The suffragettes and the issues surrounding disability in the 20th century.

[1] Here is a photo of suffragettes attending a rally in Hyde Park on Women’s Sunday, 21st June 1908. The photo was taken by Christina Broom, the UK’s first woman press photographer.

Why did women not gain the right to vote until 1918?

There are many reasons as to why women did not receive the right to vote until 1918. For the majority of men, granting the woman the right to vote was just not important. As many people saw men and women as wholly different beings that were capable of different things [2](such as men going to work and dealing in politics while women were meant to stay at home and care for their children), it would be foolish to let women deal with the hardships of politics. The idea of masculinity surrounding the 20th century man was also impacted as women began to show that they could also perform predominantly male traditional roles, making men (especially working-class men) feel that their role within the workplace has been demeaned. For example, in the late 19th century women began to work as typists and telegraphists and by 1911 women accounted for nearly one-third of all commercial clerks. [3] Alice Stone Blackwell, an American suffragette wrote in 1914 that “the struggle has never been a fight of woman against man, but always of broad-minded men and women on the one side against narrow-minded men and women on the other.”[4], highlighting that an unwillingness for people to change was a significant reason as to why the idea of women gaining more political autonomy and independence was so difficult to understand.

However, this does not mean that all men were against women voters as during the 19th century, there was an increase of male support for female suffrage. For example, between 1867 and 1889, thirteen Bills proposing legislation on the issue were discussed in Parliament in which all of these proposals were put forward by men [5](though they were all denied). One reason as to why this support occurred is due to the face that “All down history women have supported men in their fight for liberty. They have toiled with them, suffered with them, died with them. There is nothing surprising, therefore, in the fact that in the militant struggle of British women for their own emancipation, some men stood with them in the fight.”[6]. Many men believed that it was only fair that women received the same support they had shown to help achieve prior male suffrage. There were even groups such as the Men’s League for Women’s Suffrage (1907) and The Men’s Political Union for Women’s Enfranchisement (1910) [7]that aided in the suffragette movement. A selfish reason as to why some politicians from The Liberal Party wanted women to have equal voting rights is by the fact that only allowing wealthier women to vote would most likely result in the Conservatives winning in the elections. Therefore, by letting women from poorer backgrounds vote, Labour could have a better chance at winning.[8]

Similarly, some women did not believe that women’s suffrage was important, potentially because “‘the 1920s saw much propaganda about the joys of domesticity and the role of the housewife’”.[9] Those who did not align themselves with the suffragette movement believed that women already had enough rights. By 1900 women could vote in local council elections and serve as councillors, many often served on School Boards and a lot of women also focused on charity. It is with this busy schedule that some women believed they would be overwhelmed with also having to deal with politics that impacted the whole nation. [10]

Another reason why the vote was given to women in 1918 and not during the prior years of the suffragette campaign was due to the threat of the First World War.  It is understandable as to why politicians were not focused on the women’s movement when there was a chance that the entire nation could lose the war (this was also understood by suffragettes as the majority of the movement was halted in order to aid in both the home front and the front line during this period).

It can be argued that the tactics used by some women were not as effective as intended in to gain the attention of politicians. Suffragists believed that the right to vote could be achieved through peaceful means such as making pamphlets[11] and attending protests. One example of a non-violent protest was the 1911 census protest in which women would hide on the night that the census was being counted as to show that “‘I don’t count so I won’t be counted’, ‘I am a woman and women do not count in the state’”. [12] However, some women believed that using militant tactics to show that they were angry about not having the vote and were motivated the change that through any means necessary (one of the most well-known examples was the death of Emily Wilding Davison who died attempting to pin a suffragette banner onto the king’s horse during a race[13]) was the correct way to gain nation-wide attention. It was only until women became violent and loud in their protests that their voice was being heard in parliament.

 Attitudes towards disability:

Disability and mental illness have often been portrayed as a problem in British society.  Those affected were written off as incurable or lazy and just wanted financial aid rather than working for a living (ignoring the fact that some disabilities made it difficult for people to go to work and monetary aid was their only option). Such attitudes are revealed in the passing of The Poor Law Amendment Act in 1834. This Act created a clearer distinction between the ‘deserving’ and the ‘undeserving’ poor, with the disabled and mentally ill grudgingly put in the first category, separated from the able-bodied[14].

