351:, and this for a good reason: working-class women like Hawkins would not have got the vote under the Parliamentary Franchise (Women) Bill for which the suffragettes agitated. The bill would only have given the vote to a mere one million well-off mostly single women, such as the suffragette leadership themselves, and the very best-off married women. (You couldn't register at the same address as your husband, so you had to have a town house and a country house, and you had to have some title to the property.) In addition, as Lloyd George and Churchill pointed out at the time, becoming hate figures among the privileged middle-class suffragette movement as a result, elections held on the basis of that franchise would produce a permanent Conservative government with a locked-in majority. Tory leader Arthur Balfour told the House in the second-reading debate on the Bill in 1910 that he favoured the Bill just because it would advantage his own party. If the suffragettes' campaign had succeeded (which it didn't), the cause of universal suffrage would have been set back for perhaps forty years, because the Conservatives would never widen the franchise again for fear of risking their majority. The actual
371:
were actually quite liberated compared to their grandmothers - could own property, voted in local elections, were starting to attend university etc etc. Two-thirds of the
Liberal Cabinet were in favour of votes for women, it was a Liberal electoral aspiration (as opposed to a concrete pledge, as we would nowadays say) in the December 1910 election, and a measure enfranchising women on the same terms as men (before 1918 about 2/3 of men had the vote) would almost certainly have passed Parliament. The militant suffragettes who are so absurdly lionised nowadays were not highly regarded at the time, and if anything probably held back the cause. People often get cross when you point this out to them.
147:
22:
77:
53:
355:, enacted long after the failure of the suffragette campaign (and it did fail), recognised instead the work of women during the Great War and enfranchised not one million but about eight million women, over a third of the electorate at that time. The suffragettes never wanted that kind of thing to happen. As people said, in 1910, they didn't want 'Votes For Women', just 'Votes For Ladies'.
87:
300:
This seems like a serious problem. This wasn't something that should be scrubbed from the history books. Its a part of the conversation, and not having it be on here gives some credence to the "it wasn't really important" line of thinking. There was a boycott, there were a number of articles written
370:
Well, quite. I came here on the offchance to see if there was any well-informed historical commentary by film critics about this film (in terms of historical accuracy it's just simplistic myth-peddling, little better than
Braveheart), and rather sadly see that there isn't. Women in the early 1900s
259:
They probably wouldn't although that's what they were doing in effect. Every film and work of art has its focus and this one did not misrepresent that specific focus or the history. However, as the phrase sounds like an argument as you say, I deleted it.
244:
That's much better. I think, though, that we should also remove the defensive words "for not being a different film in a different context; that is..." That presumably wouldn't be how the people who raised objections would describe what they were doing.
346:
Might also be worth mentioning that, while Morgan, the film's writer, claimed it had a working-class heroine because the part played by working-class suffragettes was under-recognised, there were very, very few working-class suffragettes like
202:
This language implicitly makes an argument on behalf of the filmmakers, implying that critics of the film were unfairly and anachronistically projecting present-day concerns on the film. This may well be a plausible argument, but it's still
179:
I think there's some language in this section that could be said to deviate from an encyclopedic point of view and to take one side in the debate over claims of alleged racial insensitivity. Here is the passage (emphasis added):
343:
in 1932 and was chief of its women's section from 1934-6, resigning only because of doubts about the party's policies on women. (The party's policies on Jews evidently did not bother her.)
156:
63:
215:
responses from defenders of the film. And if we're going to say what a film "aims" to do, shouldn't this be sourced with the filmmakers' actual statement(s) to that effect?
400:
405:
327:
Might be worth mentioning that the real suffragette who claimed to have accompanied
Davison to Epsom racecourse, like the film's fictional heroine, was
352:
308:
230:
I edited it to remove the impression that an argument was being made by doing you suggested - objections first then film-maker's rebuttal.
191:
and to communicate the emotional impact on women who lose their children or livelihoods, for example, as a result of disempowering laws.
410:
395:
105:
301:
both in argument against and in defense of the movie, it's clearly something that some felt to be important. Why isn't it here?
