Suffragettes vs Suffragists: Did violent protest get women the vote?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- This week marked the 100th year anniversary of women's suffrage in the UK. But was it the violent protest of the Suffragettes or the peaceful campaigning of the Suffragists that won women the vote in 1918?
Subscribe to us and get more videos from Channel 4 News
/ channel4news
![Run Away - Tzuyu(TWICE) ツウィ 쯔위 [Music Bank] | KBS WORLD TV 240906](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KnHNNyAYiu0/mqdefault.jpg)
Don't mind me, just doing my homework.
same bro
Yep!
Same
Who isn’t ?
yup
Hello my history class
hiii even though i dont know u
Hello I’m doing this over I’m England, anyone else?
@@sugawarasbeautymark777 Meee
Me 3
Same
who else is here from online school?
Elliot Shaw meh
emeee
Meeee
For real social change, you must use BOTH a carrot and a stick. My favourite example, is the black rights' movement in the US in the 60s. Everyone largely credits Dr. MLK Jr with spearheading and winning change for African-Americans. But actually, without the threat of Malcolm X and the Black Panthers, the white establishment would not have been interested in MLK. The polite NAACP had campaigned for decades previous and won little to nothing. Yes, they would not have negotiated with the Black Panthers directly (too much optic and ego issues). But they were scared of them and MLK used that to his advantage - he directly said: "If you don't negotiate with me, you will be forced to deal with the Black Panthers". I believe that if it wasn't force the violence of the Suffragettes, the Suffragists may not have been so successful.
If there are any young people reading this: think about this and think about Climate Change.
You're 💯 correct
this is why i wonder why the suffragettes are praised while the black panthers are demonised
must be how ghandi achieved change too....
The suffragettes were not responsible for women gaining the vote. In fact their actions delayed women getting the vote because parliament did not want to look weak by cowing to violence. What gained women the vote was their vital contribution to WW1 as well as ordinary working women taking the time to explain to MP's why they needed the vote. In the end it was the suffragists not the suffragettes who negotiated with the government to pas the suffrage act of 1918.
Moreover neither Malcolm X nor the Black Panthers ever threatened violence against those who disagreed with them they only argued for self defense. Moreover the Black Panthers were only formed in 1966 after the civil rights act(1964) and the voting rights act(1965) had been passed so your point about Martin Luther King using them as a bargaining chip is wrong.
In short you are advocating for Eco terroror. Creating the Problem with a Solution. Peaceful Eco.
Sorry no. People have seen through the BS of just atop Oil after they've stopped traffic for emergency vehicles and lead to unwanted outcomes thanks to them.
This type of stuff causes big fights in my class anyone else?
I wish I could thank all the woman who went to prison and risked their life just for the right to vote❤️❤️❤️
What? 🤣 This just proves how crazy and unrational these women were
Men didn’t have the right to vote 2 years before women so stfu 😂
@@traxagenda3445Yes because men never did violent things to get voting rights. How many people died in the French Revolution?
@@man4437 0
@@traxagenda3445 you sad fool
Still looking for the part where they werent given the right to vote because back then (1914-18) it was also required you were drafted/enlisted in order to be given a right to vote. Horrible war that one was. We lost generations of our best men to both wars. It ruined europe as a whole honestly..
As a french student, this video is very interesting thank you !
Wowsers! I'd always thought the Suffragette movement was peaceful and non violent. Plus I never knew they were actually a militant version of the other main group The Suffragits.
Puts the Black Lives Matter movement into perspective
The Suffragists were peaceful and non-violent, and the the non-peaceful offshoot was Suffragettes :)
@Tudor Miller
That’s called propaganda. None of the movements were peaceful. Women’s rights, civil rights, Black Lives Matter, independence movement (India, South Africa etc. ). But they were all portrayed as such. They all started out peaceful, but usually a part of the group always created a separate group, usually more aggressive. Newspapers favored the peaceful leaders and vilified the aggressive ones. Heck, ever notice how the aggressive ones always got murdered when they fought for the downtrodden? Lincoln, JFK, Gandhi, Malcolm X, MLK Jr., Subhash Chandra Bose etc. Even some of the peaceful ones got taken out when they got too close to the goal.
