What do you think?
Rate this book
My Own Story
Emmeline Pankhurst was raised in a world that valued men over women. At fourteen she attended her first suffrage meeting and returned home a confirmed suffragist. Throughout her career she endured humiliation, prison, hunger strikes and the repeated frustration of her aims by men in power but she rose to become the guiding light of the Suffragette movement. This is Pankhurst’s story, in her own words, of her struggle for equality.
338 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1914
429 people are currently reading
4165 people want to read
About the author
Emmeline Pankhurst
45 books58 followersEmmeline Pankhurst was a British political activist and leader of the British suffragette movement who helped women win the right to vote. In 1999 Time named Pankhurst as one of the 100 Most Important People of the 20th Century, stating: "she shaped an idea of women for our time; she shook society into a new pattern from which there could be no going back."
By Topical Press Agency, photographer unknown - Hulton Archive - Getty Images, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index...
By Topical Press Agency, photographer unknown - Hulton Archive - Getty Images, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 261 reviews
Read
August 24, 2018Nothing to celebrate ?
I'd be lying if I claimed to be a fan of Madame Pankhurst and her gang, but given the centenary of the Representation of the Peoples Act (1918), and the fact that a steeply discounted copy of her book flaunted itself wantonly before my eyes for a mere fifty pence I willingly undertook to see how self-serving her memoir was.
I found it a hugely entertaining and worthwhile read, although towards the end the lengthy accounts of trials for all their rhetorical sparkle was a little wearisome.
It is a memoir written in 1914, after the outbreak of war in Europe, for an American audience, in order to raise funds for the cause, on the up side this means that Pankhurst explains aspects of the British political system and the history of the movement for women's suffrage which may well be obscure not only to the American of 1914 but also to the contemporary reader (curiously at that period if a MP was appointed a Minister it triggered a by-election allowing constituency voters a veto or to endorse the decision). On the downside it is narrowly political book (for example she does not mention the death of her husband who had been a supporter of women's suffrage and had defended them in court, nor does she mention her withdrawal from the Labour Party in 1907) and designed to serve the ends of the movement which she founded, the Women's Social and Political Union, better known as the Suffragettes as they were dubbed by the Daily Mail which even then delighted in attempting to belittle and demean those who disagreed with it's editorial line.
a family quarrel
One of the elements of the cause which came through strongly was that of a family quarrel, Pankhurst's parents and husband were supporters of the Liberal party, one of her early memories is of campaigning for the Liberals by raising her green skirt to reveal her red petticoat - green and red were the party colours at the time, one can see in this an early fondness for 'deeds not words', but also a mismatch between action and desired outcome. Anyhow that her personal connections were strongly Liberal makes disappointment a defining note of her memoir - her own party had let her down, and part of what she was doing was showing up the illiberalism of the Liberal Party leadership, of the leadership because part of her narrative tells of how there were repeated cross party majorities among MPs for women's suffrage even to the point of private members bills or amendments to other bills that pass their first and second readings only to be brought down by the government. Asquith at first chancellor of the Exchequer, them Prime Minister until 1916 was a firm opponent of women's suffrage while others, like Lloyd George and Winston Churchill, declare themselves in favour but will not break ranks with Asquith and so earn the particular opprobrium of the suffragettes. At the same time a family quarrel among the Pankhursts is hidden from the reader, while daughter Christabel is mentioned through and credited for her intelligence and ingenuity, daughter Sylvia is mentioned once and that in a footnote. In 1914 Christabel performed a strategic flip and moved from a policy of war against the British government to complete support, Sylvia called her a Tory , and the quarrel was never resolved. Sylvia politically felt that Socialism would lead to equality and so drifted deeper in to the Labour party, while Christabel and Emmeline believed that equality would lead to Socialism, Adela Pankhurst doesn't get a look in ( see here, they were an interesting bunch, just a little too interesting maybe for Mama Pankhurst to comfortably cope with.
