October 25, 1911, To the Editor of The Throne and Country
The sentiments Davison expresses in this letter are familiar ones—the nexus among women’s
rights, social evolution, sexual equality and human happiness. She touches briefly on an
ancient Aristotelian notion—that men and women are inherently one sex, differentiated
by differently expressed genitalia. In Le Livre des trois vertus Christine de Pizan [Italian-
French writer c. 1405] used this theory to argue that women could function as men, because
they have the heart and soul of men. Davison’s interpretation is less radical, but essentially
similar: both maleness and femaleness exist on a spectrum inherent in all humanity. This
letter uses the present and future tenses to underscore the progress happening “now” and the
promise this progress holds for an even better, more equal, and free, future.
Sir, –In the article in your issue of October 4th, headed ‘The Feminine Outlook,’ which
professes to expose the Suffragette soul, the writer, Ray Holland, loses ground the whole
way through ignoring a most essential fact of human nature. He bases his theory on the
erroneous supposition that the Woman Suffrage Crusade is anti-man. This false premise
accounts for such an absurd mis-statement as that ‘Miss Suffragette says from the platform
that she can do entirely without man.’
As a Suffragette myself, I absolutely and categorically deny this assertion. I have
never myself, nor have I ever heard any other Suffragette, utter any such absurdity. What
we are always insisting upon our platforms, in season and out of season, is the fact that this
crusade of ours is not Feminist, is not anti-man, but that it is for the good of the whole
human race, and that it is necessary for evolution. This fact we put before our audiences in
every possible way, that it is in the man’s interest, as well as our own, that we should be
enfranchised, able to develop to our full potentialities, able to become the fine mothers of
fine children. Hence we ask for and receive the co-operation of men in our quest.
The elemental fact that Mr. Ray Holland is overlooking is that in every man there is
something of the woman, in every woman there is something of the man, and happily so, as
otherwise there could be no mutual understanding. The point has lately been brought
forward considerably by German psychologists and philosophers.
But even your author acknowledges that man does want intellect in his chosen
woman. Having tasted the sweets of companionship with a really thinking woman, he
really no longer cares for the doll or the drudge. Why? Because a higher part of his nature
is vibrating to the new companion. A more unselfish tinge is coming into his field of
thought. He is no longer conscientiously content to merely keep in subjection and protect
one woman. He has a feeling of compassion for the unprotected women, who have no
power to rise. He also begins to realize how much more glorious, how much more
interesting a creature this new companion may be. And I can promise him as a Suffragette
that his surmises will be fully justified.
We who have passionately worked in this movement are amazed to behold the
results already evident in our own ranks. We never realized for one moment what
immense possibilities there were in women, once they had a chance to develop them. The
marvellous talents displayed by our women in organization, in originality, in every special
department of life, have astounded us. We feel that all that had been lacking was self-
confidence, and that is coming with success. What a mine of power has been neglected by
the nation. It is now being opened up. The nation is only now beginning to realize the
great future which lies before it with freedom for all, women as well as men. Yours, etc.,
EMILY WILDING DAVISON
31, Coram Street, W.C.
October 12, 1911