What Were the Key Arguments That Won Over Lawmakers in the Battle for Women’s Suffrage?

“Why should people who experience pregnancies and monthly indispositions be unable to exercise rights we would never refuse to men who have gout every winter and catch a cold easily?”. When Marquis de Condorcet questioned this logic in the late 18th century, his views reflected that of many revolutionaries whose ideas would form the nucleus of arguments that were to come in the 19th and 20th century for women’s suffrage. Combined with socio-political protest that manifested in the form of militant and peaceful demonstrations, it seems that prospects of political emancipation became inescapable for lawmakers. This essay will consider the key arguments that won over legislators from the Age of Reason to the 20th Century, outlining the development of intellectual thought in the Western world that would come to shape the British suffragist and suffragette movement; bodies which serve as prolific cases of suffrage campaigners actively impacting judicial decision making. Reasons for the success of key arguments will also be assessed throughout and in direct response to each category of argument so that the relationships between academia, feminism, socialism and nationalism can be distinguished.

To understand the impact of key arguments that took the form of intellectual thought, early perceptions and philosophical dispositions that would come to shape anti-suffragist movements must first be contextualised so that opposing academic arguments can be distinguished. According to classical political thought, the exclusion of women from civic participation could be justified on multiple grounds with the assumption that men were not merely different, but superior, becoming rooted in Western democracy. Foundations for these propositions stemmed from biological determinism, with writings indicating the essence of sex was dictated by God and attempts to modify inalterable characteristics dismantled the nature of a socially constructed gender. Subsequently, the visible manifestation of these characteristics in motherhood rendered women dependent actors within the patriarchy, and incapable of participating in the polity. These views were echoed by philosophers Plato and Aristotle, with Plato asserting a women’s function was limited to the interests of her family and Aristotle attributing female inferiority as predetermined, dissimilarities amongst the souls of men and women, with the soul being the animating force of humans.

Developments in arguments regarding the gender hierarchy and democracy were further present in the work of John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rosseau. According to Locke, women were creatures of diminished rationality due to their consent to residing in a permanent state of subordination to their male counterparts, thus lacking competence in civil society. Rosseau maintained that submission was a natural state for women and their distinctions posited them subject to the needs of their family, in turn establishing their husband as master. As a result of men’s greater moral development, they were considered free and equal, thus more capable of engaging in civil activities.

However, it would be wrong to assume the Enlightenment solely pedalled narratives of female subordination, with an ethos of ‘everything is possible; and everyone is right’ making room for alternative approaches. Works such as The Age of Reason and The Rights of Man by American political theorist, Thomas Paine, asserted that the government had no power to invade the freedom and equality of men and that mankind’s civic duties must rely on reason-based, natural, social instincts. The 1793 French Constitution proved reflective of these concepts of liberalism and became significant in the journey to modern democracy, despite later being suspended. Though much of Paine’s work was gender exclusive, a conceptual framework was established that would make future universal suffrage inevitable as the intellectual revolution initiated dialogue concerning concepts of comparable and equal rights amongst men and women, thus addressing notions in a way that would lead directly to women’s active involvement in the political sphere. Unlike kingship and primogeniture which assumed masculine pre-eminence, theories of nationhood and taxation corresponding to representation in the American Revolution also assumed a more gender neutral stance and the 2nd Amendment in the US constitution underwent contestation in the French Revolution, as thinkers questioned why women were entitled to bare arms in defence of their country but not the same civic contributions of men, and on what grounds this exclusion arose.