Under this new law, more workhouses were implemented throughout the country. Workhouses were institutions where poor people would work and live. While workhouses can be traced back to the Poor Law Act of 1388, these reformed establishments of the 19th century presented themselves as a prison that could be profitable for its owners rather than a genuine institution that offered financial aid through proof of employment. [15]

What is often overlooked is that the conditions of these new workhouses were awful, whether you were deemed to be deserving or undeserving. Families were separated and left malnourished and ‘inmates’ were made to do long and arduous tasks such as breaking stones. To an extent, the government’s cowardly solution to low unemployment rates was successful as those who were physically able to would find other methods of unemployment in order to avoid the harsh conditions of the workhouse. In other words, this left the people who were truly in need, including those with mental or physical disabilities, to be punished despite having a genuine reason to seek support[16].

The 1913 Mental Deficiency Act was a significant milestone in the treatment of disability and mental illness. The language that was used to determine whether a person was mentally ill (such as idiot, imbecile and feeble-minded) or not highlights how differently they were seen as and referred to by people who were able-bodied. This language was also used in legal certification that recognised a person’s disability which was then passed onto mental institutions such as mental deficiency colonies[17]. These were areas where disabled men, women, and children were relocated. Children were separated into areas that focused on schools and skills that they could use in the future in the colony. Men and women were also separated and made to do tasks that would benefit the colony. These institutions (many of which continued in existence until the 1990s) were vast and covered a variety of jobs, including in farming or working in the laundries, and were self-sufficient, therefore no one ever had to leave[18]. The existence of these institutions highlights how little disabled people were respected as they were shielded off from the rest of society.

For a short time in the aftermath of the First World War, evidence of a more sympathetic attitude towards disability emerged, specifically when it came to the treatment of British servicemen injured while serving their country. Elements of everyday life were adapted to accommodate the over one million disabled British soldiers that arrived home, [19]such as advances in plastic surgery and prosthetics as well as new fitness regimes that helped with existing physical and mental trauma. New housing and employment were also available to these soldiers.  [20]These attitudes even began to impact children as there were many laws passed, such as the Elementary Education (Blind and Deaf Children) Act 1893 and the Education Act 1921 which aimed to educate both mentally and physically disabled children and give them any necessary support needed[21].

Regardless of how positive these medical advances seemed, there still was a widespread lack of acceptance of people who suffered mental or physical injuries as a result from the war or from poverty during that time as the theory of eugenics (the idea that weak or disabled people must be removed if society wants to strengthen the human race) was extremely popular during the 1930’s.

In 1930, the secretary of the London Zoological Society and chairman of the Eugenics Society wrote “What are we going to do? Every defective man, woman and child is a burden. Every defective is an extra body for the nation to feed and clothe, but produces little or nothing in return.”[22]. Highlighting the hatred (that coincided with the views of the Nazi Party) that people felt towards those who were different, regardless of if they were disabled through fighting for Britain or through no means of their own (such as birth defects or accidents).

It was only after the Second World War and the defeat of Nazism when the idea of eugenics was rejected, and more aid was given to help the 300,000 newly disabled men and women. [23]One way this was done was through the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944[24] which ensured that any disabled persons could find work, be trained, and have medical rehabilitation when they came back from the war. This Act also acknowledged the ex-service women and their many roles during the war and offered them the same opportunities as men. Not only was there a shift in attitudes towards disability and people’s worthiness to live, but also there was a certain amount of respect given to women who also served their country.

It must be recognised that women’s disablement was only discussed after the Second World War when they had a well-known impact on the country, before this time only men were sent to fight in battles and came back injured and therefore the issue of disability was focused on them. This can also be due to the fact that women had the vote in the 1940’s and were potentially deemed as important to society compared to the years during the First World War as women could not vote and did not fight and so were seen as unimportant from both a political perspective and a historian’s perspective.

Suffragettes and disability:

[25] Here is a photograph of the disabled suffragette Rosa May Billinghurst surrounded by police officers taken at a demonstration in 1908.

Legislative changes throughout the 19th and 20th century have highlighted that views on the worth of a disabled person has transformed to become more accepting, however these attitudes can and must be improved even in the 21st century. The stigma around disability during the Edwardian period has perceived disabled people to be of weak mind and body. Nevertheless, disabled women who advocated for the suffragette campaign showed that regardless of any discrimination that they faced, they were still determined to fight for political autonomy (shown by how they would continue to aid in these protests the same amount as any able-bodied suffragette).  

