![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
The generally accepted story is that British militant suffragists performed an unexpected and abrupt move away from the feminist movement and towards a fiercely jingoistic nationalist campaign once the war began in 1914. Yet, given the nature of exchanges between Irish and British militant feminists, Irish feminists should not have been surprised by this turn from gender solidarity to English nationalism. In this article, I argue that Irish-British militant feminist entanglements worked to expose the powerful role that English nationalism played in suffrage politics at a time when nearly all the focus was on the disruptive influence of Irish nationalism.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Evan Smith and Matthew Worley for coordinating this special issue. I would also like to thank members of the University of Wollongong’s Centre for Colonial and Settler Studies reading group for their comments on an earlier draft of this paper, especially Jane Carey, Georgine Clarsen, Claire Lowrie, Ben Maddison, Julia Martínez, Frances Steel and Simon Ville.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1. Suffragette is the term coined for members of the militant WSPU. Members of the militant body, the IWFL, also sometimes used the word when referring to themselves. However, I tend to use suffragette sparingly and instead employ militant suffragist with a national prefix in this article in order to more clearly delineate between Irish and British militants.
2. Hannam, Auchterlonie and Holden, International Encyclopedia of Women’s Suffrage, 325. For a discussion of the complicated and contentious relationship between the Independent Labour Party and women’s suffragists, particularly the WSPU, see Purvis, Emmeline Pankhurst, especially 65–78 and 79–95.
3. The first group of Irish women to be imprisoned in Ireland for their militancy consisted of eight women: Hanna Sheehy Skeffington, Margaret Murphy, Jane Murphy, Marguerite Palmer, Marjorie Hasler, Kathleen Houston, Maud Lloyd, and Hilda Webb. They were arrested in Dublin in June 1912 for throwing stones through the windows of government offices. However, prior to this, in 1910 and then again in 1911, Irish women, including IWFL co-founder, Margaret Cousins, were imprisoned in England for participating in protests organised by the WSPU. See Murphy, Political Imprisonment and the Irish, 14.
4. Ward, “Conflicting Interests,” 127–147.
5. Ryan, “Traditions and Double Moral Standards,” 490; and, Ryan, “A Question of Loyalty,” 21–32.
6. See Fletcher, “Women of the Nations, Unite!”, 103–120. Elizabeth Crawford has published a reference guide that looks at the Irish suffrage movement as one of the regional campaigns within the larger British and Irish movement. I am not inclined to view the Irish movement as simply a regional branch of the overall combined British and Irish campaign, as I argue in this paper. Crawford has also explored the differences between the British and Irish points of view in an unpublished conference paper available on her Blog site. See Crawford, ‘Suffrage Stories’. Also see Kelly, “Irish Suffragettes”.
7. Hage, White Nation.
8. Here I am applying an understanding of transnationalism as the movement of people, institutions and ideas across and through national boundaries. See Iriye, “Transnational History,” 212; Tyrrell, “Comparative and transnational history,” 49; and, Curthoys and Lake, “Introduction,” 6–20.
9. In the 1990s, a number of important works examined the international dimension of women’s activism and interrogated shared and diverse understandings of feminism within that international context. See, for example: Tyrrell, Woman’s World; Sinha, Guy and Woollacott, “Feminism and Internationalism,” 345–600; and, Rupp and Taylor, “Forging Feminist Identity,” 363–386.
10. See, for example, Paisley, “Introduction,” 272.
11. For example, see Blackwell, Briggs and Chiu, “Transnational Feminisms,” 4–6. Earlier scholars of ‘Third World’ feminisms also cautioned against overlooking difference in feminist historiography. See, for example, Mohanty, “Under Western Eyes,” 333–358. While others stressed the complexities of Western women’s involvement in imperial and colonial sites. See Chaudhuri and Strobel, Western Women and Imperialism’.
12. Krishan Kumar refers to the UK as England’s internal empire. See Kumar, “Nation and Empire,” 575–608.
13. For example, see Gibney, “Early Modern Ireland,” 172–182.
14. For a detailed discussion of whether or not the Northern Irish conflict was an anti-colonial conflict, see Miller, “Colonialism and Academic Representations of the Troubles,” 3–39.
