Photo illustration by Natalie Matthews-Ramo [1]
I.
Having received a number of emails from readers responding to my last post on Sadiq Khan and the Suffragettes - most of which expressed shock and disappointment to discover that the latter were more than happy to use violent means to achieve their political ends - I thought it might be interesting to say a bit more about these insufferable women to whom history has granted heroic victim status [2].
Deeds Not Words - this is the slogan of many an ascetic militant or armed revolutionary. And it usually means that someone somewhere is about to be shot, blown up, stabbed, or beheaded in the name of some higher cause or greater good. In other words, such murderous actions are justifiable when they are committed in the name of freedom, justice, or God, for example.
In addition to smashing shop windows and setting fire to all kind of buildings, including theatres and churches, not just government offices, the suffragettes were also prepared to kill politicians, judges, and members of the public. In 1912, one of these deranged harpies even threw an axe at then Prime Minister Herbert Asquith (it missed him, but injured another MP, almost slicing off his ear) [3].
If only a handful of people were actually killed as a result of the suffragette terror campaign, there were dozens severely injured. But that's not really the issue: the issue is whether such violence can ever be acceptable [4]. I don't mind if someone answers yes to this question, but then I don't expect them to complain about the violence that invariably befalls them or start squawking about their human rights.
If you live by the sword ...
II.
The fact is, Pankhurst, her daughter Christabel, and the rest of her criminal gang, essentially revelled in the violence and the chaos caused - dismissing those women who called for patience and peaceful protest. It's little wonder, therefore - and this too will come as a shock to some readers - that many of the most militant suffragettes eventually drifted into the sweaty embrace of the black-shirted strongmen of the British Union of Fascists ...
As the British historian Martin Pugh points out [5], Oswald Mosley's paramilitary movement
drew all kinds of cranks and crackpots, including Mary Richardson, the former suffragette notorious
for slashing The Rokeby Venus in
1914, who ran the Women's Section of the BUF (est. 1933),
after Mosley's mother gave up the role.
When asked what attracted her to Mosley and the BUF, Miss
Richardson explained that she saw in the Blackshirts the same courage,
dedication, and loyalty that she had known in the Women's
Social and Political Union. The fact that the BUF were ultranationalists who wanted to make Britain great again and keep Britain for the British, also appealed to her extreme brand of patriotism.
In the interwar period, votes for women was no longer the burning issue it once was for women like Richardson and Christabel Pankhurst [6]. In fact, they now repudiated the entire parliamentary system and advocated total obedience to a supreme leader. They also regarded feminism as a form of decadence and openly sneered at women such as Nancy Astor, the first female member of Parliament.
For these women in their black blouses, black berets, and grey skirts it was fascism which uniquely offered a true form of feminism and promised an escape from the twin evils of domesticity and democracy and they enthusiastically gave the BUF their full support.
[1] This image was used to illustrate an article by Martin Pugh entitled 'Why Former Suffragettes Flocked to Fascism' (14 April 2017), in the online magazine Slate: click here. The article was excerpted from Pugh's book Hurrah for the Blackshirts!: Fascists and Fascism in Britain Between the Wars, (Pimlico, 2006).
[2] There are even memorial statues of Emmeline Pankhurst, founder of the Women's Social and Political Union (1903), in London and Manchester.
[3] Readers might also find it interesting to know that future PM Winston Churchill was also assaulted by a suffragette using a horse-whip, whilst on a platform of Bristol railway station, in November 1909. The woman was arrested for assault, but was simply found guilty of disturbing the peace.
[4] For me, the acts of terror and political violence perpetrated by the suffragettes are objectionable on several grounds, including the fact that they betray class privilege and indifference to the suffering of those deemed social inferiors. These ghastly women simply didn't care if a policeman, or a postal worker, or a train driver, was injured or killed, because they didn't know any such people personally and were most unlikely to have family members employed in such roles.
A bit like the Just Stop Oil protestors today, they also knew they were unlikely to be subject to the full force of the law as they came from posh backgrounds and had friends and supporters in postions of power and influence.
[5] See note 1 above. I am indebted to Pugh for his published work in this area.
[6] During 1916-17, the House of Commons Speaker chaired a conference on electoral reform which recommended limited women's suffrage. Then, in 1918, the Representation of the People Act was passed which allowed women over the age of 30 (who met a property qualification) to vote. Although 8.5 million women met this criteria, it was only about two-thirds of the total population of women in the UK. It was not until the Equal Franchise Act of 1928 that all women over 21 were finally able to vote. This act increased the number of women eligible to vote in UK elections to 15 million.
For a follow-up post on two speeches by Emmeline Pankhurst, click here.
