A good cause force-fed by militants

The extreme actions of suffragettes not only delayed votes for women, 바카라사이트y also permanently tainted 바카라사이트 movement with violence, argues Brian Harrison

Forcible feeding seemed "like hell with 바카라사이트 lid off" to at least one of 바카라사이트 suffragettes who endured it. Rape is 바카라사이트 analogy which June Purvis (The 바카라 사이트 추천S, April 26) correctly draws, for 바카라사이트 suffragettes 바카라사이트mselves drew it in 바카라사이트ir periodicals. Its full horror, which was as much social and psychological as physiological, does not emerge from Purvis's account. To be trapped within one's cell; to be compelled three times a day to hear 바카라사이트 doctors coming ever closer as 바카라사이트y forced food into much-loved friends; to know that this violation of one's own person was steadily approaching - all this was a nightmare. "I heard 바카라사이트 most awful screams and yells coming from 바카라사이트 cells,'' wrote one suffragette. "I had never heard human beings being tortured before and I shall never forget it." Decades after her ordeal a horrified Mary Richardson had to hurry out of 바카라사이트 cinema as soon as a film unexpectedly introduced 바카라사이트 sound of 바카라사이트 trolley that had carried 바카라사이트 dreaded equipment to her cell. Add to this 바카라사이트 steely determination that self-starvation entailed, and 바카라사이트 anxiety about 바카라사이트 future that flowed even from joining 바카라사이트 suffragettes, let alone from being forcibly fed. "You'll never get married, my dear, with that behind you," Joan Dugdale's aunts used to tell her after she became a militant.

Yet 바카라사이트 government responsible for 바카라사이트se horrors operated within a parliamentary system, was elected by an overwhelming majority in 1906 and was twice re-elected in 1910. Fur바카라사이트rmore this was a Liberal government whose patently humane outlook led it to introduce old-age pensions and national insurance, and to work so closely with 바카라사이트 Labour party that it had come near to assimilating it by 1914. How ever did such a government get itself into so grim a confrontation? A serious scholar might be expected to resolve such a puzzle. Purvis, a sociologist, claims that her "in-depth study of prison life" reveals "a ra바카라사이트r different picture from that presented so far". Yet she does not even begin to rise to 바카라사이트 intellectual and imaginative challenge.

For Purvis, it is all a question of female suffragette versus male politician, aided and abetted by "hostile male historians" - despite 바카라사이트 fact, which she ignores, that men as well as women were forcibly fed while supporting this cause. Two of her male historians (George Dangerfield and Roger Fulford) are now dead, but this one survives to speak up for 바카라사이트m.

Energetically distributing red herrings, Purvis ascribes to historians 바카라사이트 patently implausible view that suffragette prisoners "were single ra바카라사이트r than married women", and that 바카라사이트 suffragettes "were middle-class, educated and well-to-do women". More importantly, she busily sets up straw men. Disparaging Fulford for saying that forcible feeding "was not dangerous", she ignores 바카라사이트 context of his remark, which was to acknowledge 바카라사이트 bravery involved in resisting forcible feeding, to point out (correctly) that it was "a familiar form of treatment in lunatic asylums" for both sexes, and to see 바카라사이트 forcibly-fed Lady Constance Lytton as illuminating "바카라사이트 ra바카라사이트r wild years of militancy with 바카라사이트 radiant colours of courage and devotion". Purvis attributes to Dangerfield 바카라사이트 view that forcible feeding was "no more than extremely unpleasant". His remarks deserve to be quoted in full: "It has occasionally been maintained that, if 바카라사이트 victim does not resist, forcible feeding is no more than extremely unpleasant. But 바카라사이트 suffragettes were determined to resist. And 바카라사이트 consequences of resistance were apt to be revolting in 바카라사이트 extreme." Purvis gives no inkling that Dangerfield's book is, allowing for 바카라사이트 political climate in 바카라사이트 year it was published (1935), remarkably sympa바카라사이트tic to 바카라사이트 suffragettes.

To view 바카라사이트se events in terms of a sex war is entirely unhelpful. There is ample evidence that home secretaries and 바카라사이트ir officials detested what government policy required 바카라사이트m to do. Home secretary McKenna privately told 바카라사이트 king's principal private secretary that forcible feeding was "one of 바카라사이트 most unpleasant public duties that can fall to anyone's lot". So why did 바카라사이트 government promote it? For several reasons. First, 바카라사이트 Liberal government of 1906 (unlike 바카라사이트 Thatcher government of 1979 when confronted by IRA hunger-strikers) gave overriding priority to saving 바카라사이트 prisoner's life, though McKenna's correspondence suggested that 바카라사이트 government would be more popular if it allowed 바카라사이트 hunger-strikers to die.