15. For general histories of the Irish suffrage campaign, see Owen, Smashing Times; and, Murphy, The Women’s Suffrage Movement. In 2018, Margaret Ward’s and Louise Ryan’s 2007 edited collection, Irish Women and the Vote, was revised and republished to coincide with the centenary anniversary of the granting of limited woman suffrage in Britain and Ireland. For more nuanced discussions of the competing national and gendered loyalties, see: the previously mentioned ‘Conflicting Interests’ article by Ward. See also: Murphy, “Suffragists and Nationalism,” 1009–1015; Ryan, “Traditions and Double Moral Standards,” 490; and, Ryan, “A Question of Loyalty,” 21–32. In Women of the Dáil, 12, Jason Knirck argues that decisions about whether to pursue nationalist or feminist goals first was not about the ultimate desirability of one over the other but about ‘timing and priority’. For a detailed discussion on the differences of women’s nationalism in Ireland, see Ward, Unmanageable Revolutionaries; and, more recently, Pašeta, Irish Nationalist Women.
16. I am drawing on terminology that is in current usage—‘multi-cultural’ and ‘multi-racial’—to clarify the WSPU’s vision of the UK. It declared that the UK was a ‘blend of races’ and argued that it was the different cultural characteristics of the Anglo-Saxons, on the one hand, and the Celts, on the other, that gave it its distinctive balance in temperament. This is discussed in greater detail later in the article.
17. “Lack of Patriotism a Disease!,” Britannia 5, no. 27 (14 April 1916), 165 (Listed Nineteenth Century Collections Online (Gale) as The Suffragette).
18. McClintock, “Family Feuds,” 77.
19. For example, for a discussion of how fear of imperial decline coloured much anti-suffrage commentary, see Crozier-De Rosa, “Marie Corelli’s British New Women,” 416–429.
20. Hall, “Going a-Trolloping,” 180.
21. Kumar, “Nation and Empire,” 575 and 591; Marks, “History, the Nation and Empire,” 115–117; and Porter, The Absent-Minded Imperialists, 243–244.
22. Young, The Idea of English Ethnicity, 232.
23. Ibid., 6.
24. Ibid., 45.
25. Luke Gibbon traces some of the debates over ‘race’ in Irish-British exchanges and argues that, whatever scholars now think of such claims to racial status, many forms of Irish cultural nationalism were predicated on notions of race and that such claims to racial distinctiveness prevented a substantial proportion of the Irish community from becoming citizens of the Empire. See Gibbons, “Race Against Time,” 207–223.
26. Young argues that ethnicity came to replace race as a category of classification in the mid-twentieth century, following the atrocities of the Nazi regime. See Young, The Idea of English Ethnicity, 232.
27. Young, The Idea of English Ethnicity, 237–8.
28. Wellings, “Empire-nation,” 95–109.
29. Quoted in DiCenzo, Feminist Media History, 1.
30. Purvis, Emmeline Pankhurst, 195.
31. See, among other histories, Murphy, The Women’s Suffrage Movement, 76; and Crawford, The Women’s Movement, 261.
32. For articles published in Votes for Women demonstrating Irish support for the WSPU prisoners in Ireland and another by Hanna Sheehy Skeffington on being imprisoned for militancy, see “The Suffragists in Mountjoy Prison, Dublin.” Votes for Women 5, no. 233 (23 August 1912), 765. For an account of the discussions leading to the decision to support the moves for political status of the imprisoned English militants and the divisions this caused within the IWFL, see Murphy, Political Imprisonment and the Irish, 11–33.
33. See “Intermittent Torture of Suffragists.” Votes for Women 6, no. 278 (4 July 1913), 590.
34. For a discussion of how Irish nationalist feminists accused English militants of being dishonourable feminists during the war, see the chapter on ‘War and the Dishonourable British Feminist’ in Crozier-De Rosa, Shame and the Anti-Feminist Backlash, 131–164.
35. “Holding the Balance of Power.” Votes for Women 3, no. 96 (7 January 1910), 233.
36. See, for example, “An Irishwoman’s View.” Votes for Women 3, no. 102 (18 February 1910), 32.
37. “Ulster Will Fight.” Votes for Women 4, no. 143 (2 December 1910), 138.
38. “The Right of Rebellion.” Votes for Women 5, no. 216 (26 April 1912), 470. One month later, Votes for Women reported that both Mr Birrell, Chief Secretary for Ireland, and renowned Ulster Unionist, Sir Edward Carson, had asserted that Unionists would fight for their civil liberties and that the English public would endorse that fight. See “Inciting to Militancy.” Votes for Women 5, no. 219 (17 May 1912), 523.
39. “Violent and Lawless Action.” Votes for Women 5, no. 229 (26 July 1912), 700.
40. Ibid.
41. “The Women’s Fight in Ireland.” Votes for Women 5, no. 239 (4 October 1912), 851.