33:
117:
109:
113:
100:
58:
340:
312:
265:
235:
39:
21:
360:
304:
356:
197:
the film was criticized, largely on social media, for not being a different film in a different context
376:
146:
261:
231:
336:
372:
328:
279:
250:
220:
389:
348:
332:
104:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can
92:
335:
with an axe in the
National Gallery and went on to become a founding member of
275:
246:
216:
82:
76:
52:
380:
364:
316:
283:
269:
254:
239:
224:
207:
It seems to me that a more neutral way of handling this section would be to
121:
211:
the objections to the film first (better sourcing would help), and then
15:
145:
199:; that is, for not depicting suffragettes of colour."
274:I can't argue with that! Much better now, thanks.
183:"Suffragette is set in London in 1912. The film
185:focuses tightly on a small representative group
120:. To improve this article, please refer to the
8:
19:
302:
189:the specific political context of the time
116:. To use this banner, please refer to the
47:
296:claims of racial insensitivity removed?
49:
353:Representation of the People Act 1918
7:
98:This article is within the scope of
401:Start-Class British cinema articles
38:It is of interest to the following
406:British cinema task force articles
175:Re: claims of racial insensitivity
14:
195:, in the lead-up to its release,
154:This article is supported by the
130:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Film
114:regional and topical task forces
85:
75:
51:
20:
1:
187:of women in order to portray
317:03:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
284:02:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
270:22:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
255:21:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
240:10:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
225:02:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
427:
411:WikiProject Film articles
396:Start-Class film articles
365:18:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
341:British Union of Fascists
331:, who later attacked the
157:British cinema task force
153:
133:Template:WikiProject Film
70:
46:
381:00:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
150:
28:This article is rated
149:
32:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
106:join the discussion
193:Despite this focus
151:
34:content assessment
337:Sir Oswald Mosley
319:
307:comment added by
172:
171:
168:
167:
164:
163:
108:and see lists of
418:
138:
137:
134:
131:
128:
101:WikiProject Film
95:
90:
89:
88:
79:
72:
71:
66:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
426:
425:
421:
420:
419:
417:
416:
415:
386:
385:
329:Mary Richardson
325:
309:146.115.189.172
298:
177:
135:
132:
129:
126:
125:
91:
86:
84:
61:
29:
12:
11:
5:
424:
422:
414:
413:
408:
403:
398:
388:
387:
384:
383:
324:
321:
297:
294:
293:
292:
291:
290:
289:
288:
287:
286:
262:Whiteghost.ink
232:Whiteghost.ink
176:
173:
170:
169:
166:
165:
162:
161:
152:
142:
141:
139:
97:
96:
80:
68:
67:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
423:
412:
409:
407:
404:
402:
399:
397:
394:
393:
391:
382:
378:
374:
369:
368:
367:
366:
362:
358:
357:Khamba Tendal
354:
350:
349:Alice Hawkins
344:
342:
338:
334:
330:
322:
320:
318:
314:
310:
306:
295:
285:
281:
277:
273:
272:
271:
267:
263:
258:
257:
256:
252:
248:
243:
242:
241:
237:
233:
229:
228:
227:
226:
222:
218:
214:
210:
206:
200:
198:
194:
190:
186:
181:
174:
159:
158:
148:
144:
143:
140:
136:film articles
123:
119:
118:documentation
115:
111:
107:
103:
102:
94:
83:
81:
78:
74:
73:
69:
65:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
345:
333:Rokeby Venus
326:
303:— Preceding
299:
212:
208:
205:an argument.
204:
201:
196:
192:
188:
184:
182:
178:
155:
99:
40:WikiProjects
93:Film portal
30:Start-class
390:Categories
373:Paulturtle
122:guidelines
110:open tasks
305:unsigned
323:Fascism
64:British
36:scale.
276:850 C
247:850 C
217:850 C
377:talk
361:talk
313:talk
280:talk
266:talk
251:talk
236:talk
221:talk
213:cite
209:cite
127:Film
112:and
59:Film
339:'s
392::
379:)
363:)
315:)
282:)
268:)
253:)
238:)
223:)
62::
375:(
359:(
311:(
278:(
264:(
249:(
234:(
219:(
160:.
124:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