The most notable disabled suffragette was Rosa May Billinghurst who lived and made herself heard in Lewisham and Greenwich. Billinghurst was the first secretary of the Greenwich and Deptford branch of the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU).[26] Due to Billinghurst’s paralysis, she had to use a three-wheeled wheelchair and was also known as ‘the cripple suffragette’[27], though this did not stop her from attending and actively partaking in many protests or vandalising property. For example, she had attempted to push her wheelchair through a group of police officers many times until she was pushed out of it by two policemen. Even though the wheelchair was damaged, Billinghurst sat back in it and managed to chain herself to the railings of Buckingham Palace.[28]

Rosa May Billinghurst accumulated a long criminal record during this period in her attempt to gain attention (of both men in positions of power and anyone who would listen to women’s demand of getting the vote) towards the suffragette campaign her trials, it is clear that not even her fear of what forcible feeding could do to her weakened state would stop her[29] from promoting this message.

One example of this was when Billinghurst was tried, found guilty and sentenced to eight months in Holloway prison at the Old Bailey in 1913 for damaging a post box. During her trial in which she emphasised that her disability could not deter her from using militant tactics to gain the attention of government officials, just as many other able-bodied women were doing. “The government may further maim my crippled body by the torture of forcible feeding, as they are torturing weak women in prison to-day. They may even kill me in the process, for I am not strong, but they cannot take away my freedom of spirit or my determination to fight this good fight to the end.”[30] Even though Billinghurst had attempted to make the all-male jury feel sympathy through the mention of her disability and her sex, she was still found guilty. Potentially showing how men did not care for the health and wellbeing of those on trial, but rather just wanted to lock up as many suffragettes as possible to send their own message (that these acts of protests will not get women any closer to the right to vote). After this, she was released just two weeks later from falling ill due to going on a hunger strike as well as then being force-fed in prison, in which she was rewarded a Hunger Strike Medal by the Women’s Social and Political Union. [31]

Billinghurst’s influence as a determined feminist figure was clearly feared by the government as women were banned from the public gallery during her trial which was unprecedented during this time[32], there was an intentional use of censorship as to limit the amount of attention suffragettes got. As well as this, Billinghurst received a vitriolic anonymous letter at her home once she arrived was released from prison[33], showing another form of harsh treatment that women who spoke up suffered.

The efforts of Rosa May Billinghurst as well as many other suffragettes have not been forgotten. She (as well as 58 other people) has been commemorated on the plinth surrounding the statue of Dame Millicent Fawcett located in Parliament Square, London, in 2018.[34] Showing to all just how important this fight for suffrage was.

Why was the suffragette movement paused during the First World War?

[35] Here is a picture of the suffragette Clara Lambert in Holloway prison taken by an undercover photographer in 1914.

There were many women from the Greenwich and Lewisham area who took part in the suffragette movement, especially after the Greenwich and Deptford branch of the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU) was formed. These members of WSPU branches from all over the country often took part in protests and other alarming actions (such as damaging post boxes, cutting wires or even physically harming people[36]) to gain the attention of the British government by showing the lengths that a large number of women would go to in order to get the vote.

Clara Mary Lambert was a suffragette from this area who was very creative in her plans to gain the attention of local authority. She also used the alias names Catherine Wilson and May Stewart during her acts of militancy (a tactic which was used by many women in order to either protect the identities of their family members or to confuse the police). While Lambert was well known amongst the police for her many performances including going to the House of Commons dressed as a boy or smashing windows of the Strand Post Office[37], she was most known for the events of 9th April 1914 when she targeted the British Museum by smashing a display case in the Asiatic Saloon and broke three Chinese porcelain cups and a saucer with a hatchet that she hid in her coat.[38] Though she was found guilty, she was released a short while after due to going on a hunger strike (which was customary after passing of the 1913 Cat and Mouse Act[39]), she even received a Hunger Strike Medal for her efforts[40].

During the First World War the Women’s Social and Political Union had halted their efforts in order to aid in jobs that were assigned to women at this time. In 1915, Lambert had joined the organisation started by Nina Boyle and Margaret Damer Dawson called the Women’s Police Service, where she helped with welfare work among female munitions workers. Many women (suffragettes, suffragists, or women with no political alignments) had realised that they were needed for the war effort rather than focusing on the issue of suffrage which is why there was a vast increase of female employment between the years 1914-1918. Though this period of work allowed for women to have more independence, earn a wage, and prove to any political figures that they were capable of handling the responsibility of the vote.

