It is not possible to research the Scottish Women's Suffragette
movement without a certain amount of personal grief. Women have not so
much been been written out of history as surgically removed. There is a
poverty of information. The sparse chunks of collated material read like
a secondary schoolbook; superficial, factual, with all the interesting
matter kept out. The documentation on women in Scotland who were
fighting for the vote is as illuminating as a 10-watt bulb. The vitality
and eccentricity of the main, female protagonists is missing, their
personalities ignored in history, as they were by the authorities
against whom they rebelled. It seems that International Women's Day,
argues Anvar Khan, is simply a case of trying to remember what has been
dusted, put to the back of the cupboard and conveniently forgotten
FASHION has overtaken politics. It is trendy among professional women
to denounce International Women's Day as a token celebration. Feminism,
they masticate, is for women who need a crutch. But to deny the
importance of feminism is to declare oneself completely ignorant of
international inequality, past and present.
At 10.30am tomorrow, Glasgow City Council Women's Committee will erect
a plaque at the site of a tree which was planted on April 20, 1918, in
Kelvin Way, by Glasgow Women's Suffrage Organisations. At that time, the
tree was intended as a commemoration of women getting the vote. On
Wednesday, the oak will be singled out, and its history explained,
symbolic of the way feminism and the fight for equal rights have to be
continually justified to men and twentieth-century women.
Those who have experienced discrimination are more inclined to want to
eliminate it. In September 1907, there was a split within the women's
suffrage movement over the question of democracy. Some women regarded
Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst as dictators, and they, in return,
regarded dissenters as ''wreckers'' of the movement. The wreckers
seceded to form the Women's Freedom League, which had a strong
representation in Scotland. The League opened a suffrage centre, with a
tea-room and bookshop, in Sauchiehall Street.
The front-line of Scottish feminists included Louisa Innes Lumsden,
Frances Melville, Chrystal MacMillan, Anna Munro, Maggie Moffat, Kate
Evans; women who were among the first to enter the male sanctum of
universities, politics, law and science. Their academic credentials were
immaculate. There isn't one who doesn't have an alphabet behind her
name. But the most interesting is Eunice Murray, a powerful speaker and
propagandist from Cardross.
Eunice wrote many essays on why women should be allowed to vote, why
women should no longer be kept ignorant of the issues, both moral and
legal, which directly affected their lives. Hers was a mission to
explain why women, like slaves, should be treated not as property but as
people. Like every other suffrage organisation, the Women's Freedom
League saw the vote as a means to an an end, a key which would open the
floodgate of legislation to alleviate female oppression. They campaigned
for justice, listing court cases weekly in their newspaper. The cases
were entitled ''How Men Protect Women'' and gave examples, such as when
Sheriff J M Gray sentenced one man at Dundee Sheriff Court to 40 days
imprisonment for stealing two pounds of sugar, and another for 14 days
for sexually assaulting a little girl.
The celebration of women getting the vote, in 1918, however, was a
hollow one. Let's put it in perspective. From 1885, voting in more than
one UK constituency was permitted to owners of land, occupiers of
business premises, and to university graduates. In 1918, when Scots
feminists planted the suffrage tree, the Representation of the People
Act had reduced the residence qualification to six months and
enfranchised some categories of men. Yes, it also enfranchised women,
but only those over 30. Given that female life expectancy was about 40
years, women couldn't hope to vote that often. It wasn't until 1928,
when the Equal Franchise Act lowered the voting age, that women could go
to the polls at 21. Then, in 1969, the Representation of the People Act
provided everyone with a vote as soon as they reached the age of 18. In
effect, women have not been trusted with the ballot until a mere 26
years ago, this writer's lifetime.
Eunice Murray was a terrific logician. In her pamphlet, Warrior Women,
1923, she said: ''We have always held, and hold now, that it is because
men and women are so different, and not because they are so alike, that
we require the vote. If man fulfills his duty to the nation -- by being
ready to sacrifice even his life for the nation -- woman equally
fulfills her part by being ready to sacrifice her life for the producing
of life. Thus each sex fulfills its obligation to the community. Each
women is a potential mother as each man is a potential defender of his
country.''
In Prejudices Old and New, again in 1923, she said: ''It is prejudice,
not reason, that has delayed the emancipation of women. Every step
forward has been won in spite of prejudice. It was prejudice which
excluded girls from good schools. It was prejudice that declared that
woman must not enter a hansom without a man to accompany her. It was
prejudice that prevented her going to a public swimming bath or even
bathing in the sea. (But) it is reason, not might, which should govern
the world.''
Eunice continues: ''If we study women's history for the last 50 years,
we find that what made their ultimate victory certain, was the unbarring
of university doors to them in 1869. Once a person can read and reason,
liberty and freedom follow in due course. Many arguments were produced
to demonstrate that to educate women would be an irreparable disaster.
With education, they would lose the feminine charms of docility, modesty
and delicacy.
Their brains were not made to grapple with the problems of theology,
mathematics, science or art, declared men, and more than one asserted
that were women allowed to compete with men in examinations, their
brains would give way under the strain.''
This is the laughable lore, the vague, woolly, self-serving images of
women the Scottish suffragettes were up against. They marched on
campaigns like bulldogs, at a time when fainting was considered a pretty
and feminine thing to do. They found themselves in opposition to other
women, the way some feminists might feel today, in arguing a case for
political empowerment against women who insist that there is no need.
The fear used to keep a woman in line was that if she proved herself
intellectually equal to a man, she would never get a husband. The man's
desire for a subordinate partner was never questioned, just the woman's
for asking why. The Scottish suffragettes were in combat with years of
conditioning. Eunice wrote of another female writer: ''She tells us that
'Nothing is so likely to conciliate the affection of the other sex as a
feeling that women look to them for guidance and support'.''
There were women who were brave enough to go their own way, unhindered
by threats from a sex for which they had no real respect. ''In 1869,
Miss Jex Blake sought to obtain a medical degree in Edinburgh
University,'' Eunice recounts. ''The opposition to this was as great as
the militant suffragette experiences in 1913. Yet in the year 1913 a
memorial tablet to Dr Sophia Jex Blake was erected in St Giles
Cathedral, Edinburgh. In 1869 she was told that to study anatomy was
impossible for a lady, and even to discuss the question was indelicate.
It was suggested that she wished to enter university to carry on
'flirtations and intrigues' with the students''.
The message was clear. In order to have an apology of a relationship,
to live in the shadow of men, and hope to be married off as a
subordinate, women had to hide their talents and subsume their
intelligence. It was too much to ask. Women wanted to establish
themselves as sentient beings, not decor. And even if it was at the cost
of being seen as ''feminine'', even if they were punished for their
efforts by being ignored by the hirsute sex, these were an insignificant
levy for intellectual and emotional freedom.
* The Women's Unit is keen to find out more about the suffragettes who
planted the tree, and about any descendants alive today. Although they
have managed to source some basic data, they would be pleased to receive
more information on Eunice Murray, Frances Melville, Louise Lumsden and
Chrystal MacMillan. If you can help, contact the Women's Unit on
0141-227 5861.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article