The Labour Party was another disappointment, Pankhurst in her pre-WPSU years had been backed by the Labour grouping for election as a Poor Law supervisor and to her local school board, she was also a Fabian but although Kier Hardy and George Lansbury are praised, the Labour MPs by 1914 along with the Home Rule Irish MPs, were propping up a weak Liberal administration and not leveraging their position to win suffrage for women (Redmond, the Home Rule group leader was apparently opposed to giving the vote to women). Pankhurst was "convinced of the futility of trusting to political parties" (p.16).
after a hundred years, everything still looks oddly familiar
Although Pankhurst declares that the WPSU will narrowly pursue the objective of votes for women, even on a very limited franchise, running through her story are frequent if sometimes implicit references to why women need the vote, structural and institutional biases against women, low wages, women's poverty - ie family poverty,unequal treatment in the law courts, the unjust treatment of women in workhouses and in prisons- Pankhurst is particularly upset listening to a woman give birth in the prison hospital - sexual predation of women and girls by men followed by punishment for the soon to be unmarried mother. Pankhurst's conception, very crudely expressed, of the superiority of women as practical creatures, as humane and compassionate mangers, holds within it the conception of women's suffrage and Parliamentary representation as something revolutionary which will bring about a fair and just society - getting the vote was not the desired end state, merely a necessary step towards a bigger goal which we might conceive as a more feminine administration and government. Therefore reforming measures including Lloyd- George's 'Childrens Charter' and National Insurance scheme are criticised for criminalising women for being poor and for the unequal provision of benefits respectively. And incidently there was a minority government propped up by Irish votes. Plus ça change...
Neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals were anti-women as such, both invented organisations which involved women in supporting the parties in fund raising and campaigning - the Primrose league for the Tories there was an equivalent Liberal body with a less memorable name. there were also some women opposed to women's suffrage
strategy
I was hoping to learn more of the thinking behind Suffragette strategy, but it turns out this is the wrong book for that - although Mother Pankhurst founded the WPSU and appeared frequently as its public matriarchal face, daughter Christabel seems to have replaced her pretty early on as strategic director, perhaps as early as page 45 depending on your edition!
Pankhurst frames her movement for women's suffrage as a war, the Salvation Army is an organisational model, Pankhurst desires absolute obedience from her supporters so that when first Suffragettes throw stones through Downing street windows the women apologise to Mrs Pankhurst for acting without orders. She repeatedly stresses that men's votes were won through violence, believing that rioting or the threat of rioting won earlier extensions to the franchise.
I am not convinced that she was correct in her analysis, in the British case arguments over the franchise were extremely stressful but within political parties. Troops were deployed to menace and overawe the Chartists just as police were deployed against striking coal miners in this period and later after WWI, soldiers fired on striking South Wales coal miners (Winston Churchill was involved in that too ) I didn't read anything here to shake me from my view that the issue of women's suffrage was as Max Planck is paraphrased as saying one in which change occurred due to one funeral at a time with the ousting of Asquith as Prime Minister (but not Party Leader) and the eventual Liberal Party split it was possible to legislate for votes for some women off the back of extending the franchise to all men over 21 in 1918, I suspect purely as a result of generational change. Women's suffrage had been repeatedly before Parliament since the days of John Stuart Mill - who Pankhurst mentions in her brief account of Suffrage movements before her time although she forgets the role of Mills' not-wife Harriet Taylor. What they did achieve was to capture the imagination. Reading Pankhurst, she gives the impression that Women's suffrage was dead in the water until she came along and revived it, other suffrage groups she admits existed, but they are portrayed as stirred into action by her, riding on her coat tails, and responding to her initiatives (even when they act before her group). Somehow I doubt that Millicent Fawcett would tell the same story, but it is a political memoir and that's to be expected.
Having said that it would be stupid to think that events progress in a certain direction forever delivering greater freedoms and getting closer to equality and fraternity, the highly visible tactics of the WPSU no doubt helped keep the issue in the forefront of minds even if they did not directly win the vote.
