Friday, December 2, 2016

BBC: The Story of Women and Power (2015, 2016)


The Story of Women and Power




The Story of Women and Power – a mini-series in three parts about the struggle for women’s rights in England and Britain – was shown on British television (BBC) in 2015 and released on DVD in 2016. Here is some basic information about it:

** Produced and directed by Rupert Edwards
** Written and presented by Amanda Vickery
** Run time: 3 x 50 minutes = 150 minutes

Amanda Vickery (born 1962) is professor of early modern history at Queen Mary, University of London. She is the author of several books and articles. Her mini-series The Story of Women and Art was shown on British television (BBC) in 2014 and released on DVD in 2015.

In this series, she says she wants to tell us “the untold history of the suffragette struggle.” The word “untold” is unfortunate. The history of the suffragette movement is not untold. During the last one hundred years, it has been told many times and in many different ways. In books and articles, in documentary films and even in movies such as Suffragette (2015).

The word “untold” is used in the beginning of episodes 1 and 2. But in the beginning of episode 3, the word is left out. This time she simply says she wants to tell us “the history of the suffragette struggle.” This is what she should have said each time.

Episode 1 opens with the case of Emily Davison and the derby at Ascot. The very first words we hear tells us the date of the derby: 4 June 1914. It is wrong. The correct date is 4 June 1913. It is most unfortunate that episode 1 begins with a wrong date.

In episode 3, Amanda Vickery returns to the case of Emily Davison and the derby at Ascot. This time she has the right date. This makes me wonder: if the knows the right date in episode 3, why does she give us a wrong date in episode 1?

Many people are involved in a modern television production. How come not a single one of them noticed this fault? The case of Emily Davison is famous in the history of the suffragettes. And Amanda Vickery knows this topic very well. How could she get it wrong?

Opening the mini-series with a wrong date is not a good thing. Fortunately, this is not typical for this account of the suffragette struggle. Most of the time, Amanda Vickery offers facts which are correct and relevant as well as opinions which are interesting.

Not all opinions are her own. During the program, several experts are interviewed and they offer opinions as well, but Amanda Vickery has chosen experts with whom she can agree. There is no interview with anyone who does not agree with her. This choice of experts can be regarded as a flaw.

The three episodes follow a chronological line:

** Episode 1 begins in the 1640s
** Episode 2 begins in 1837
** Episode 3 begins in 1909

As you can see, Amanda Vickery begins her story long before there was a formal and organised movement for women’s rights. This is because she wants to trace the origins of the organisations that were established in the 19th century.

If you ask me, she has chosen some good examples. She will focus on a specific person, organisation or group. She will go to the location where this particular event took place, and she will show us a document that was produced at the time or she will have an interview with a person who is an expert on this case.

It is a good approach, a good method, because it means that history is not only told, it is also shown. She deals with the visual aspect in a good way. Let me offer a few examples:

In episode 1 we have:

** The levellers, a political movement which existed during the English Civil War in the 1640s
** The Duchess of Queensberry, 1701-1777
** Mary Wollstonecraft, 1759-1797
** Hannah More, 1745-1833
** Mary Hilton, who was executed in 1772

In episode 2 we have:

** Caroline Sheridan Norton, 1808-1877
** Harriet Taylor (1807-1858) and John Stuart Mill (1806-73)
** Josephine Butler, 1828-1906
** Philippa Fawcett, 1868-1948
** The match-girls’ strike of 1888
** Emmeline Pankhurst (1858-1928) and Christabel Pankhurst (1880-1958)

In episode 3 we have:

** Marion Wallace Dunlop, 1864-1942
** Emily Davison, 1872-1913
** An interview with Fern Riddell, author of a book about Victorian times
** An interview with Martin Pugh, author of a book about the Pankhurst family
** An interview with Gail Newsham, author of a book about female football players

Many accounts about the suffragette movement end in 1918 when women finally got the vote. This account does not end in 1918, because the “victory of 1918” was in fact quite limited: all British women did not get the vote in 1918. You had to be 30 years old and you had to own property. What about women who were younger than 30? What about women who did not own any property? They were still excluded!

Ten years later, in 1928, British women over the age of 21 were finally allowed to vote on the same terms as men. And even then, the right was given reluctantly, not as something women deserved, but only as something women were given in order to shut them up.

During the 19th century, while British women struggled for the right to vote, all British men did not have the right to vote either. The right to vote was only granted in stages. The number allowed increased step by step. Each time more men were given the vote, women complained that they were still completely excluded. But the all-male government and the all-male parliament refused to listen to them.

Britain’s first female prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, is also mentioned. She was a woman, but she did not do anything to promote the rights of women in society. She was as tough as the men around her. She had absolutely no female agenda.

Once the right to vote had been secured, it was time to look at other rights: what about women’s salary? Many women were paid less than men, even if they were performing the same job. Equal pay for equal work is still a demand that is waiting to be fulfilled in all places.

At the end of episode 3, Amanda Vickery sums up the situation: “Equal rights may have been won, but equal status and equal power remain much more elusive.”

With the benefit of hindsight we can see that giving women the right to vote did not change the world much. Many women did not vote at all, even though they were allowed to do so. Many women voted the same way as their fathers or their husbands, so when all the votes were cast, the result was not very different from what it had been before when no woman was allowed to vote.

The stubborn refusal to let women vote, including the violent response to women’s peaceful campaigns, had been meaningless. There was no need to be afraid of the female voters. Many women were just as conservative as men.

Society did not collapse when women were given the right to vote. It only meant that society was slightly more just than before when they were excluded from the vote – just because of their gender.

Some women were driven to use violent means in the campaign. They did this because they were getting nowhere when they used peaceful means. The violent campaign is also discussed in this program: smashing windows and burning down the houses of male politicians. We can understand why this happened, but we do not have to condone the methods used.

One particular method of protest that was used by some women is not covered in the program: a woman would chain herself in a public place and start talking about women’s rights. The police would try to remove her, but because she was chained this could not be done immediately. This gave the woman time to explain her ideas. People could stand around and listen to her.

This method was quite efficient. It had other advantages as well: it did not involve destruction of property. It did not put other people at risk. If there was any brutality involved, it was done by the police.

From a moral point of view, this method was much better than smashing windows or burning down the houses of male politicians. But it is never discussed – it is not even mentioned - in this program. The failure to mention or discuss this method must be regarded as a flaw.

What do reviewers say about this program? On IMDb it has a rating of 71 per cent, which corresponds to 3.5 stars on Amazon. If you ask me, this average rating is a bit too low. Amanda Vickery has created a passionate, personal and powerful program about the suffragette struggle. On the other hand I cannot go all the way to the top with this product, because it has some flaws. I have to remove one star because of them. Therefore I think this program deserves a rating of four stars.

If you are interested in the history of the modern world – in particular the history of women’s rights – this program is definitely something for you.

PS. For more information about some of the cases covered in this program, see the following books:

** Mary Wollstonecraft and the Feminist Imagination by Barbara Taylor (2003)

** Hannah More: The First Victorian by Anne Stott (2003, 2004)

** The Criminal Conversation of Mrs Norton by Diane Atkinson (2012, 2013)

** Josephine Butler by Jane Jordan (2002, 2007)

** Striking a Light: The Bryant and May Matchwomen and their Place in History by Louise Raw (2009, 2011)


*****



No comments:

Post a Comment