homework What effect did force feeding have on the suffragette cause in Uk?

Question

did it make it worse or better?

Answer 1

First, I wish someone would explain to me how forcing someone to actually EAT when they are deliberately starving themselves can be construed as "torture"!

From a practical standpoint, forcing them to eat PREVENTED them from starving to death, and so KEPT the suffragettes from gaining a propaganda point. In that sense it undercut this particular effort. I'm not sure "made it worse" is the whole story, but I do not believe it made it any better.

That is, I sincerely doubt this episode did much at all to help the cause of the suffragettes. More than that, it appears that WHOLE radical tack of this group --unlike that of the moderate, mainstream suffragists whose goals they shared-- undermined the cause of women's suffrage in Britain. In particular, it undercut political support for it in Parliament (which, after all, was making the decision!)

In fact, it appears that the 'slow and steady' pressure of the 'mainstream' suffragists, along with an appreciation of women's contributions to the war effort --and NOT the antics of the suffragists -- were keys to the final winning of suffrage for women AFTER World War I.

For that matter, f you look at the whole trajectory of the expanding franchise in Britain (America too), it had been gradually moving toward women's suffrage for some time (indeed in America several states had it in the late 19th century). But it was all a complicated move --including questions about WHICH women would be given the vote (note that not long before that many MEN did not have it either!) and how that might affect the relative strength of the political parties. You might think it the RIGHT thing to expand th franchise, but fear it could hurt your ability to govern and achieve your goals.

(Isn't it obvious that a party might hesitate at such a change, or debate its exact terms, if a misstep might give the OTHER party and its goals a bit boost?)

Answer 2

The effects were probably mixed:

Brought struggle to attention of wider national audience.
Forced more people to take cause seriously, as it became clear dying for the cause was not just hollow talk.
Forced more open public and media debate of a) the issue and b) the methods being used (by both the suffragettes and the authorities).
Wider international audience/sympathy for the imprisoned.
Made government look heavy-handed and out of touch.


Hope this helps! :-)

Answer 3

It varied. Most males thought it was fair enough as these women were stupid enough to get themselves imprisoned, then hunger striking, which obviously causes death. These people likely thought they were being fed due to their own idiocy. However, those sympathetic to the cause will have their beliefs enforced, as they were being shown how badly treated women were being, and so ensured they did want suffrage for them, just in order to stave off this sort of torture.