Analysis Of Emmeline Pankhurst's Suffrage

The concept behind the quote ‘Deeds not words’ certainly marked a point of no return for the British, women’s suffrage movement. The Pankhurst’s diverted from the conventional rhetoric of other suffragist organisations such as the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies (NUWSS) and formed the WSPU in 1903. Convinced that petitions and peaceful protests were ineffective, the WSPU engaged in acts of civil disobedience. To quote Emmeline Pankhurst herself: "We are here, not because we are law-breakers; we are here in our efforts to become law-makers."

The WSPU’s controversial disregard for social order was arguably necessary given British females’ subordinate position with regards to patriarchal structures. The suffragist movement had not
The Suffragettes made note of this unfortunate truth which pushed the organisation to find alternative ways to attain the vote. The WSPU would engage in various forms of vandalism of public property as well as public protests, attracting the attention of the government as well as the public. The aim was to create a public outrage that would force the Liberals to enact the bill. Emmeline Pankhurst justification was that “property to them is far dearer and tender than is human life and so it is through property we shall strike the enemy”. The Suffragettes engaged in a war on public opinion and as Andrew Rosen remarks: “A basic pattern had been established, wherein pre-planned militant tactics led to imprisonment, and thus, martyrdom, which led to newspaper coverage (i.e. free publicity), which led to a turn to increase membership and funds for the WSPU” . In summary, the WSPU grew rapidly along with the scale of their protests and consequently, the number of incarcerated activists increased due to the harshened response from the Liberal
The Suffragettes were portrayed as hysterical, melodramatic and ridiculous by those who were either opposed to the idea of women voting or simply their chosen approach. Some argue that one of the hindering factors for the WSPU was the fact that even though many sympathised with the cause, society could not yield to what it described as a form of terrorism. The violence could not be rewarded even though political figures, such as Winston Churchill, had previously expressed support for women’s franchise. After having had multiple meetings interrupted by Suffragette protests, Churchill wrote that he had “been much discouraged by the actions of certain advocates of the movement”. The issue went from being irrelevant to controversial, which worked as a deterrent for many. It is also important to note that the women did not only receive external criticism, but other suffragist organisations condemned their militant approach as well. The policy was labelled as contrived and dishonest since they felt that the Suffragettes should accept the consequences for their violence rather than playing martyrs. Multiple disagreements evolved within the organisation as well, due to disagreements concerning the escalating violence. Those who were uncomfortable with the confrontational approach were encouraged to leave the organisation, rather than