42. “Yielding to Force.” Votes for Women 7, no. 314 (13 March 1914), 364. Votes for Women expressed outrage in 1914 when WSPU offices were raided but not those of Unionist leader, Carson, despite evidence that he was inciting treason. See “Belfast Offices Raided.” Votes for Women 7, no. 318 (10 April 1914), 424; and “The Outlook.” Votes for Women 7, no. 321 (1 May 1914), 465.
43. “The Betrayal of Ireland.” Votes for Women 6, no. 259 (21 February1913), 298.
44. “Tim Healy’s Zoo.” Votes for Women 7, no. 314 (13 March 1914), 357.
45. “Handing on the Torch.” Votes for Women 3, no. 106 (18 March 1910), 387. Irish suffragists had also invited Emmeline Pankhurst to visit the island which she did in 1910 and again in 1911. See accounts of her visit: “Mrs. Pankhurst in Ireland.” Votes for Women 4, no. 135 (7 October 1910), 4; “Mrs. Pankhurst in Ireland.” Votes for Women 4, no. 138 (28 October 1910), 53; and, “Mrs. Pankhurst in Ireland.” Votes for Women 4, no. 162 (14 April 1911), 463.
46. “Mr. Birrell to Receive a Deputation.” Votes for Women 4, no. 138 (28 October 1910), 53.
47. “Dublin Notes: Dublin Militants.” Anti-Suffrage Review, no. 46 (August 1912), 188. For an extended discussion of the perceived effects of feminist militancy on Irish codes of chivalry, see Crozier-De Rosa, Shame and the Anti-Feminist Backlash, 204–210.
48. “Woman Suffragists and Irish Home Rule.” Votes for Women 45, no. 189 (20 October 1911), 41.
49. Ibid., 41.
50. “Irish News.” Votes for Women 6, no. 273 (30 May 1913), 514.
51. The Irish Citizen, established in 1912 by Margaret and James Cousins and Hanna and Francis Sheehy Skeffington, avowed that it was a paper whose intentions were to represent Irish suffragism, as distinct from the campaign in England. Within months of its establishment, the paper reported that it was selling perhaps 3,000 copies per week with a readership of over 10,000. See Murphy, The Women’s Suffrage Movement, 34.
52. In 1909, for example, she issued a call of arms to Irish women: arm yourselves to defend your country and do not trust the ‘problematic chivalry’ of men to protect you and your country. See “Editorial Notes.” Bean na hEireann 1, no. 9 (July 1909), 8.
53. The Bean na hEireann was the organ of Inghinidhe na hEireann (Daughters of Ireland), a radical nationalist, pro-militant women’s group that was to later merge with Cumman na mBan, the women’s wing of the Irish Republican Army. For recent works examining the women’s press in Ireland around this time, see: Crozier-De Rosa, “Shame and Anti-Feminist Politics,” 346–359; Innes, “A voice in directing the affairs of Ireland,” 146–158; Louise Ryan, “The Irish Citizen, 1912–1920,” 105–111; Steele, Women, Press, and Politics; Tiernan, “Tabloid Sensationalism,” 74–87; and Columbus, “Bean na h-Éireann”.
54. Accounts of Markievicz’s militancy can be found in any of the histories of revolutionary Irish women cited in this article. For particular reference to the argument that Markievicz’s memory has contributed to the historical amnesia about most other revolutionary women, see McCoole, No Ordinary Woman, 16; and Matthews, Renegades, 9. See also Steele, “Constance Markievicz,” 62–79.
55. “The Women of ’98” (By Constance de Markievicz). The Irish Citizen 4, no. 256 (November 1915), 150.
56. “The Future of Irishwomen” (Speech delivered by Countess Markievicz at IWFL Meeting, October 12th). The Irish Citizen 4, no. 23 (23 October 1915), 137.
57. For example, see Ward, Unmanageable Revolutionaries; Urquhart, Women in Ulster Politics; Cullen and Luddy, Female Activists; McCoole, No Ordinary Woman; Ryan & Ward (eds.). Irish Women and Nationalism; Matthews, Renegades and Matthews, Dissidents; Pašeta, Irish Nationalist Women.
58. Markievicz was also feminist in her aspirations. She was the first woman ever elected to the British House of Commons in 1919, although she refused to take her seat because of Sinn Féin’s policy of abstentionism.
59. For a more detailed discussion of nationalist feminist approaches to invoking a renewed sense of ancient Irish nationalism, see Crozier-De Rosa, “Shame and Anti-Feminist Politics”, 355–359.
60. “Sparks From The Anvil of War” (by Margaret E Cousins). Irish Citizen 3, no. 17 (12 September 1914), 132.
