A few years ago, I read about how Mary Molony was an Irish Suffragette who disrupted a speech Winston Churchill was giving in Dundee by ringing a bell every time he tried to speak. She wanted him to apologise for remarks he had made about the women’s suffrage movement.
I remember when I read this, it reeked of something awesome that you find online that’s actually false (the story was shared on social media via a captioned photo with no sources), so I went digging for a proper source to check. I found some newspaper articles from 1908 and I learned that this event did happen, but also that people fucking hated Molony for this. There was a lot of “see, this is why everyone hates the Suffragettes”. (Sorry for saying this and then not sourcing)
It makes sense that people would be salty - Churchill was an asshole, but also a great orator, so I can see why one might be disappointed in missing the chance to see him speak, but I was shocked at the level of vitriol aimed at Molony and other Suffragettes from the time. Until this I hadn’t realised just how unpopular they were at the time. It’s drastically changed my perspective on protests and public perception.
And what’s interesting is that the suffragists (Millicent Fawcett chief among them) were at the same time working to peacefully lobby for suffrage, and yet they are not remembered remotely as much as the suffragettes.
What I personally believe is that the more militant wings of movements work best when they are bringing into focus something that the public already broadly believes. When people say ‘I agree with their point, but not their methods’, they’re doing a whole lot of discussion of your issue, and agreeing with your message.
At the same time I think you do need the quiet lobbying to be done to effectively push for specific legislation. Both a carrot to offer government an easy path, and a stick to keep it in the public spotlight.
The suffragettes put acid in postboxes, chained themselves to railings, and bombed the Chancellor of the Exchecquer’s house.
A few years ago, I read about how Mary Molony was an Irish Suffragette who disrupted a speech Winston Churchill was giving in Dundee by ringing a bell every time he tried to speak. She wanted him to apologise for remarks he had made about the women’s suffrage movement.
I remember when I read this, it reeked of something awesome that you find online that’s actually false (the story was shared on social media via a captioned photo with no sources), so I went digging for a proper source to check. I found some newspaper articles from 1908 and I learned that this event did happen, but also that people fucking hated Molony for this. There was a lot of “see, this is why everyone hates the Suffragettes”. (Sorry for saying this and then not sourcing)
It makes sense that people would be salty - Churchill was an asshole, but also a great orator, so I can see why one might be disappointed in missing the chance to see him speak, but I was shocked at the level of vitriol aimed at Molony and other Suffragettes from the time. Until this I hadn’t realised just how unpopular they were at the time. It’s drastically changed my perspective on protests and public perception.
And what’s interesting is that the suffragists (Millicent Fawcett chief among them) were at the same time working to peacefully lobby for suffrage, and yet they are not remembered remotely as much as the suffragettes.
What I personally believe is that the more militant wings of movements work best when they are bringing into focus something that the public already broadly believes. When people say ‘I agree with their point, but not their methods’, they’re doing a whole lot of discussion of your issue, and agreeing with your message.
At the same time I think you do need the quiet lobbying to be done to effectively push for specific legislation. Both a carrot to offer government an easy path, and a stick to keep it in the public spotlight.