While Lambert had joined the police service, there were many roles that women could volunteer for such as manufacturing and agricultural positions on the home front, or as nurses, doctors, ambulance drivers and translators on the front line. “In July 1914, 3.3 million women worked in paid employment in Britain. By July 1917, 4.7 million did.”[41] This shows just how valuable women were to the war effort.

Just as suffrage unions were, the elements surrounding women’s work during the First World War was also extremely organised. Topics such as pay and conditions, work in military hospitals, the Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps (WAAC) and canteens for munitions workers[42] were discussed (in many areas of the country such as Greenwich), highlighting how these volunteers knew that their skills were necessary for the war effort and therefore deserved to be treated as such through payment and good working conditions. The issues surrounding these voluntary services were even discussed with the Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain[43], showing that the work that women were doing during this period was both acknowledged and appreciated.

After the war, Clara Lambert again went to work looking after women by helping sex-workers in London[44], showing how while many suffragettes stopped participating in the suffragette movement once gaining the right to vote in 1918, they still helped (economically or socially disadvantaged) people in other ways.

Another way in which this help was given was through sports. The Dick, Kerr Ladies was a football team established in 1917 that raised around £600 for wounded soldiers during their first match (highlighting once again that some attitudes towards disability were genuinely compassionate). By 1920, the team had raised £3,100 (£500,000 at current value) for charity from a match with over 50,000 fans watching. However, the belief that women could not partake in certain (male dominated) things prevailed as in 1921, the Football Association (FA) banned the women’s game, on the grounds that football was “unsuitable for females and ought not to be encouraged”, and it was not until 1971 that the ban was lifted. Regardless of this, the football team still played many more matches (until disbanding in 1965)[45] as it raised money for charity and proved that a woman could do anything that a man could.

The aftermath of gaining the vote:

After many campaigns for women’s suffrage beginning as early as the 17th century, women were given the right to vote through the 1918 Representation of the People Act. This legislation allowed women who were over 30 (who met the required property qualifications) and all men over 21 the ability to vote.[46] Women were even given the opportunity to stand for Parliament (unusually they could do this at 21).[47]By the December elections of 1918, 8.5 million or 40% of British women could vote, and 17 female candidates stood for election [48](though only Constance Markievicz from Dublin got elected but did not take her seat). Even though women now had the opportunity to vote, there was still an intentional lack of equality. Due to the significant number of deaths that amounted from the First World War, there were a million more women than men, so if they all could vote from a younger age then women would have a political majority. Therefore, it is no surprise “…That is the reason why the age limit of thirty was introduced, in order to avoid extending the franchise to a very large number of women, for fear they might be in a majority in the electorate of this country.”. [49]

Even though women had the opportunity to be independent through their employment during the First World War, this lifestyle had changed after the passing of the Restoration of Pre-War Practices Act 1919. This Act was intended to transform British factories into their original state before the war occurred. [50]This meant that women who had replaced the men who previously worked in those businesses had to leave by the time the soldiers had returned. By 1918, 750,000 women were relieved of their employment.[51] While this Act pushed women out of the jobs that they had for years, the 1919 Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act had given them a new opportunity at employment. This new legislation sought to get rid of female discrimination within the workplace. Women now had the opportunity to join law firms, sit on juries and also study towards degrees. However, while this law still did not promote full equality as women had to resign from their jobs once they get married, [52]it showed that attitudes towards women within the workplace was beginning to change.  

Not only had attitudes towards women working begun to change, but attitudes towards disabled women working had also begun to positively transform. One way this was done was through “the Central Committee on Women’s Training and Employment has been appointed to consider, advise and carry out special schemes of work and training for women, unemployed, and whose earning capacity and opportunities have been injuriously affected as a result of conditions arising out of the war.”.[53] Highlighting that there was a genuine effort to help women who wanted to work but needed some guidance. Attitudes further transformed through the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 [54]in which aid was given equally to both disabled men and women.

While feelings towards disability changed through the passing of legislation, there were also feminist groups who continued to promote the idea that disabled women deserved the same treatment as everyone else. One group that aimed to change this was the Sisters Against Disablement (SAD) formed in 1982. They took part in many protests to spread awareness about issues that were ignored such as the accessibility of buildings. Another group called Feminist Audio Books (FAB) began recording feminist literature onto tapes for blind and visually impaired women to enjoy. [55]This shows that while the suffragette movement had ended in 1918, there are still many women who continue to fight for the rights of women.  