61. “Women’s Rights.” The Irish Citizen 3, no. 12 (8 August 1914), 93.
62. “Current Comment: A Contrast.” The Irish Citizen 3, no. 20 (3 October 1914), 153.
63. For an extended discussion of Irish feminist militants’ defence of their violence, see the chapter “The Shame of the Violent Woman” in Crozier-De Rosa, Shame and the Anti-Feminist Backlash, 193–230.
64. “The Movement in Ireland” (by F. Sheehy Skeffington). Votes for Women 4, no. 140 (11 November 1910), 83.
65. “Irish Women and Mr. Birrell.” Votes for Women 4, no. 142 (25 November 1910), 132.
66. That Irish women had been left out of legislation that would have allowed English and Scottish women membership of County and Borough Councils brought home to the Irish the fact that until they fought on their own accord. The franchise would not necessarily be extended to them. The IWFL had established to achieve this end.
67. See above 64.
68. “Concerning Christabel.” The Irish Citizen 3, no. 21 (10 October 1914), 166.
69. “Correspondence.” The Irish Citizen 3, no. 20 (3 October 1914), 155.
70. Ibid.
71. “The W.S.P.U. in Ireland.” The Irish Citizen 1, no. 17 (17 September 1912), 130. Elizabeth Crawford has discussed this article in her blog. See Crawford, “Suffrage Stories”. For a brief discussion of the Irish Citizen’s response to the 1912 WSPU actions, see Crawford, The Women’s Movement, 267.
72. “The W.S.P.U. in Ireland.” The Irish Citizen 1, no. 17 (17 September 1912), 130.
73. “Correspondence.” The Irish Citizen 3, no. 20 (3 October 1914), 155. This sentiment was repeated, for example, one year later when militant suffragist, M. K. Connery, writing to the Irish Citizen, asserted: ‘I would like to also point out that Miss Pankhurst, though admirable in her own country, which she thoroughly understood, has never founded or led anything in Ireland.’ See “Correspondence”, The Irish Citizen 3, no. 38 (6 February 1915), 290.
74. See above 69.
75. See above 68.
76. The Pethick Lawrences continued to campaign and to publish Votes for Women during the war but, as explained earlier, the Pankhursts channelled their energies into the war effort and transformed the WSPU paper, The Suffragette, into the much more jingoistic Britannia.
77. “Ireland and the German Peril.” Britannia 1, no. 11 (17 August 1917), 84. This is an extract from a speech that Christabel Pankhurst gave at Queen’s Hall on 26 July 1917 which was first printed in the paper on 3rd August and reprinted by request later in the month.
78. “Ireland and the German Peril.” Britannia 1, no. 11 (17 August 1917), 84. Many of these sentiments, including those ascribed to Meyers, were repeated later in the year. See “German Designs on Ireland.” Britannia 1, no. 14 (7 September 1917), 111; and, “German Designs on Ireland.” Britannia 1, no. 21 (26 October 1917), 162.
79. “Ireland and the German Peril,” Britannia 1, no. 11 (17 August 1917), 84.
80. Ibid.
81. Ibid.
82. Ibid.
83. “Ireland and the German Peril’, Britannia 1, no. 11 (17 August 1917), 84. Later that year, Britannia announced that the radical nationalist movement in Ireland was not really a distinctly Irish movement. Along with other disruptive movements like Leninism in Russia and MacDonaldism in England (referring to the Labour policies of Ramsay MacDonald), it was simply part of a global phenomenon leading towards chaos and the breakdown of order. See “German Designs on Ireland.” Britannia 1, no. 14 (7 September 1917), 111.
84. McClintock argues that as nineteenth-century Britain viewed woman’s subordination to man and child’s to adult as ‘a natural fact,’ then ‘the family’ was as useful image to summon when referring to other ‘natural’ hierarchies—‘the ‘national family,’ the global ‘family of nations,’ the colony as a ‘family of black children ruled over by a white father’. McClintock, “No Longer in a Future Heaven”, 91.
85. Hage, White Nation, 88.
86. For a discussion of this discourse of ‘enrichment’, see Hage, 94.
87. Hage, White Nation, 99.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Sharon Crozier-De Rosa
Sharon Crozier-De Rosa is a Senior Lecturer in History at the University of Wollongong. She researches the intersections between emotions, nationalism, imperialism, and feminism, with a focus on violent/militant women. She is the author of Shame and the Anti-Feminist Backlash: Britain, Ireland and Australia, 1890-1920 (Routledge 2018) and Remembering Women’s Activism, co-written with Vera Mackie (Routledge 2018).