Every revolution in history has VERY similar foot print. Every dictatorship as well.
Letter bombs
Real bombs
Suicide
Assult
Manslaughter
Murder
Arson
Those are the most worst examples I could find
also in america the suufergettes never won as far as i know only 3% of the 500,000 women voted YES but the reason we are shown they won is beacsue 3 of the women who supported the suffergetes deeply even giving huge donations to the movement had deep connections with powerful people because not only were they super rich themselves ( they got their money from their husbands) but were also into the occult and secret societies.
50% of these comments: WhO's HErE FroM oNLiNe ScHoOL?
fax
No
Some many people talking about riots and violence dont solve anything. Yes they do, as do all revolutions.
No they don't, they tear all that was previously built and leave trails of blood in their path.
@@vostokcosomonaut5205 did you even watch the video? women were throwing themselves in front of trains because when they tried to make changes the "civil" way and it did nothing.
@@iloveio7698 Wrong. There were Both Peaceful and violent Movements. But the violent movement ended up making the peaceful movement more appealing to get there cause.
People have analyzed this and history. Most Revolutions actually FAIL rather than succeed.
And violent Movements also fail as well when they don't have a peaceful counterpart as the government simply brutally crushes it as they should
@@vostokcosomonaut5205 - Changing is demanding, and people won’t change without the right incentive.
Fear is a powerful incentive.
Governments respect dangerous people, not people who walk around with candles and flowers.
From blood and ashes, new societies are born.
@@iloveio7698those acts changed nothing either, the first world war and the mass slaughter of millions of men did. While the suffragettes were shaming men who didn't go to their deaths with white feathers. How ironic.
Thank you! Very informative.
woah this comment section sure is messy, oof
In Great Britain violence was part of it yes, but not everywhere. The vote came to women in different ways in different nations over decades.
Does anyone not know what they’re saying cuz they are looking through the comments
yeah.
Planting bombs was her way of protesting. The kings horse saved more lives than it took that day.
I love these lessons but not my teacher😤🤮
So many teachers destroy kids love for subjects. Listen to John Taylor Gatto
so, how's Cathy these days?
Disgusting how these women gave men the feathers. My father was presented with the feathers.
He sired a feather.
I urge people to go read the book “fire in the minds of men”.
What’s it about?
@@God.sDaughter dinny ken Mary
There was more "fluidity" as she likes to call it between the Suffragettes and the Fascists, Pankhurt herself went on to endorse ethnic cleansing and the use of concentration camps.
Here doing homework lol
Same
Hello yr 9
hello there :)
👋
Hello my friend
The year 9s have taken control.
That's not deserved 🗿
Based 🗿
The courage of all those women in Britain who wouldn't give up the fight to correct a terrible injustice - particularly in the face of such violent and often cruel opposition - never ceases to amaze me. I have recorded dome the stories of suffragists and suffragettes here: ruclips.net/video/-Rimy8IiMJ8/видео.html
If we didn't use violence
They would have never listened to us
Are you from Portland, Oregon?
A very good point.
YOU'RE RIGHT
um no, it would've taken longer for women to get the right to vote, over all that violence effected peoples lives
What was the social construct that put European and American women a generation and more, behind Australian women?
Nope. World war 1 did.
Hainesy 4Head in your mind maybe, but I don't know why you think that because it took another 10 years of Women quietly lobbying before all women over 21 got the vote. So, you answer is wrong. The war only presented an opportunity to women because the men coming back from the war, whether property owners or not, got the vote. two years later, women over the age of 30 and only those who owned property, got the vote due to the lobbying done by the suffragists... did you not watch and comprehend the video?
"1,000 suffragettes were imprisoned" Yeah, if you use violence, you *should* be locked up. This dude is so sheltered; Its scary.
Umm... what? Not everyone who was imprisoned was violent, that's the point.
Yeah right. Only the state should be allowed to use violence
@@evavega474 the vast majority of imprisoned suffragettes were released from prison the next day.