It can therefore be argued that some of the key arguments that won over lawmakers, or at least prompted them to revise democratic systems, consisted of intellectual thought by Enlightenment thinkers as the era opened a Pandora’s box of liberty that would come to surpass gender boundaries. According to Condorcet, human beings possessed rational thought and moral judgement, making rights natural as they can be derived from both men and women; “we consider that the right to vote on matters of common interest, whether in person or through freely elected representatives, is one such right.” Likewise, Condorcet stated the assumption that women lacked reason and moral ideas disregarded “half of the human race” and was an issue that was neglected by legislators. These propositions were reiterated in the July of 1790 in his pamphlet, On Giving Women the Right of Citizenship, where the philosopher spoke of the issue of rendering women less intelligent than men, despite receiving no formal education, and proposing women had failed to make important discoveries in science or the arts to which he responded, “neither had most men”. Laws were also challenged as he stated the differing of conduct and principles between men and women came as a result of the legal restrictions placed on women, which forced them into domestic roles external to the realms of law, business and politics. Culturally significant figures, such as Olympe de Gouges, also put forth intellectual thought to lawmakers in her response to the 1789 signing of The Declaration of the Rights of Man, titled The Declaration of the Rights of Woman and Citizen. In her work the French playwright and political activist spoke of natural rights to freedom and equality as she stated, “women are born free and live equal to men in their rights”. Justifications for this were derived from beliefs that law should serve as the expression of the general will and must subsequently adopt gender inclusivity in viewing citizens equally.

British Enlightenment thinkers also advanced many of the philosophy oriented key arguments that lawmakers were faced with in the battle for women’s suffrage, with many deeming Mary Wollstonecraft’s Vindication of the Rights of Women the impetus behind voting emancipation. In an attempt to disprove conservatives such as Edmund Burke, who had rejected revolutionary ideals, Wollstonecraft asserted women’s sexual existence came secondary to their existence as human beings and that the mind was genderless. Likewise, the notion was argued that, had women been educated to the same level as men, intellect would be equal amongst sexes and whilst the book contained little on conventional politics or suffrage, Wollstonecraft proclaimed “women ought to have representatives, instead of being arbitrarily governed”. The extent in which her work influenced women’s suffrage was alluded to by scholar, Miriam Brody, who maintained Wollstonecraft’s writing was considerate of all aspects of women’s conditions and recognised that economic reform would depend on redistribution of political power.

Following the catalysation of arguments for women’s suffrage made in the Enlightenment era, a spirit of liberalism continued into the 19th and 20th centuries with new philosophical arguments building on the foundations of the old. Justification for political emancipation became interlinked with the domestic sphere, as academics recognised the contradictory nature of revolutionary thinking and the exclusion of women from democracy. As a result, two major philosophical arguments amalgamated; firstly, women’s nature was antithetical to political contribution and, secondly, their nature impacted ability to fulfil domestic obligations, both of which changed perceptions of women’s roles in politics and society. Despite women being unable to enter the political realm, domesticity could be politicised as motherhood was a civic duty, thus entitling women to suffrage. These propositions manifested in ‘Republican Motherhood’, which embedded women’s political role within her familial role and saw domestic interests extended into the public arena, thus instilling their traditional sphere with a dignity absent in previous conceptions of women’s roles. Furthermore, anti-slavery movements ushered the egalitarian climate of the Revolution through prompting debate over concepts of individualism, as Western political tradition had previously denied women and slaves political inclusion through the rejection of their existence as individuals. Coupled with notions of natural rights, the nature of women and maternal civic duty, law makers were forced to recognise the need for an extension of suffrage to both sexes as an emergence of indisputable, scholarly reasoning materialised.

When assessing why these arguments were successful, notions of success must be applied unconventionally as a flux of voting emancipation wasn’t present until the early 1900s. Whilst intellectual thought from the Enlightenment and campaigns for freedom may not have been directly presented to lawmakers during this era, its sentiments set activism in motion as the foundations of women’s suffrage advanced. Legislators would come to accept these propositions for their academic origins and semblance to concepts of liberty, progress and tolerance; all of which were held at the core of Western Society. These attitudes forced lawmakers to engage with the unescapable by developing voting legislation in line with the proliferation of progressive morale snowballing into the 20th century. Consequently, it is valid to argue key arguments that would come to win over lawmakers in the battle for women’s suffrage were largely comprised of revolutionary thought from the Age of Reason, and appealed to lawmakers as their fundamental notions shadowed those held at the heart of Western democracy.

