the reasons why women should be held submissive to men. In her most important book, A Vindication of the Rights of Women (1792), she attacks "the educational restrictions that kept women in a state of ignorance and slavish dependence" (#14). She is also very critical of a society which encouraged women to be submissive to men, stating that this "slavery" of women was degrading not only to women, but also to the society which allowed this to happen (#14). This state of women, though, differs from slavery in that it has not been met by great opposition by those enslaved. Men not only want to gain power over women, they also want control over their minds. Women had been taught to "regard their degradation as their honor," that it was their place by birth, and that no amount of merit would change their position (#13). Woman is simply an appendage to man. Until women become independent of men and gain an education in their own right, society cannot expect them to contribute. Mary Wollstonecraft vindicated the rights of women with powerful and convincing words.

In the 1860s many women, following the ideas of Mary Wollstonecraft and others who attacked the social limitations of women, realized that the only way to civil rights, higher education, and equal status lay in achieving the right to vote. In 866 Barbara Bodichon, determined to eliminate the legal disabilities of women, formed the first Women's Suffrage Committee (#12). This group organized the Women's Suffrage Petition, which John Stewart Mill presented to the House of Commons on their behalf (#12). Although this petition was met with ridicule by the house, he continued to fight for women's suffrage.

In his book, The Subjection of Women (1869), John Stewart Mill states, "the legal subordination of one sex to the other is wrong in itself," and that it is one of the "chief hindrances to human improvement" (#10). He further emphasizes that men's oppression of women should be replaced by "a principle of perfect equality, admitting no power or privilege on the one side, nor disability on the other" (#10). The institution of men's domination was designed by men and has never been proven to be effective. Not until men join the cause for women's suffrage will women succeed and human progress be restored (#10). John Stewart Mill based his caustic attack on the main idea that "Men hold women in subjection, by representing to them meekness, submissiveness, and resignation of all individual will into the hands of a man, as an essential part of sexual attractiveness" (#13). He asserted that the right to vote was necessary to the liberation of women.

By the end of the 19^th century many women had joined the effort to fight for the right to vote. In 1897 many individual suffrage societies joined together to form the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies (NUWSS). The NUWSS maintained that the continued disenfranchisement of women was unjust and imprudent, and would not be tolerated any longer (#15). Some women further realized that their efforts so far had been in vain, and turned to a new, more drastic approach to gaining suffrage. Emmeline Pankhurst, one of the most notorious militant suffragettes, had been a member of NUWSS. With the help of her daughters, Sylvia and Christabel, she established the Women's Suffrage and Political Union (WSPU).

The main aim of WSPU was to recruit more working class women and to change the tactics of the movement from rebellion through language to acts of violent protest. The motto of WSPU became "Deeds, not Words" (#16). In 1905, the women began a streak of violent acts: they shouted at general government meetings, kicked and spat at police officers, broke windows, cut telephone wires, poured acid on putting greens, destroyed mail, and even set property on fire (#16). Because of these acts, the women became known as militant suffragists. When these women committed these acts, they were arrested and sent to prison. In prison the women organized the hunger-strike campaign, refusing to eat or drink. In response to this, prison doctors and nurses tried in vain to force-feed the women. Afraid that these women would die and become martyrs for their cause, the prison officials decided to release them (#16). When the women had regained their health, they were arrested again and taken to prison. This re-arrest was the successflil response due to the Cat and Mouse Act (#16). Some women of WSPU feltthat these militant suffragists were going too far by destroying public property and left the organization. Other people in society saw these acts as more evidence of the irrationality of women and that they should not be allowed to vote.

Emmeline Panknurst continued to defend her actions and those of the militant suffragists. She compared their actions to waging a civil war against the oppression, and she states that "either women are to be killed, or they are to have the vote" (#2). The women were simply in pursuit of citizenship, because they had no right to lead useful lives, perform public service, or vote. Their purpose was to strike at the heart of government, property, the only thing with which it was concerned (#3). They were determined that the blame would be placed on the oppressive government not the militant suffragettes. Society would no doubt be appalled by these heinous acts, but would realize that the governments strict response represented the imbalance of government's priorities. The suffragettes wanted to prove that the government cared more about damage done to inanimate property than the damage done to the image of women and the further degradation and oppression of women.

The necessity of these acts lay in the fact that the government had not responded to any previous protest. Emmeline Pankhurst writes "our task was to show the Government that it was expedient to yield to the women's just demands" (#3). These women could not have had such an effect in any other way than upsetting all of society. These militant suffragettes took it upon themselves "to restore true values, to emphasize the value of human rights against property rights" (#3). The tactics of these women were absolutely necessary and were responsible for the change of the view of all women and the final attainment of the right to vote.

When England declared war on Germany in 1914, NUWSS announced that it would suspend any further political activity until the was over. WSPU negotiated with the British government and agreed to end their militant acts of retaliation if all suffragists were released from prison (#16). After such visualization and unfaltering persistence displayed by the women and the great contributions and patriotism to their country that women expressed during World War I, Britain finally granted the right to vote to some women in 1918 (#3).

The women's suffrage movement was one of vital importance to the morality and welfare of the nation. The previous oppression of women vindicated all actions taken by women and men in their fight for women's enfranchisement. The tenacious will and enduring determination displayed by these women showed the unyielding character of women, which later facilitated further movements for the rights and liberties of not only women, but also other oppressed people. These women of the 19^th century proved that with outstanding determination, obstacles can be overcome and the virtue of human rights can prevail.

Bibliography

1. Cody, David. The Victorian Web: Social Class. George P. Landlow. 1997. Brown University. 16 Oct.1999.

2. Internet Modern History Sourcebook: Emmeline Pankhurst: Militant Suffragist 1913.1997. 10 Oct.1999.

3. Internet Modern History Sourcebook: Emmeline Pankhurst: My Own Story 1914. 1997. 10 Oct.1999.

4. Internet Modern History Sourcebook: Olvmne de Gouge: Declaration of the Rights of Women 1791.1997.1 Oct.1999.

5. Internet Modern History Sourcebook: Revolutionary Women During the English Revolution. 199710 Oct.1999.

6. Kagan, Donald, et al. The Western Heritage Volume II: Since 1648. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1998.

7. Kelly, Dr. Mills. Criminals and Children? Texas Tech University. Oct. 8, 1999.10 Oct.1999.

8. Levy, Darline, et al. Women in Revolutionary Paris 1789-1795: Selected Documents. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. 1979.10 Oct.1999.

9. National Women's Historv Project: History of the Movement. Co-Directors Bonnie Eisenberg and Mary Ruthsdotter. 1998.16 Oct.1999.

10. Philosophers of Free Speech: John Stewart Mill. University of Arkansas. 1998.16 Oct. 1999.

11. Spartacus Educational: 1876 Reform Act. 16 Oct.1999.

12. Spartacus Educational: Barbara Bodichon. 16 Oct.1999.

13. Spartacus Educational: John Stuart Mill. 16 Oct.1999.

14. Spartacus Educational: Mary Wollstonecraft. 16 Oct.1999.

15. Spartacus Educational: NUWSS. 16 Oct.1999.

16. Spartacus Educational: WSPU. 16 Oct.1999.