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