Key arguments for women’s suffrage, particularly in Britain, also stemmed from feminist ideology and the actions of suffrage movements which demanded the attention of lawmakers through agitation and peaceful protest. The successes of these organisations were reflected by the 1918 Representation of the People Act, as 56 suffrage campaign movements had emerged with a combined membership of 300,000, suggesting there was a direct correlation between suffragette action and legislative progress.

It is also important to consider the differing ways in which arguments for women’s suffrage were presented to lawmakers in a bid to win them over, with suffragists employing the politics of persuasion and suffragettes adopting a confrontational approach. The challenging of courts by suffragists was evident in cases such as Chorlton v Lings (1868), which saw Sir John Coleridge and Richard Pankhurst arguing, prior to the 1832 Great Reform Act, women had enjoyed the vote and the term ‘male’ was gender neutral, according to the 1850 Act. Likewise, petitioning the House of Commons proved popular amongst suffragists as it demonstrated the high numbers in favour of women’s votes to the government, and incited public interest in the campaign. In addition to these formal arguments made by suffragists, suffragettes sought to evoke public interest through militancy and law-breaking. Through interrupting government leaders and heckling politicians such as Edward Grey, the WSPU gained free publicity as news of Suffragette imprisonment and the inconvenience caused to the Liberal Party on account of these disturbances became evident. Feminist historian, Jane Marcus, stated these approaches were successful in winning women’s suffrage as not only was male authority challenged, but a “political voice for women who were supposed to remain silent” was claimed. It is clear that, whilst parliamentary disruption might not necessarily constitute an argument in itself, the grievances it brought upon male lawmakers were great enough for the benefits of granting political emancipation to women to outweigh the disadvantages.

A consistent theme firmly embedded in suffragist and suffragette protest was political reasoning. Suffrage movements argued the restoration of democratic contribution was the restoration of an old right, as women had previously played a substantial role in parliamentary politics with abbesses participating in policy making during the medieval period, and religious women having formal involvements in the English Reformation. Whilst this reason alone was not enough to change legislation, as indicated by the rejection of this claim by judges in Manchester in 1867, arguments also emerged proclaiming British democracy was not legitimate as the majority of its population was disenfranchised. This was of particular poignance to lawmakers as the vote possessed “an important symbolic significance; (democracy) was the hallmark of citizenship in a country governed by a Parliament”, which subsequently lead to the criticism that British politics were skewed and discriminatory. This sentiment was also echoed in relation to the global democratic system, in which suffragists and suffragettes shamed Britain for not granting political emancipation in line with the Isle of Man, Australia, New Zealand, Finland and Norway; all of which shared similar cultural norms and values with Britain. Supporters of this belief declared the contradictory nature of branding Britain the ‘mother of democracy’ and challenged British democratic supremacy, asserting the state had failed in paving the way for other nations to enfranchise inclusively. It was also claimed that female voters in America incited an orderly and calm election process and that the high turn out rates in Australia and New Zealand confirmed the feminist belief that women wanted to vote. In addition to geographical perceptions of democracy, campaigners also contended that, as a result of the expansive electorate that had emerged by the early 20th Century, the disenfranchised were vulnerable to having their interests neglected. This would lead to laws facilitating male demands being passed at a higher rate than those which considered women, as demonstrated by the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act which pursued the interests of newly enfranchised middle class men and 1864 Contagious Diseases Act that solely blamed prostitutes for sexually transmitted diseases. Likewise, it was also argued that “those who put money into the national purse should be able to control its spending”, as the shift from laissez-faire Victorian governing styles to those in the Edwardian era meant Parliament had the authority to fully dictate the ways in which taxation was spent. It was subsequently proposed to lawmakers that only once women had obtained the vote would their issues receive legislative attention and protect them from the tyrannical rule of men.