Peaceful protestors or women who disrupted political meetings were arrested. Some were sexually assaulted by the police, look up Black Friday. Women who went on hunger strike in prison were force-fed, a horrible procedure now considered torture. Some were sexually assaulted in the course of force-feeding. Not to mention that almost all of the acts were property damage with a side of reckless endangerment of human life. That attempt to kill Asquith was an exception, as far as I know. The other acts that were most extreme as far as I know were the bombing of empty buildings.
@@arianrhodhyde7482 If peaceful protestors were arrested, it is usually becase they were swept up with the non-peaceful protestors, i.e., the vandals and destroyers of public property, of whom there were a goodly number among the WSPU.. Suffragettes who were jailed for any length of time were jailed for vandalism, destruction of property, or endangerment of life and limb, not for political protest. As such they were not entitled to go on hunger strike and were force-fed: it would have been political suicide for the gov't to have a woman's blood on its hands. All the antics of the WSPU achieved nothing except getting women's suffrage a bad name. The NUWSS organized scores of peaceful protests, never resorted to violence, and were rarely if ever arrested for anything. They were far more effective in bringing about women's suffrage, mainly through patient manipulation of parliamentary means (because, yes, the woman's suffrage had increasingly wide support among MPs, especially liberals).
The probulm is they Took away the scocal accountability.
It was terrorism
The short answer is yes
You could not be both ……not if you’re poor …you then had one choice
Hi my history class , even though I watch this for fun
Im done with all these homeworks💀
The suffragette movement in the UK was violent, but it wasn't in the US where peaceful protest was the tactic. Both ended with the same result around the same time. So its hard to say which was better. But overall, its been known that violence isn't effective. Martin Luther King proved that by setting a policy of nonviolence resistance during the civil rights movement in the 1960s which demonstrated that nonviolence is a far more effective tactic.
There was various movements done prior before Martin Luther king jr., it’s just that television and maurderism really captivated many, therefore making it less unorthodox to unfold equality.
Tu saoule ton commentaire il est faux
i think the violence in one area convinced the rest. seeing how bad it could get i think it grabbed the attention of other governments that if they dont give in to this then they get what Britain had. Martin Luther King wasnt the only one fighting for poc rights however, there were so many doing the work with him so i dont think we can say for certain that his method was 100% what made them ban the jim crow laws however he did help make substantial progress.
Sure, Jan.
yooo can u write an essay about this for me uwu
No argument at all against terrorism in that film.
So what you are really asking (and merely using the Women's movement as a vehicle) is
"Does violent protest get ?"
and suggesting that very much it does. That the end justifies the means.
It would certainly cause more chaos and unhappiness which you can report on (with faux indignation) in the CHANNEL 4 MISERY HOUR.
They literally point out that it wasn't working and that most people are uncomfortable with the idea
Philip Parker, the presentation does NOT show that violent protest got, or contributed to getting, women the vote in 1918. After a period of decline , the WSPU ceased all terrorist activtities in 1914. Then five years passed, and then women got the vote. So terrorism had little or nothing to do with it.
ruclips.net/video/_q66HFoFztk/видео.html
@@bradwalton8373 Please tell that to the people here in the comments cheering that terrorism and revolution brings about change.
same here
im just doin hw
Hello everyone!
HELLO
who else is here from 8.5
No.
Maybe. There's no way to know.
Please bring Jordan Peterson back to completely destroy another one of your “journalist”. I need another good laugh.
hi history class from weavers
Yooo
2:39 Yeah!
Hello people in 8SMO, I am in your class but who am I?
Your Womb gave you the right to vote, and now that you refuse to share it, it will cost you a country.
Who caresss
Hello U3SG
so what is the difference.
The Suffragists act legally, trying to convince the MP’s and the public opinion to change about the
vote for women, whereas the Suffragettes act with violence.
Go, women!!!!!
What do you mean
No
PEEPEEPOOPOO
Doing history...
