September 7, 1911, To the Editor of The Morning Post
This brief letter, with its sarcasm and energy, touches on several major themes Davison
frequently addresses in her public letters. Chief among these is the question of who the
English woman is. Invariably Davison answers this question by asserting that the true
Englishwoman cannot be known, because she has been so constructed by social expectations
and norms that her true nature, capacity, and potential are virtually hidden. Davison lays
the fault of this problem directly at the door of men. Yet she is hopeful, because her dismay
is over-matched by an absolute confidence that human culture is progressive. The signature
rhetoric she uses in her letters to convey this implicit faith comprises terms such as “Now,”
“Nowadays,” “no longer,” and “evolution.” Her vision of marriage as a mutual compact of
respect and compromise was a suffragist goal.
Sir,– Your correspondent who signs himself ‘One Who Knows,” has, probably unwittingly,
given in his letter one of the strongest arguments for Woman Suffrage. He asserts that
the modern English woman makes it her business to inveigle some man into marrying
her, and that once accomplished she proceeds to give herself up to selfish enjoyment
and shirks her duties. Although personally I should feel inclined to remark that your
correspondent must be unfortunate in the circle of his acquaintances, and that his remarks
apply rather to an age which is rapidly passing into Limbo with women’s increasing powers
and opportunities, yet, accepting his criterion for the sake of argument, I then throw down
to him the challenge: ‘If women act in this irresponsible, selfish way “a qui la faut”?’ The
fault lies with the men who trained up women in the idea that they were either to be over-
dressed, unintellectual dolls, or miserably underpaid and ill-treated drudges. Women were
either on a pedestal or in the mire. But this artificial absurdity is rapidly passing away.
Nowadays women are learning that they have a responsibility in life, a mission which they
must be free to discharge. They have a right to their own souls, and they have earned
economic independence. As a result, when they marry they do so more and more for love.
Marriage is no longer a soul-market. As women win more and more political and social
independence the standard of marriage will be inevitably raised. It will be entered into
as a solemn and holy contract, which entails self-sacrifice and self-respect on both sides,
and not on one side alone. In short, women’s direct entrance into the State and politics
means that the whole home-life of the nation will be raised and ennobled. This is the law of
evolution, –Yours, &c.,
EMILY WILDING DAVISON
31, Coram-street, Sept. 6