[1] Christina Broom, Suffragettes in Hyde Park, photograph, 1908, Museum of London, https://collections.museumoflondon.org.uk/online/object/436960.html, accessed 5th May 2021.

[2] John Tosh, “Masculinities in an Industrializing Society: Britain, 1800–1914”, Journal of British Studies, Vol. 44, No. 2 (2005), p.336.

[3] John Tosh, “Masculinities in an Industrializing Society: Britain, 1800–1914”, Journal of British Studies, Vol. 44, No. 2 (2005), p.341.

[4]Joe C. Miller, “Never A Fight of Woman Against Man: What Textbooks Don’t Say about Women’s Suffrage”, The History Teacher, Vol. 48, No. 3 (2015), p.437.

[5] Kath Bates, “The Men Who Supported Women’s Suffrage”, OXFORD OPEN LEARNING, date created 29th January 2018, date accessed 30th April 2021, https://www.ool.co.uk/blog/men-supported-womens-suffrage/#:~:text=Between%201870%20and%201880%20there,for%20an%20end%20to%20suffrage.&text=Men%20who%20supported%20women%20in,and%20many%20risked%20their%20careers.

[6] Kath Bates, “The Men Who Supported Women’s Suffrage”, OXFORD OPEN LEARNING, date created 29th January 2018, date accessed 30th April 2021, https://www.ool.co.uk/blog/men-supported-womens-suffrage/#:~:text=Between%201870%20and%201880%20there,for%20an%20end%20to%20suffrage.&text=Men%20who%20supported%20women%20in,and%20many%20risked%20their%20careers.

[7] Author unknown, “Suffragettes ‘in Trousers’”, THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES, date accessed 2nd May 2021, https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/suffragettes-in-trousers/

[8] https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/britain1906to1918/pdf/gallery-3-suffrage-background-big-question.pdf

[9] Adrian Bingham, “‘An Era of Domesticity’? Histories of Women and Gender in Interwar Britain”, Histories of Women and Gender in Interwar Britain, Cultural and Social History, 1:2 (2004), p.226.

[10] Author unknown, “Britain 1906-1918”, The National Archives, date accessed 2nd April 2021,   https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/britain1906to1918/pdf/gallery-3-suffrage-background-big-question.pdf

[11] National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies, NUWSS pamphlets, pamphlet, c 1909 – 1914, https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/nuwss-pamphlets, date accessed 29th April 2021.

[12] Ellen Castelow, “No Vote, No Census – 1911 Census Protests”, HISTORIC UK, date accessed 30th April 2021, https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/No-Vote-No-Census-1911-Census-Protests/

[13] Ben Johnson, “Emily Davison, Death at the Derby”, HISTORIC UK, date accessed 6th April 2021, https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/Emily-Davison-Death-at-the-Derby/

[14] Author unknown, “Poor Law reform”, UK Parliament, date accessed 17th April 2021, https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/livinglearning/19thcentury/overview/poorlaw/

[15] Jessica Brain, “The Victorian Workhouse”, HISTORIC UK, date accessed 17th April 2021, https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Victorian-Workhouse/

[16] Author unknown, “1834 Poor Law”, THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES”, date accessed 17th April 2021, https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/1834-poor-law/

[17] Author unknown, “THE MENTAL DEFICIENCY ACT 1913”, MEANWOOD PARK HOSPISTAL, date accessed 18th April 2021, http://www.meanwoodpark.co.uk/a-resource/the-mental-deficiency-act-1913/

[18] Author unknown,” ‘Mental Deficiency’ between the Wars – Life in the Colony”, Historic England, date accessed 19th April 2021, https://historicengland.org.uk/research/inclusive-heritage/disability-history/1914-1945/mental-deficiency-between-the-wars/

[19] Dr Michael Robinson, “Disabled British Army Great War veterans, 1918-1939”, THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES, date created 12th December 2017, date accessed 20th April 2021, https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/disabled-british-army-great-war-veterans-1918-1939-2/

[20]Author unknown “Disability in the Early 20th century 1914-1945”, Historic England, date accessed 19th April 2021, https://historicengland.org.uk/research/inclusive-heritage/disability-history/1914-1945/  

