Emmeline Pankhurts as an Inspiration and a Leader of Women's Suffrage Movement

Pankhurt's speech was pronounced in Hartford, Connecticut on November 13th 1913. It was delivered in front of a group of suffragist American women gathered to support women's right to citizenship at the Connecticut Women's Suffrage Association (Greer). Emmeline Pankhurts was one of the founders of the Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU), an organized group also called the suffragettes. This group separated from the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies (NUWSS) which was a constitutional organization that condemned the suffragettes' extreme measures (Park).

In her speech, Pankhurst makes a series of rather bold remarks, using simple language and providing her audience with examples both men and women can relate to. She starts by saying that the fight for citizenship in Britain had become a civil war and goes on to explain that women have adopted such methods to make men understand they are human beings. There is a series of points to make as to the way she explains this to her audience. Warfare language is a reference men understand easily, she states that it is legitimate for men to fight for a just cause the way Americans fought for independence. When a group of people are not represented, they can either surrender or rise against their oppressor and women have opted for the latter. Not only does she make her case using a historical example Americans are familiar with, but she also explains the basics of democracy using men as subjects to make it clear that women's cause is just as legitimate. The choice of words such as battle, soldier or civil war, is also a way to claim an aspect of revolution that had always been attributed to men. She wants to send a message and dispel any doubts that women are strong enough and willing to fight this war in the same way men have fought before.

A great deal of her speech is devoted to justifying the measures the suffragettes opted for (Greer). The group were known to have engaged in window smashing, arson and attempted bombing of Saint Paul's Cathedral (“Bomb at St Paul's Cathedral”; “Enormous damage in 1913”; Thorton). Nevertheless, their definitive weapon was their hunger strike. These methods were severely criticized and many objected they were ineffective to their ends. However, Emmeline Pankhurst was confident this was the path to follow and encouraged her audience by telling them about the suffragettes' sabotage to telegraphic communication between London and Glasgow. Pankhurst explains how important consistent militancy is to become an issue for the government, which tries to repress their activism and only causes more women to sympathize with the cause. To this end, she uses the baby’s analogy, which is another discourse strategy to make her point clear by using familiar examples: a screaming baby will be fed first and that is what she intends to become if necessary. She also does so by giving the omelet example, she claims that suffering is inevitable in war, just as necessary as breaking eggs to make an omelet. Nonetheless, she cleverly states that human life is sacred and that is true for suffragettes and the politicians who attempted to dismantle their equality ideas. That is the reason why hunger strikes were used as a strategy. Politicians were put in the uncomfortable position of deciding whether or not to neglect the suffragettes and let them die or let them vote.

Although she brings up delicate topics such as war and death, Pankhurst manages to transmit an optimistic message. She encourages women by saying that there is no limit to what they can do. In a way, she also calls for women of all classes to unite and assures them their common objective is bound to succeed as it is very difficult to locate its source.

Considering the historical circumstances, it is no surprise that a movement such as the suffragettes arouse at the end of the nineteenth century. The industrial revolution combined with women's social conditions, made it urgent for women to stand up for her rights and fight injustice. The suffragettes were very much needed (Park). In a heavily industrialized Britain, working women were taken advantage of sexually and forced to work like slaves in factories.

It was also legal for husbands to beat their wives and lock them in a room until 1891. Until 1882, it was mandatory for women who married, to pass their property onto their husbands (Mc Dowall 162), which made them depend on them economically. Emmeline Pankhurst also fought for this cause alongside her husband who was a lawyer and the author of the Married Women's Property Acts which allowed women to keep their belongings before and after marriage (“Emmeline Pankhurst”). This allowed them to afford the legal fees of divorce, even if it was socially frowned upon (McDowall; Thorton). As she herself states in her speech, Emmeline Pankhurst had been imprisoned and released a number of times. The “Cat and the Mouse Act” stated that fasting women were to be released until they were in good health to be rearrested. Even though she did not make mention of it during her speech, a fellow suffragette of Pankhurst's, Emily Davidson, had also been imprisoned, force-fed and released on many occasions. On 13th June, 1913, only a couple of months prior to this speech, Davidson threw herself in front of a King's horse in an act of activism that caused her death (“Emmeline Pankhurst”; Connelly). It is said that Pankhurst considered Davidson's death a sign of commitment and sacrifice. The mention of war casualties, sacrifice for a bigger cause, and the justification of extreme methods of militancy, may have been a way to honour her comrade's recent sacrifice. Also, Pankhurst's own sister, Mary Clarke had died after being arrested and released for window smashing after Black Friday, a demonstration in which 300 women met terrible police brutality at the House of Commons on 18th November 1910 (Connelly).

The fight for citizenship led to the legalization of women's vote for those who were householders or wives of householders over 30 in 1918. It was not until ten years later that women were granted the right to vote at the age of 21, like men. World War I (1914-1918) had a great impact on the cause as women had to take part in activities that had traditionally been performed by men. Without women's work in factories, Britain would not have been able to continue the war (Mc Dowell 162). This may also be true for other European countries, as many countries of Western Europe granted women the right to vote around the 1920s (“Europe Suffrage Timeline”). In the US, women were granted the right to vote in 1920 through the 19th Amendment, though it had already been legalized in some states.

It is rather difficult to look back from the 21st century and be able to successfully asses0 the impact of this speech. Nevertheless, it is unfortunately clear that it is not at all outdated. Women around the world keep fighting for more and better representation in governmental and international organizations. The issue is quite the same as the one Emmeline Pankhurst laid out: If women are human beings, why don’t they have the same representation as men? The suffragettes' fight was triggered by the evident imbalance in gender roles in society. Sadly, this is still the reason why many demonstrations take place worldwide, claiming a variety of rights to bridge the gap of gender inequality. Only a couple or mo0ths ago, the Irish marched for women's sexual and reproductive rights (Specia), some of them attired as suffragettes. As long as gender inequality continues to be a problem to be tackled, Pankhurst's speech will have an impact on activists around the world.

Having read about her, I see Emmeline Pankhurst as an upright and clever individual with very clear ideas and excellent rhetorical skills. Analyzing 'Freedom or Death', it was clear to me that she was committed to the principles she defended. Her speech is not one of a person who is just repeating words, only a person who is truthfully involved in the cause can articulate her beliefs in such a passionate manner. I reckon that an essential part of her message lies in the description of her own experience in prison and hunger strikes. She also knows her audience enough to appeal to their nationalism and/or humanism to make her case. Her cleverness and integrity were even clearer to me when I read about one of the slogans the movement used: “Deeds not Words”. There are documents that show how strictly Pankhurst stuck to this motto. In a letter to Mabel Tuke, she writes about a bill the Prime Minister had promised to vote upon, and says that the WSPU had refused to call truce until the government took responsibility to put the bill into practice (Pankhurst). I also reckon that she is an extraordinary role model whose great example of commitment and persistence has been passed on to many generations after her and it will be passed on to generations to come.