The Suffragists’ Christmas

Emily Davison — Sat, 12 Oct 1912 00:01:16 +0000

October 12, 1912, To the Editor of The Daily Graphic, “The Suffragists’ Christmas”

In October of 1912 the suffragette Mary Gawthorpe wrote a letter to The Sunday

Observer proposing “A Women’s Great Hunger Strike” if the Liberal Government once

more evaded its promises to women in the parliamentary session about to begin. She

proposed the strike to begin at midnight on December 25th, and she called on women

throughout the nation, from the relatives of members of Parliament, to suffragists,

teachers, and “silent, sympathetic women in the nation’s homes who are not ordinarily

militant, but who would bravely bear witness to their heart’s belief that British

womanhood has the right to full political unity.” Davison obviously thought this

was an excellent proposal to rouse the nation, but mischievously went the next step to

engage men in some degree of the suffering women had endured and were prepared to

further endure. She sent the following letter to several newspapers.

Sir, –Another suggestion which might be added to Miss Mary Gawthorpe’s

proposal of a general hunger strike is that it should be perforce extended to

the men. We all know the old adage that the way to a man’s heart (and brain)

is through his stomach! Whatever women in general might determine to do

they would doubly emphasise it if they went out on strike before the Christmas

Day dinner and refused to do a single domestic duty! The moment would be

peculiarly effective, seeing that the males would be, manlike, looking forward

to the popular feast, and would moreover be unable on that day, peculiar to the

home, to find cheer elsewhere. So women would effectively demonstrate their

determination to have an effective say in their so-called sphere, as well as the

vote. Yours faithfully,

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

Longhorsley, Northumberland, October 8th

October 17, 1911, To the Editor of “The Daily Graphic”

Emily Davison — Tue, 17 Oct 1911 00:01:34 +0000

October 17, 1911, To the Editor of The Daily Graphic

The next two letters, written two days later, address the short-comings, from a woman’s

point of view of the contentious Insurance Act of 1911, a subject often addressed that year

in the pages of Votes for Women. The Act provided a system of medical and unemployment

insurance hitherto unimaginable in England. Workers throughout the country between the

ages of sixteen and seventy were compelled to join; they contributed four pence a week, and

their employers three pence, while the nation contributed two. These contributions funded

a system of free health care and free medicine, as well as unemployment insurance for men

of seven shillings a week for a period of fifteen weeks in any calendar year. This benefit was

distributed at Labour Exchanges which also provided information about where employment

might be found in the area. But the bill at the time these letters were written was unfair to

women who did not work outside the home and would not be automatically covered. Those

women who had worked before marriage could participate on payment into the scheme.

Even so, as the second letter indicates, women’s benefits were substantially less than men’s.

The purpose of the Insurance Act was to create what is today called a social safety-net for

families. Davison saw, though, that the economics of the Act assumed that the male of the

family was the wage-earner, that his illness or unemployment would cause hardship. What

was not recognized was the contribution of women in respect to wages, and in respect to

domestic work. Families could be equally devastated by the illness of father or mother.

Davison’s argument in the second letter based on her knowledge of the infectious nature of

the tuberculosis bacillium seems irrefutable.

Sir, –In the account of Mr. Lloyd George’s speech he defended his Insurance Bill from the

charge of being unfair to women by saying that if the women received less than the men it

was because they paid less, and that was because they earned less money. He also stated

that the women were fairly treated because every penny that they paid in was reserved

for their own benefit, and none of it went to the men. There are two obvious criticisms on

these assertions: to the first the Bill is promoting that unjust anomaly due to the old state

of affairs by which equal pay is not given for equal work, and is therefore blameworthy.

The second point is that it is absurd to claim magnanimity in keeping for the

women what belongs to the women. That is a self-evident fact. Anything else would be

robbery. But what is unjust is that, seeing that the economic position of women in the Bill

is crippled because they are supposed to be supported by their husbands (vide the position

of the non-wage-earning married woman), as a matter of fact the husband wage-earner

ought to be forced to pay his wife’s insurance, not the woman, who has no money, not even

her savings. But that would raise an outcry among the husbands, who have votes, and

therefore is not done, and so injustice is propagated.

Lastly, to the W.S.P.U. deputation Mr. Lloyd George said that he wished that women

had votes, as then his Bill would be sure to go through. It might go through, but it would be

in a very different form to that which it now has, for the women would have been then

properly considered in the Bill, put in as an integral part, and not as an afterthought, as

now. –Yours, etc.,

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

31, Coram Street, London, W.C.,

October 16th, 1911

Deeds Not Words | Tag Archives: The Daily Graphic

The Suffragists’ Christmas

October 17, 1911, To the Editor of “The Daily Graphic”