Were Women ‘Free’

Emily Davison — Sun, 22 Oct 1911 00:01:00 +0000

October 22, 1911, To the Editor of The Sunday Chronicle, “Were Women ‘Free’”

In this brief letter Davison engages the subject of “the new woman,” reluctant to enter

traditional marriage. The most sensational exposition of the reasons for such reluctance

appeared in the 1895 Grant Allen novel The Woman Who Did, whose heroine chooses a loving

partnership with rather than marriage to her husband. The second half of the novel lays

out in excruciating detail all the ways society—and finally her only child—work not only to

defeat, but to utterly crush her for her decision to love freely outside the bonds of marriage.

Davison does not advocate—or even address–this particular aspect of the topic, but she does

say quite plainly that in contemplating marriage women contemplate exchanging freedom for

slavery imposed not by the husband but by the laws of the state.

Sir,–There is undoubtedly a marked tendency among the intelligent middle-class women

not to enter matrimony readily. But “Hubert” has not got hold of the real reason.

These women, having had their eyes opened by independent work and education,

see very clearly the disadvantages of the marriage state as it is at present. It is not that

they care less for marriages, or that they do not think it is the natural state for a man or a

woman. But they look around and see the unsatisfactory status of the wife, and hesitate to

exchange freedom for possible slavery.

The only way to cope with this situation is to put right the marriage conditions, and

then the matter will readjust itself. It is clear that the way to do this is to bring the

woman’s point of view directly into the State. Thus I contend that if women were

emancipated, marriage would increase.

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

London, W.C.

Property v. Human Life

Emily Davison — Sun, 15 Oct 1911 00:01:00 +0000

October 15, 1911, To The Editor of The Sunday Chronicle, “Property v. Human Life”

This letter, written at virtually the same time as the one above, shows how Davison, like

other suffragists, accepted that men and women’s perspectives on life were fundamentally

different. A state which does not recognize and cherish both perspectives puts itself at risk.

Sir, — The letter which you published in your last Sunday’s issue by ‘Alice Bain’ shows

a humane comprehension, which is apparently lacking in ‘Hubert’ and illustrates well a

fact which suffragists are always preaching, namely, that even if the Conciliation Bill will

enfranchise mainly widows and spinsters, whilst clearly asserting that marriage, qua

marriage, is not to act as a bar to the franchise if the given conditions are fulfilled, yet, even

so, the interests of women would be better safe-guarded by them than by men, however

well intentioned.

The real gist of the matter is that men think more highly of property than of person.

Our law courts afford an endless vista of this truism. Now, woman’s tendency is to think

more of human life, as is only natural, for she is the gates of life. That is where woman’s

influence in the State is absolutely indispensable, and that is the fact which Miss Bain’s

letter brings clearly to the thinking mind. Votes for Women is the salvation of the nation.

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

31, Coram-street, London, W.C.

Deeds Not Words | Tag Archives: The Sunday Chronicle

Were Women ‘Free’

Property v. Human Life