In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the fight for women’s voting rights was well in motion. Emmeline Pankhurst’s “Why We Are Militant” and Almorth Wright’s The Unexpurgated Case Against Woman Suffrage offered insights into the fight for and against justices while imploring opposing viewpoints on the matter. Pankhurst led women in demonstrations, passive resistance, and hunger strikes in Great Britain. “Why We Are Militant” was a speech she delivered in the United States as an appeal (Perry 218). On the other hand, Wright was a successful physician that opposed women’s rights; he thought that women had disabilities that would make suffrage impossible, and believed that women’s suffrage was a recipe for social disaster (Perry 222). The
…show more content…
As stated previously, Pankhurst thought that hostility was necessary in order for women to achieve equal rights. Wright introduced “sex-hostility”; he said that women became this way because they were unmarried and sexually frustrated. He also warned that the suffrage movement would allow women to become economically independent (Perry 223). Pankhurst thought of violence as the only thing that could help progress the movement, whereas Wright believed hostility would have a negative impact on the movement. It is intriguing how both authors use the concept of hostility in completely opposite …show more content…
She argued that women should have a voice in the parental rights and the future of the child after risking her life to carry it (Perry 219). She believed that this right would be hugely revolutionary in the lives of women. Wright thought that a woman being independent and unmarried was one of the worst things that could happen for the women’s suffrage movement. He identified the excess female population of England as a problem. He grouped unmarried women into a group and labeled them as feminists, claiming their ambition would not stop at demands for equal pay (Perry 223). It is interesting that Wright mentioned equal pay, because in Pankhurst’s speech she claims that men receiving higher wages than woman as an additional injustice. She said, “Take the industrial side of the question: have men’s wages for a hard day’s work ever been so low and inadequate as are women’s wages today?” (Perry 220). This was historically significant because the wage gap was not addressed before the women’s suffrage
As stated previously, Pankhurst thought that hostility was necessary in order for women to achieve equal rights. Wright introduced “sex-hostility”; he said that women became this way because they were unmarried and sexually frustrated. He also warned that the suffrage movement would allow women to become economically independent (Perry 223). Pankhurst thought of violence as the only thing that could help progress the movement, whereas Wright believed hostility would have a negative impact on the movement. It is intriguing how both authors use the concept of hostility in completely opposite …show more content…
She argued that women should have a voice in the parental rights and the future of the child after risking her life to carry it (Perry 219). She believed that this right would be hugely revolutionary in the lives of women. Wright thought that a woman being independent and unmarried was one of the worst things that could happen for the women’s suffrage movement. He identified the excess female population of England as a problem. He grouped unmarried women into a group and labeled them as feminists, claiming their ambition would not stop at demands for equal pay (Perry 223). It is interesting that Wright mentioned equal pay, because in Pankhurst’s speech she claims that men receiving higher wages than woman as an additional injustice. She said, “Take the industrial side of the question: have men’s wages for a hard day’s work ever been so low and inadequate as are women’s wages today?” (Perry 220). This was historically significant because the wage gap was not addressed before the women’s suffrage