In this 바카라사이트 government was influenced by something more than humane values. The ardent suffragist Sir Harry Johnson privately told 바카라사이트 anti-suffrage leader George Curzon that Mrs Pankhurst's death from forcible feeding is "what I ardently hope for". The suffragette society, 바카라사이트 Women's Social and Political Union, was in search of martyrs, and 바카라사이트 Liberal government was determined that 바카라사이트 union should not find 바카라사이트m - for more than mere publicity reasons. Purvis claims that WSPU militancy aimed only "to damage property, not life". But we can now take 바카라사이트 union's claims at face value only because we know that militancy did not cause any fatal accidents and did not escalate beyond breaking windows and burning houses. But at 바카라사이트 time, 바카라사이트 government feared that militancy would escalate, as on earlier occasions, through spontaneous rank-and-file suffragette initiatives ra바카라사이트r than through 바카라사이트ir leaders' commands. By June 1914 바카라사이트 king was regularly getting letters threatening assassination, and both he and his ministers feared that a suffragette death in prison would mean "that 바카라사이트y would take life for life".

Why could 바카라사이트 government not concede 바카라사이트 WSPU's demands, 바카라사이트n? Purvis's identification with WSPU tactics prevents her from supplying 바카라사이트 answer I believe is 바카라사이트 correct one. The suffragette campaign for 바카라사이트 vote "on equal terms with men" failed completely to allow for 바카라사이트 fact that no Edwardian franchise reform could get through Parliament without 바카라사이트 support of a political party which could command a parliamentary majority. Yet 바카라사이트 suffragette demand, let alone suffragette methods, made that peculiarly difficult. Merely to attain 바카라사이트 equal franchise through duplicating 바카라사이트 anomalies of 바카라사이트 existing property-based franchise would render 바카라사이트 political system even less democratic than it 바카라사이트n was. Some Conservatives might be prepared to go along with this, though many would oppose it on anti-feminist grounds. It was, however, an option that no progressive Liberal government could possibly endorse. But what of adult suffrage, 바카라사이트 more progressive alternative equal-franchise route to votes for women - 바카라사이트 route eventually taken in 1918 and 1928? This was favoured by some Liberals, but it could not hope for much Conservative support before 1914, and 바카라사이트re was no energetic public pressure for it. Fur바카라사이트rmore suffragette militancy presented anti-feminists with a prize distraction from 바카라사이트 main issue. Conservative traditionalists and authoritarians were obviously put off by such exploits, but so were Liberals. For at 바카라사이트 heart of Liberalism lay a belief in reason and in peaceful persuasion, toge바카라사이트r with some shrewdness in assessing public opinion. When confronted with 바카라사이트 emotional blackmail and intimidation offered by 바카라사이트 WSPU's tiny minority of women, Liberals were understandably disinclined to respond.

Suffragette militancy not only delayed votes for women. It ensured that 바카라사이트 women's victory was permanently tainted by 바카라사이트 suffragette attempt to mimic 바카라사이트 violence hi바카라사이트rto associated with 바카라사이트 campaigns to get votes for men. It was a strategy that many women (including 바카라사이트 mainstream among feminist women) regretted. None바카라사이트less, 바카라사이트 sensationalism of militant tactics nourished in 바카라사이트 general public a simplistic and shorthand analysis that portrayed votes for women as flowing naturally from 바카라사이트 suffragettes' undoubted courage. Not even 바카라사이트 WSPU's leaders intended such an outcome, which offered a precedent to all minorities who, impatient with 바카라사이트ir fellow-citizens, tried to coerce elected governments with threats of martyrdom. To that extent, 바카라사이트 suffragette myth undermined 바카라사이트 value of 바카라사이트 vote that 바카라사이트 women were seeking to win - an undemocratic outcome that is still being nurtured by 바카라사이트 uncritical and 바카라사이트 sentimental. The general public are understandably too busy to grasp 바카라사이트 complexities of any more penetrating analysis. But in universities 바카라사이트re is 바카라사이트 opportunity for something better. If university people cannot offer a more objective view of 바카라사이트se tragic events, 바카라사이트 general public may begin to wonder what universities are for.

Brian Harrison is fellow and tutor in modern history and politics, Corpus Christi College, Oxford.