Online school
One of the better presentations on Women's suffrage that I've seen on RUclips, with about as little feminist distortion and propaganda as one could reasonably expect. However, as usual, the suffragettes receive more emphasis than the suffragists, which is more emphasis than they deserve. The suffragists, whose leader, Millicent Fawcett, had fought for women's suffrage for 51 years, was the organization that seized the opportunities of 1916-18 and ACTUALLY got women the vote. Of course, they piggy-backed on the extension of the men's franchise, which men had earned by their service in WW1. Feminists have NEVER acknowledged the millions of fighting men whose sufferings and deaths were the occasion of women receiving the parliamentary franchise.
Brad Walton: My Grandmother served in WWI as a nurse. That’s the only military service women were allowed, then. It’s ridiculous to criticize women for lack of military service, if they’re prohibited by law from doing so!
As I feminist I acknowledge that women were not allowed to fight in the army for a very long time
I’m very confused. Men didn’t get the right to vote for fighting in ww1. They got it for simply being men. How did they piggy back on the extension of male franchise? Women got the vote after decades of fighting for it, not because of men dying in a war that has nothing to do with suffrage at all. This is so ahistorical and sexist is actually quite sad.
Reform Act 1884 - this brought the voting population to 5,500,000, although 40% of males were still disenfranchised because of the property qualification. I think we can agree that 60% of men is still better than 0% of women. While it is true that some poor men couldn't fully express their right to vote, neither could black men and most women of all races until much later (both in the us and uk)
And most importantly why do you have to suffer or work hard to have a basic human right? What exactly have you done to deserve the right to vote? It’s actually disgusting how you think people don’t deserve basic human rights just because they don’t fight in wars they didn’t create
You’re also so blind to the fact that women have faced discrimination and sexism and were excluding for even enter the military until 1948. The 1994 rescinding of the 1988 “Risk Rule” allowed women to serve in all positions except those engaged in direct ground combat roles. Please do research
@@Joyparadart
I stilk dont see women going to the army in big numbers. Seems women aren’t attracted to the idea
Where's the same equal, legal, civic & human rights for #DISABLED #SPECIALNEEDS & #TERMINALLYILL people as seen with #WOMENRIGHTS
Robbie within all of those categories, both genders exist. You are diluting the issue itself by throwing up other issues. Of course people with disabilities deserve rights too. That doesn't alter the fact that women are entitled to rights.
they're aren't as high on the oppression hierarchy
Ils peuvent bosser les deux clowns en sweat à côté de moi ?
?
hi sg
Hi 😂
lol school
egg
Hello U3AB
Me
......
Hi my english class :)
victorious corinnakopf tashacobbs amazon inrangetv
ee woo waa
Yooooo
hello 8.2
jpegmafia vinny acneremoval fightsong dimash nbaontnt pranks
vivalavida ebay jayz
Hi class?
Lyce condorcet on est la
women☕
I do strongly recommend we pay tribute to the JOCKEY who suffered so much pain afterwards that he took HIS OWN LIFE ❤
Except this isn't true is it? The jockey was called Herbert Jones. The incident took place in 1913 and he lived until 1951. True, he committed suicide but only after becoming deaf, suffering two strokes and enduring long boughts of depression. He laid a wreath to honour Emily Davison and his son made absolutely clear that she played no role in his decision to take his own life decades afterwards.
@@sequoyah4794 Still, she could have seriously injured the horse and have it had to be put down.
@@CaptainBones222 "Could have" but didn't. The horse's name was Anmer. News reports from the time made clear Anmer was unhurt. The race took place in 1913. We know that in 1916 the King presented Anmer to the Canadian Government to breed horses for the Army.
@@sequoyah4794 Yeah, but that was just luck. What was Emily Davison thinking putting the Horse's life in potential danger?
@@CaptainBones222 If you step in front of a horse running at 35 miles an hour, I don't think it's the horse who is most at risk. As for what she was thinking, I imagine she was reflecting on the injustice of denying women the vote and hoping to raise attention to that cause. She clearly wasn't trying to hurt the jockey or the horse. And if even the jockey who was injured could find it within him to commemorate her, I would suggest that pearl clutching in 2024 is rather feeble.
No.
Maybe. There's no way to know.