Suffragette City

My response to 'Feminism's Roots in Terrorism'

Emmeline Pankhurst, Buckingham Palace, Public Domain

So I read this:

Feminism’s Roots in Terrorism

And added this comment

Too much wrong with this and I will write something on this subject in the future. To suggest that the suffragette movement never considered men's votes is incorrect. Men with no property marched with suffragettes out of common cause because they were eligible to go to war but not vote. Remember that in the 1900s the dynamic was different and men did not march for any reason other than self-interest - for one thing it was dangerous to do so, plus you have to understand this was the pre-simping period by about a century. The issue of using violence did split the movement because not all agreed with it. It's complex and deserves more than a few lines that I can give here. Suffice to say not all suffragettes engaged in it. I recall someone making a similar point about the dangers of collectively classing all incels as terrorists recently... Of course, there is no such jeopardy in maligning dead women, what was I thinking?

Over generalisations aside, those women suffered in prison and when they went on hunger strike they were force fed - orally, anally and vaginally. Point being it was an escalation but it wasn't a 'sex war' - if anything it was a class war. In 1914 when WW1 started in Europe men were shipped out to be cannon fodder and nearly a million British died at the front. What better time to strike in a sex war? But no, the suffragettes suspended operations and campaigned to be able to serve instead. They ran many of the field hospitals. To conflate this with third wave feminism is insulting.

And I got some responses. It is more efficient to just answer them here.

First paragraph

Janice Fiamengo

So this is a screenshot of a Pathe News movie of the time.

You can see that these are numbers represent pledge support from men and if you look at the video you will see that this was a small selection of such placards (under sell and over deliver is my motto). The other thing you will notice is the hoards of men supporting. The video it came from below is worth a look.

Also this is very good: Suffragents: Men who worked for Women’s Suffrage

In Six things you should know about the Suffragette hunger strikes, there is quite a bit of information on force-feeding but the reason I put the link here is because the item 3 is about male hunger strikes in support. It is on the Museum of London site.

Second Paragraph

The reason for the escalation was because nothing happened in ten years and it was not just about votes. Women didn’t even have rights to their keep their wages - there is a huge list of issues. Also women were radicalised by torture and maltreatment they received - that is documented. It was not a movement that hated men. Some women gave false names when they were arrested so as not to embarrass their husbands - so riddle me that. There is so much material from the time still available and remember, most of it was written by people who hated them, as evidenced in news cuttings and even postcards that were humorous to some at the time.

Third Paragraph

It is a sex war because of the white feather? No but I can help out here too.

There was a movement to shame able men to go to war and the women who wanted to go were not permitted. You think it would have made any sense to give a white feather to a woman under those circumstances? It was an atrocious movement but it was an atrocious war - it was considered part of the war effort. There is a lot of missing context there.

Remember many of these women lost men in the war or had men in the front lines so they also thought it was helping them to round up some reinforcements. Now nobody was being told about trench warfare - it wasn’t widely reported. The Somme and Passchendaele were absolute atrocities. Those who came back did not speak about it because it was culturally forbidden.

Fourth Paragraph

The link I provided was not just to an article but to an archive of information on the topic. Thanks for tip but I had already read that Wikipedia entry before; I can assure you I am fully aware that there were something like 160 explosions and over £50M of damage in todays money.

Here’s are some tips from me. If you want to find information on anything British, type in ‘google.co.uk’ into your address bar because that engine will get different results. Also if you want to know more you can go to the BBC website where there is also a mass of information of very high quality. Some of the material on this topic is truly harrowing.

I also got this comment:

I thought it was common knowledge but since you ask, can only surmise it is down to having a British education, and being familiar with the history. Anyhow see below.

The article can be read here: https://www.historyextra.com/period/edwardian/cat-mouse-force-feeding-suffragettes-hunger-strike/

And another comment.

Letters to The Washington Post

- Stephen , see above for links but the pertinent question is ‘why was it done?’ Force feeding down the throat and through the nose was to keep the women alive because having women dying of starvation in prison was not deemed to be a politically good idea. Yet it was also a means of torture and deterrent which didn’t seem to work hence the Cat and Mouse policy which is amongst what I provided somewhere. So that is your reason why. In addition to the links above, below is a link to an account of what was happening in Scotland at the time which is also relevant to your question.

Treatment or Punishment? The Introduction of Force-Feeding in Scotland

The following is a non-academic piece but nevertheless interesting because it makes my point it is common knowledge:

https://www.stylist.co.uk/visible-women/suffragettes-force-fed-imprisoned-uk-tactics-punishment-history/188085

When the UK tried to encourage the US to refrain from force feeding in Guantanamo Bay the evidence they provided was from the Suffragette experience which you can find on a US Government agency site, National Library of Medicine.

There is also this from, Journal Of The History of Medicine And Allied Sciences, Oxford Academic.

Necessary Torture? Vivisection, Suffragette Force-Feeding, and Responses to Scientific Medicine in Britain c. 1870–1920

Then there is this comment.

I don’t think so unless you can show me otherwise

David Solway

. See my above comments and links to avoid repetition. They were fed through the nose, and because the eustachian tubes connect the ears to the nose, ruptured eardrums was one of the horrible injuries that happened.

I think my research is OK. Incidentally what do you mean ‘through osmosis’? It doesn’t even work as an analogy. Thanks for your suggestion but I don’t take up causes to order. I am not a joiner of clubs.

Think that covers it.