October 7, 1911, To the Editor of The Manchester Guardian, “Pit-Brow Women” ([33.])
In this letter Davison responds to a correspondent whose opinions reflect the complicated
range of attitudes toward women, class, and autonomy which spawned a genre of social
criticism ostensibly directed to “protecting” women from exploitation. Familiar with such
arguments, Davison hits back in her typical second-paragraph fashion, pointing out that no
one seems to worry about the women who have to lug pails of water for men to wash after
leaving their mine shifts. A trades unions’ struggle for showers and changing facilities at
the mine heads was going on at the same time as this exchange occurred. The second half of
the letter addresses an equally complicated range of attitudes within the suffrage movement
about its priorities and proper focus—-the vote, or support of labour. Davison makes clear
here, once again, that for her the two were inevitably and directly connected.
Sir,–The action of the Miners’ Federation with regard to women’s labour at the pit brow
only affords further proof, if any were required, of the necessity of women having direct
representation. These men, on the specious plea of sentimentalism, assume their right
to interfere in women’s labour, or, as Mr. Masterman put it so well at the Home Office on
August 3,”the argument was unanswerable that if they had an occupation for women which
was acknowledge to be healthy and not dangerous to their limbs or their morals a men’s
Parliament selected by men had no right to prevent that occupation.”
Mr. Smillie, the advocate of spurious sentimentalism, says that he has seen women
twisted nearly double at the work below-ground. Such statements go directly counter to
the picture drawn by the women themselves at the deputations and also at the recent
demonstration in Manchester. Mr. Smillie and his like, while making such meretricious
appeals as these, do not seem to hesitate to go on wishing that miners’ wives and
womenkind should have to stagger about with heavy pails of water for their menfolk,
rather than agree to legislation which would allow them to get cleansed at the pits
themselves.
Further, when Mr. Smillie accuses “suffragettes” of acting unfairly by taking up the
women’s cause he has got his facts all wrong. The agitation arose quite naturally and
spontaneously among the women themselves, supported by the public-spirited Mayor and
Mayoress of Wigan, who, I submit, knew a good deal more about the facts of the case than
Mr. Smillie or any other delegate of the men. It was not till the pit-brow deputation had
actually arrived in London that anything was done by the W.S.P.U., but on the news of that
event, Miss Annie Kenny, the ex-factory girl, especially hurried along to support her fellow-
workers at Westminster, which she could do so well, as she knew the condition of factory
girls’ work. After that it is true the suffragist societies supported the women might and
main, and were of course right to do so. If they had not done so those very sentimental
gentlemen would have been the first to say that they were neglecting their duty as
women’s advocates. But the agitation began, as it was right and wise, among the women
themselves. It is a strong prima facie case for the vote, as Sir Frederick Banbury put it in
the Committee which passed the iniquitous amendment. –Yours, &c.,
EMILY WILDING DAVISON
31 Coram-street, London, W.C., October 5