Arguments also stemmed from social origins, with justifications for women’s suffrage sometimes being of a racist, ableist or sexually liberative nature. Images of women were often contrasted against images of mentally ill and disabled men alongside male criminals and proprietors of white slaves in propagandist material, such as The Suffrage Atelier, with the encoded meaning being that women had greater political capacity than men. These cartoons also sought to assert the notion that women had contributed to the welfare of Britain significantly more, either publicly or privately, and were thus more deserving of the vote, especially juxtaposed against disabled men who were commonly referred to as ‘cripples’ during the 19th Century. A racial domain was also present in pro-suffrage arguments, as many women advocated for white supremacy and believed voting rights were imperative in safeguarding the superiority of the Anglo-Saxon population. This came as a result of the enfranchisement of black men in America during the 1860s as some suffragists believed this legislature insinuated black men possessed greater political capacity than white women; a notion later reiterated by the WSPU with Christabel Pankhurst arguing that British women were the “rightful heirs to democracy” in Votes for Women. Furthermore, many suffragettes also made links between voting rights and sexual morality, with slogans such as ‘votes for women and chastity for men’ indicative of a struggle for not only equal voting rights, but also equal moral principles. Though many campaigners spoke little of sexuality out of awareness of the Victorian prudery present in the early 20th Century, many placed democracy in the wider context of sexual politics to the extent where voting emancipation was perceived by some as “a protection for women from the uncontrolled dominion of the savage passions of men”. It was also argued that disenfranchisement, increased prostitution rates and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases were correlated. Campaigners, such as Millicent Fawcett, who vehemently supported LNA protests maintained that female suffrage would end prostitution as democratic participation would improve their prospects of job security and higher wages, making them less reliant on the sex industry for income. Feminist Christabel Pankhurst similarly proposed prostitution was a product of male authority and was only solvable through the enfranchisement of women; “the canker of venereal disease is eating away the vitals of the nation, and the only cure is votes for women”. Lawmakers were thus faced with arguments that proclaimed political emancipation was not only necessary in curbing prostitution, but also protecting the health of the state.

Reasons behind the success of both the political and social arguments put forth by women’s movements differ. Politically, threats to national pride over perceptions of the democratic system and evidence of successful female enfranchisement abroad would have prompted support as, particularly according to the constructivist paradigm, Britain would have wanted to maintain a positive image in the international arena. Moreover, notions of representation and inclusivity in parliament, championed by both forceful and formal protest, made suffrage inevitable as opposition could no longer be overlooked. In the social realm, arguments concerning race and disability would have also appealed to spirits of nationalism as feminist discourse declared the importance of enfranchising those with the greatest mental capacity to vote, regardless of gender, so that national security was reinforced and a strong internal image was projected. Political emancipation was also integral to emissions of strength as it was believed voting rights would grapple with issues of sexual immorality and spread of disease. It is clear that, having built on centuries of intellectual thought, suffragists and suffragettes were able to communicate their beliefs in the socio-political sphere to the extent where notions of legislation remaining gender exclusive were unfathomable.

To conclude, it is evident the key arguments that won over lawmakers in the battle for women’s suffrage and the reasons why such arguments were successful differ, making it near impossible to overtly commend one specific argument in relation to another. Whilst limited judicial progress was made in the Enlightenment era, a climate of liberalism and equality that continued throughout anti-slavery movements of the 1800s paved the way for future notions of democratic inclusivity. Key sentiments of the period that hypothesised over rationality and reason were purported by respected, influential figures and reached, albeit majority educated middle class populations, a mass audience. As a direction of reformism was set in motion, concepts of feminism, socialism and nationalism became embodied in the arguments of protestors, as indicated in the British example discussed in this essay, and won over lawmakers for the benefits enfranchisement would provide to national identity, parliamentary representation and, most importantly, women. Besides these arguments, women’s suffrage also came to appear less of an option and instead a predetermined next step in the battle of equality as a result of formal complaints which saw lawmakers challenged in courts, and violent protests, which thwarted political discourse external of progressing women’s voting rights. On a final note, whether a proposition of an Enlightenment philosopher or the heckling of a prominent politician by a suffragette, it is important key arguments for women’s suffrage are not viewed as exclusive to one another but instead an interwoven chronology of agitative and pragmatic action comprising the teleology for gender equality. Only in refusal to settle under patriarchal ideological systems can this journey prevail.