The Role of Emmeline Pankhurst in gaining women the vote (in Britain) has been hugely exaggerated

Firstly, with all due respect to my opponent, you have not proven that she hasn't been exaggerated in her role of gaining women the vote, you have provided a statement of what she did during her life, a short biography if you will! Firstly, there is a phrase you use that I would like to focus on, the idea that the suffragettes "gained much notoriety for its activities". I would be inclined to agree! However, in this case at least though I would say that "notoriety" carries many negative connotations with it, and certainly did to a number of prominent British politicians of the time. Winston Churchill for example, a figure with whom I'm sure we are all familiar, quickly changed his mind on women's suffrage (gaining of the vote) after the suffragettes whipped him at Bristol Temple Meads shortly after getting off his train. Attacks like this by the suffragettes did get peoples attention, but did little to aid their cause in gaining suffrage. In fact, it strengthened one of the British politicians key arguments against women! The thought that women didn't deserve the vote was a popular one among many men and some women (including Queen Victoria herself), by committing such brutal acts, Emmeline Pankhurst's suffragettes played into the hands of these politicians by showing themselves as "brutal" and "savage", an image that much of the media were quite happy to give them. One example being the Morning Post, that openly stated "Nothing could indicate more plainly their lack of fitness to be entrusted with the exercise of political power". It is true that they were in the public eye, but not in a positive light. Building upon this, you may find it interesting to hear that the number of votes in favour of women gaining the vote went DOWN as the suffragettes gradually got more violent, with the number of voters in their favour dropping rapidly after they began bombing MP's houses and burning churches. I think Lloyd George, a prominent figure in politics who soon became Prime Minister, sums up the countries view beautifully when he said "Haven"t the Suffragettes the sense to see that the very worst way of campaigning for the vote is to try and intimidate a man into giving them what he would gladly give otherwise?" when speaking in 1913. When the suffragists were at work peacefully before Pankhurst founded the WSPU, the number of votes in their favour was steadily rising. Emmeline Pankhurst did not aid women in their war for the vote, she was a curse that destroyed their chances at an increasingly quick rate! Finally, does it appear significant to you that women over 30 gained the vote in 1918 when the Representation of the People Act was passed? I have a sneaking suspicion something else significant happened in 1918... something that had affected the entire world over the 4 previous years... OF COURSE! World War One! Just a coincidence, I think not! The Suffragettes shut down their protests over the course of the War as women were needed to help Britain. This, I would argue, is the defining moment that really pushed women into the forefront of politicians minds. It was hard to ignore the outstanding work of the WRENS and other organisations of women that were producing weapons, aiding the army and farming the land. The commitment and determination showed by the women of Britain destroyed all the old arguments of "Women can't work as effectively as men" and "Women don't aid Britain in war, why should they have the vote?". Politicians had little choice but to give women the vote at the end of the war, and for many it was a pleasure to reward these women. Emmeline Pankhurst and her suffragettes had no effect on this, even calling off their protests was merely a formality considering that most women left to be with their families anyway. To conclude, despite the consistent praise given to Emmeline Pankhurst about her skills as a leader and speaker and her role of gaining women the vote is unfair and inaccurate. We have overwhelming evidence to show that politicians, the media and the general public weren't happy with the methods of Pankhurst and it put many off the idea of women's suffrage. Ironically, it was when Emmeline Pankhurst stepped out of the limelight and stopped her ways that women actually did gain the vote! World War One and the collective work of the women in Britain are what gained suffrage for women in Britain, not Panhurst. Sources: http://www.bristolpost.co.uk... http://www.johndclare.net... http://www.parliament.uk...