[21] Author unknown, “Special services in education”, THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES, date accessed 26th April 2021, https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/special-services-education/

[22] Author unknown “Disability in the Early 20th century 1914-1945”, Historic England, date accessed 19th April 2021, https://historicengland.org.uk/research/inclusive-heritage/disability-history/1914-1945/

[23] Author unknown, “Disability Since 1945”, Historic England, date accessed 19th April 2021, https://historicengland.org.uk/research/inclusive-heritage/disability-history/1945-to-the-present-day/

[24] Author unknown, “Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944”, Legislation.gov.uk, date accessed 17th April 2021, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/7-8/10/enacted

[25] Artist unknown, Photograph of Rosa May Billinghurst, photograph, 1908, The Women’s Library at LSE,  https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/photograph-of-rosa-may-billinghurst, date accessed 14th April 2021.

[26] Carolyn Ayers, “BEYOND THE SUFFRAGETTES: ROSA MAY BILLINGHURST”, ROYAL GREENWICH HERITAGE TRUST, date created 16th May 2011, date accessed 14th April 2021, https://www.greenwichheritage.org/blog/post/beyond-the-suffragettes-rosa-may-billinghurst

[27] Artist unknown, Photograph of Rosa May Billinghurst, photograph, 1908, The Women’s Library at LSE,  https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/photograph-of-rosa-may-billinghurst, date accessed 14th April 2021.

[28] Carolyn Ayers and Claire Eustance, Freedom of Spirit: Rosa May Billinghurst and the women’s suffrage campaign in Greenwich, 1907-14 (London: University of Greenwich, 2013).

[29] Rosa May Billinghurst, May Billinghurst to Miss Kenney, letter, 1913, London University: London School of Economics, The Women’s Library, http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/5ad4e090-159f-444a-ac3d-934bd18a4499#12, date accessed 15th April 2021.

[30] Women’s Social and Political Union (Great Britain), The Suffragette January 10 1913, book, 1913, LSE Digital Library, https://digital.library.lse.ac.uk/objects/lse:pir913piw/read/single#page/3/mode/1up, accessed 18th April 2021.

[31] Author unknown, “Rosa May Billinghurst”, Wikiwand, date accessed 24th April 2021, https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Rosa_May_Billinghurst

[32] Author unknown, “A Suffragette Pillar Box Attack in Blackheath “, WordPress, date accessed, 12th April 16th April 2021, https://runner500.wordpress.com/2014/05/21/a-suffragette-pillar-box-attack-in-blackheath/

[33] Carolyn Ayers and Claire Eustance, Freedom of Spirit: Rosa May Billinghurst and the women’s suffrage campaign in Greenwich, 1907-14 (London: University of Greenwich, 2013).

[34] Author unknown, “Making the Fawcett Statue”, Google Arts & Culture, date accessed 4th May 2021, https://artsandculture.google.com/exhibit/making-the-fawcett-statue/TQLyKb4yfu-KJQ

[35] Artist unknown, Surveillance Photograph of Clara Lambert, photograph, 1914, Museum of London, https://collections.museumoflondon.org.uk/online/object/454514.html, date accessed 13th April 2021.

[36] Author unknown, “Winston Churchill struck with a dog whip – archive, 1909”, THE GUARDIAN, last accessed 15th April 2021, https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/nov/15/winston-churchill-struck-with-dog-whip-suffragist-1909

[37] Author unknown, “Clara Mary Lambert”, GODALMING MUSEUM, date accessed 15th April 2021, http://www.godalmingmuseum.org.uk/index.php?page=clara-mary-lambert

[38] Diane Atkinson, “Suffragettes and the British Museum”, The British Museum, date created 6th February 2018, date accessed 23rd April 2021, https://blog.britishmuseum.org/suffragettes-and-the-british-museum/

[39] Author unknown, “1913 Cat and Mouse Act”, UK Parliament, date accessed 12th April 2021, https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/electionsvoting/womenvote/case-study-the-right-to-vote/the-right-to-vote/winson-green-forcefeeding/cat-and-mouse-act/

[40] Author unknown, “Hunger Strike Medal”, Wikiwand, date accessed 24th April 2021, https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Hunger_Strike_Medal

[41] Author unknown, “WOMEN IN WORLD WAR 1”, THE NATIONAL WW1 MUSEUM AND MEMORIAL, date accessed 25th April 2021, https://www.theworldwar.org/learn/women#:~:text=%E2%80%9CThe%20women%20worked%20as%20ammunition,delicate%20sewing%20in%20aeroplane%20factories.%E2%80%9D

[42] HMS Dauntless, Furse Papers – group of papers, 20 September 1916 – 25 December 1918., letters, 1916-1918, National Maritime Museum, https://collections.rmg.co.uk/archive/objects/475858.html, date accessed 29th April 2021.

