Ww1 Unit 1 Research Paper

Do you agree with the view that the First World War hindered, rather than helped, the cause of female suffrage?
In the sources presented there are conflicting views as to whether the First World War helped or hindered the cause of female suffrage.
There were many people who argued that because women had worked so relentlessly during the war, it would be impossible to deny them the vote, especially due to the fact that working class men got the vote that were on the frontlines. Source 5, a letter from Lord Selborne to Lord Salisbury argues this point, and claims that it would not only be unjust to the women; it would also be “dangerous to State”, as it would be a gross corruption of morality and standards, because of the “the steadying influence
of the women voters n essentials and the long run”. I think that this point is very important because not only does it question the government’s policies on female suffrage as a whole, it also questions its entire idea of democracy, standards and beliefs – how could you give the fighting man the vote, if you were not prepared to give the tireless, hard working woman who was at the home front, and without whom the war could not possibly have been won. Herbert Asquith, a former opponent of suffrage also agrees in source 4 that it would be impossible to deny women the right to vote. As well as being dangerous, Lord Selborne also pointed out that it would be unjust- why should women put them self out so far if they are just going to be overlooked and have their interests ignored? It is important to realize that Source 5 comes from a letter between two conservative Lords, at the time when women had not yet been enfranchised. The conservatives were generally for female suffrage, however in the past they had never really done anything major to fight for it. It is therefore interesting that despite the fact that the security of the nation was at stake, the First World War still managed to bring female suffrage to the forefront of political agenda.
Another argument that the First World War helped the cause of female suffrage is the fact that it actually ended militancy. Although the Emmeline and Cristobel Pankhurst would argue that militancy was the only way that the suffragettes would ever win over public opinion, Herbert Asquith thought otherwise; “since the War began, now nearly three years ago, we have had no recurrence of the detestable campaign which disfigured the history of political agitation in this country”. As earlier mentioned, Asquith was no fan of female suffrage and for him this was indeed quite a big deal. It is therefore easy to argue that the First World War created the conditions for which female suffragettes and suffragists could get themselves in the position where they could help society rather than set it back, which obviously put them into dramatic public favour, and also put them into a more dominant and commanding role which allowed them to assume ‘masculine’ qualities and show their true potential. You could also argue that the First World War socially and economically crippled the nation, and that the prospect of militancy returning after the war had been won was such a big risk, and was so unacceptable that the government simply had no choice but to enfranchise women.
On the other hand there was also the view that the First World War dramatically hindered the cause of female suffrage.
Source 6, an essay by B. Harrison written in 1993, illustrates the idea of many people that it helped to back up the Anti’s physical strength idea; “the idea that men and women had separate roles because women are, on average, physically weaker than men”. To me this is irrelevant; this idea had been popular in previous years when opponents of suffrage had claimed that women were not worthy of the vote as they could not fight for their country. Yet how on earth can this be argued when the women did so much to ensure the victory of the war? It is evident that even though women were not on the frontlines, without their efforts from home the war could simply have not been won! In this sense they did fight for their country as they put themselves out further than they usually would have to, to protect King and country and to defend what they fought was right. Source 6 conflicts this by arguing that women did not go through “the horrors of the frontline” and that most women stayed at home whilst the men went to war. Whilst this is true, I still do not think that it omits their substantial efforts at home, and this is backed up by my previous point that physical strength was no longer enough to keep the women from having the vote. Somebody had to stay at home and run the country- old politicians were not blamed for staying at home and working in an administration role because they could not fight so why should women be? The final point of Source 6 is that the First World War “pushed all peace time agenda down the line”. Whilst this is arguably valid, once the war was won these issues would inevitably arise once again, and in my opinion it helped to bring them even closer to the forefront, as it allowed women to be seen in a different light, and also helped the suffragettes get out of what was turning into somewhat of a reoccurring rut. I think that the
arguments presented in Source 6 rely too much on the benefits of hindsight. Overall then it is my belief that the First World War invariably helped rather than hindered the cause of female suffrage. Ultimately, it allowed the women to be seen in a different more positive light, and it also showed them to be a staple part of our society, which was previously underestimated and underappreciated. My views are backed up by the point that after the war women were in fact granted the right to vote, and I firmly believe this would not have come about so hastily without the events of the First World War.