How Did Pankhurst Fawcett Justify The Fight For Women's Rights

Good Essays

During the late 19th century and early 20th century, new ideas of change arose throughout England and America. The prominent topic of this time, gender equality, caused the emergence of many notable women’s rights activists and female leaders. British suffragist and writer Millicent Garrett Fawcett is the prime example of a woman who stood up for the rights of all females in her country. She was the leader of the nonviolent movement for gender equality in England, mainly focusing on women’s voting rights. Fawcett’s individuality set her apart from the average woman. Because of this along with her high intelligence, her campaign grew rapidly among British women. She based her arguments upon rationality, opposing many other activists’ means …show more content…

Her group gained attention controversially thought the use of militant tactics. WSPU members participated in events such as rioting at political conventions and damaging both private and government owned property. Due to the acts of violence committed, polices forces arrested many members of Pankhurst’s group, thus starting a conversation both in media and between regular people. Some British began to question the morals of this radical group. Do the ends really justify the means in this case? This conversation only strengthened the movement and people began to pay more attention to strong female leaders like Pankhurst and Fawcett. Particularly, Millicent Fawcett’s nonviolent group gained even more support as many British didn’t agree with Pankhurst’s way of making her point. In 1914, World War I broke out and the thought of supporting the war divided activists. Many members of the NUWSS, Fawcett’s organization, opposed the war and were generally pacifists. But, Fawcett herself came out in British political newspaper, The Common Cause, supporting the war saying, ‘Women, your country needs you. As long as there was any hope for peace, most members of the National Union probably sought for peace, and endeavoured to support those who were trying to maintain it.’ Her stance on the war caused many of her members to leave the movement. Even though she lost some supporters, …show more content…

Firstly, it is important to note the key differences between suffragists and suffragettes. Even though the words have similar dictionary definitions, when put into historical context, they clearly different. Both words are defined by Merriam-Webster as “one who advocates extension of suffrage especially to women.” This definition is true for the two groups, but suffragettes and suffragists achieve their goals through different means. The suffragettes, led mainly by Emmeline Pankhurst, took a more violent and direct approach as they saw nothing getting accomplished by Fawcett’s group. The belief that the end justifies the means was certainly adopted by the suffragettes as members regularly committed crimes all for the sake of their cause. One of the most notable illegal activities Pankhurst’s group regularly participated in was window breakings. They broke the windows of important British buildings and monuments as a response to the lack of acknowledgement the group received from the British government. All of their violent attacks were committed shine a light on their frustration and ultimately change hearts and minds. Other issues within the British government overshadowed women’s suffrage so these people found it their duty to stress its importance. On the other hand, Fawcett’s group decided to protest verbally instead of physically. The NUWSS had many talented female

Get Access