[43] HMS Dauntless, Correspondence, memoranda and messages between Katharine Furse, Commandant-in-Chief of the Women’s VADs, and Neville Chamberlain, Director-General of National Service, 29 Dec 1916-29 Jan 1917., letters, 1916-1917, National Maritime Museum, https://collections.rmg.co.uk/archive/objects/475862.html, date accessed 29th April 2021.

[44]  Artist unknown, Surveillance Photograph of Clara Lambert, photograph, 1914, Museum of London, https://collections.museumoflondon.org.uk/online/object/454514.html, date accessed 13th April 2021.

[45] Author unknown, “Celebrating Dick, Kerr Ladies and their incredible Boxing Day achievement 100 years on”, WOMEN IN FOOTBALL, date created 26th December 2020, date accessed 2nd May 2021, https://www.womeninfootball.co.uk/news/2020/12/26/remembering-dick,-kerr-ladies-100-years-on/

[46] Author unknown, “1918 Representation of the People Act”, UK Parliament, date accessed 2nd May 2021,   https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/electionsvoting/womenvote/case-study-the-right-to-vote/the-right-to-vote/birmingham-and-the-equal-franchise/1918-representation-of-the-people-act/

[47] Author unknown, “Suffragette City – Getting the Vote”, WordPress, date accessed 16th April 2021,  https://runner500.wordpress.com/2018/12/13/suffragette-city-getting-the-vote/

[48] Alwyn Collinson, “Vote for Women: the groundbreaking election of 1918”, Museum of London, date created 14th December 2021, date accessed 7th April 2021, https://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/discover/1918-election-first-time-women-voted

[49] Alwyn Collinson, “Vote for Women: the groundbreaking election of 1918”, Museum of London, date created 14th December 2021, date accessed 7th April 2021, https://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/discover/1918-election-first-time-women-voted

[50]Gerry R. Rubin, “Law as a Bargaining Weapon: British Labour and the Restoration of Pre-War Practices Act 1919”, The Historical Journal Vol. 32, No. 4 (1989), p. 925.

[51]Gerry R. Rubin, “Law as a Bargaining Weapon: British Labour and the Restoration of Pre-War Practices Act 1919”, The Historical Journal Vol. 32, No. 4 (1989), p.933.

[52]Author unknown, “Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act”, UK Parliament, date accessed 2nd May 2021,  https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/tradeindustry/industrycommunity/collections/sex-disqualification-removal-act/sex-disqualification-removal-act/

[53]Artist unknown, Women’s work and training, letter, 1921, THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES,   https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/twenties-britain-part-one/womens-work-and-training/, date accessed 29th April 2021.

[54] Author unknown, “Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944”, Legislation.gov.uk, date accessed 17th April 2021, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/7-8/10/enacted

[55] https://www.bl.uk/womens-rights/articles/feminism-and-disability-rights-activism

Bibliography:

Books:

  • Ayers, Carolyn and Eustance, Claire. Freedom of Spirit: Rosa May Billinghurst and the women’s suffrage campaign in Greenwich, 1907-14 (London: University of Greenwich, 2013).

Journal articles:

  • Bingham, Adrian. “‘An Era of Domesticity’? Histories of Women and Gender in Interwar Britain”, Histories of Women and Gender in Interwar Britain, Cultural and Social History, 1:2 (2004), p.226.
  • Miller, Joe C. “Never A Fight of Woman Against Man: What Textbooks Don’t Say about Women’s Suffrage”, The History Teacher, Vol. 48, No. 3 (2015), p.437.
  • Rubin, Gerry R. “Law as a Bargaining Weapon: British Labour and the Restoration of Pre-War Practices Act 1919”, The Historical Journal Vol. 32, No. 4 (1989), pp. 925-933.
  • Tosh, John. “Masculinities in an Industrializing Society: Britain, 1800–1914”, Journal of British Studies, Vol. 44, No. 2 (2005), pp.336-341.

Websites:

Artwork:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: