ELINZE@YALEVM (Naama Zahavi-Ely) (01/19/90)
Hello!
Has anybody studied or even noticed the role of the suffragettes ("militant"
voting-rights-for-women activists) in the development of non-violent civil
disobedience as group tactics? Their tactics seem similar to those used
by Gandhi and later by Martin Luter King -- protests, getting arrested,
hunger strikes, etc. They made headlines in their days and eventually
achieved their aims. Yet I am under the impression that in most histories and
in the minds of most educated people and of most historians (certainly in mine)
they are relegated to "women's" history, to a sideline, without even asking
whether they had any influence on "mainstream" historical movements, even
though such a connection is obvious both in terms of chronology and of subject
matter.
It is also interesting to note that when women use such tactics, they are
"militants", while men using the same tactics are "non-violent". Comments,
anyone?
-Naama
Elinze@Yalevm.Bitnet
Zahavi-Ely-Naama@Yale.EduHERSCH@AUVM (Herschel Browne) (02/28/90)
In article <D135D85146DF008FA3@urvax.urich.edu>, Martin Ryle <RYLE@URVAX> says: > >Hershel, you suggest that the Suffragettes were playing for illusory stakes. >Bet you thought that would get a reaction--but whether or no, would you >elaborate? > Now and then some rogue mailer reposts something really old. My remarks on the suffragist movement were written a month ago, I think, and, considering their age, I would naturally wish to repudiate them. Hehe. Actually, as I re-read what I said (surprised to see the posting resurface), I did have a feeling of wanting to take part of it back. On soberer reflection, I believe that the history of the suffragists *is* "relegated" to an extent I wasn't willing to admit. I've just gone through a number of survey histories of 19th-century Britain that I happen to have on my shelves, and I find that there is very little material on this subject -- Seaman's "Victorian England" has no index entry for Woman Suffrage under any conceivable title at all, for example. Not that Seaman is an exemplary historian, but he is, perhaps, a typical one. My reaction -- that the suffragist movement is NOT ignored or trivialized by reputable historians -- is rooted in the emphasis within my own study on "radical" history...when you've spent most of your time reading historians of the left, you have a different perspective than you'd have if you read only the right-wing historians that right-wing political commentators are so fond of pretending represent a historical consensus supporting their foolish and largely insupportable views. But to answer Mr. Ryle's query: It has always been illusory to suppose that changing the constitution of the suffrage is sufficient to effect a transformation of society. This was the central illusion of the suffragist movement, and I think its illusory nature must be obvious by now. We're approaching a century of suffrage for women, and the inequities that female suffrage was supposed to redress are barely altered. Women are still an underclass, economically. And therefore politically. The right or privilege of choosing which members or tools of the ruling class -- or ruling elite, or Capital, or what-you-will -- will have in their hands the disposition of the power of the state does not give you the power to change the social structure that the state enforces. If it did, elections would be considered sedition. So what is illusory about the goals of the suffragist movement is what is illusory in the whole ideology of bourgeois democracy. That is, that with your vote you can influence the direction of society. You can't, except within absurdly circumscribed boundaries. You certainly can't change the status of women by voting for somebody. Now, I'm sure that my use of terms like "bourgeois" will bend a lot of people out of shape, but that's too bad. I hope that in this group, unlike some others I've offended, it will be seen that a term like "bourgeois" serves a function that is not served by any other. Anyway, the illusion of the suffragist movement was that there was something vital or essential to be gained with the vote. There wasn't. H.
RYLE@URVAX (Martin Ryle) (02/28/90)
Shucks! I thought the discussion was current. Ah, well. At least the response came through promptly. When measured by a standard of absolute liberty or justice, the achievements of suffragism have be illusory, but not when measured relative to the restrictions placed on women a century ago. One might argue that gaining greater opportunity in bourgeois society has merely subjected women to the oppression of bourgeois exploitation. The problem is that the society we have is and has been bourgeois, and it shows few signs of changing radically. Perhaps the illusion comes from measuring a historical era in terms other than its own. Martin Ryle University of Richmond, VA ryle@urvax.urich.edu