The WPSU true to Pankhurst's framing pursued their political objectives in a warlike manner - even when arrested and imprisoned, rather than this representing control by state power - no it is simply a new battlefield, the women refuse to wear prison uniform or to obey prison rules and talk to each other while exercising, they hunger strike. In a foreshadowing of WWI it becomes a war of attrition.
authority
The essence of the story seems to me to be about authority, the WPSU challenged both the liberal aspirations of a reforming Liberal administration and the authority of the government as an institution. 1909 saw the defeat of the 'Peoples budget' in the House of Lords which led to the Parliament Act (1911) giving the commons legal superiority over the House of Lords, the same Liberal administration which advanced itself as the champion of the people against the inherited and established privileged classes was being shown up as simply another form of entrenched power seeking to conserve its own authority and privilege.
Although having said that the movement looks to have been largely upper middle and upper class in character with supporters even in the House of Lords, so it is another family quarrel so to speak, within the ranks of the privileged, even if it did have a certain anarchic potential.
The denial on the part of the Suffragettes of the legitimacy of government authority coupled with Pankhurst's insistence on violent struggle as the only way to bring about change points forward to Ghandi in South Africa and India, or the IRA prisoners on Hunger Strike, and anti-colonial struggles broadly, impressive amounts of state violence end not in an assertion of state power but in discrediting the state - use of police, and mounted police, raids on the WPSU newspaper, force feeding fail to stop Suffragette activities and ran the risk of rebounding on the government - the purpose of all this use of force was mostly to prevent bands of activists presenting petitions to Parliament or to Downing Street. How it would have played out but for the advent of international war I can't imagine - it was a struggle that plainly took a toll on the Suffragettes - the force feeding was horrific and many seem to have been permanently damaged either by that or through hunger striking. An added and continual complication was the parallel struggle for Irish Home rule, civil war in Ireland delayed by the outbreak of a general European war. The downfall of Parnell due to his womanising hanging in the background of Ulysses as the fall of Troy does in the Odyssey, the first woman to be elected to the UK parliament was Constance Markievicz, as she was on the Sinn Fein ticket she did not take her seat, but further suggesting the uncomfortable entanglement of the movements for Irish and Women's independence in fin de siecle Britain.
I'd be lying if I claimed to be a fan of Madame Pankhurst and her gang, but given the centenary of the Representation of the Peoples Act (1918), and the fact that a steeply discounted copy of her book flaunted itself wantonly before my eyes for a mere fifty pence I willingly undertook to see how self-serving her memoir was.
I found it a hugely entertaining and worthwhile read, although towards the end the lengthy accounts of trials for all their rhetorical sparkle was a little wearisome.
It is a memoir written in 1914, after the outbreak of war in Europe, for an American audience, in order to raise funds for the cause, on the up side this means that Pankhurst explains aspects of the British political system and the history of the movement for women's suffrage which may well be obscure not only to the American of 1914 but also to the contemporary reader (curiously at that period if a MP was appointed a Minister it triggered a by-election allowing constituency voters a veto or to endorse the decision). On the downside it is narrowly political book (for example she does not mention the death of her husband who had been a supporter of women's suffrage and had defended them in court, nor does she mention her withdrawal from the Labour Party in 1907) and designed to serve the ends of the movement which she founded, the Women's Social and Political Union, better known as the Suffragettes as they were dubbed by the Daily Mail which even then delighted in attempting to belittle and demean those who disagreed with it's editorial line.
a family quarrel
One of the elements of the cause which came through strongly was that of a family quarrel, Pankhurst's parents and husband were supporters of the Liberal party, one of her early memories is of campaigning for the Liberals by raising her green skirt to reveal her red petticoat - green and red were the party colours at the time, one can see in this an early fondness for 'deeds not words', but also a mismatch between action and desired outcome. Anyhow that her personal connections were strongly Liberal makes disappointment a defining note of her memoir - her own party had let her down, and part of what she was doing was showing up the illiberalism of the Liberal Party leadership, of the leadership because part of her narrative tells of how there were repeated cross party majorities among MPs for women's suffrage even to the point of private members bills or amendments to other bills that pass their first and second readings only to be brought down by the government. Asquith at first chancellor of the Exchequer, them Prime Minister until 1916 was a firm opponent of women's suffrage while others, like Lloyd George and Winston Churchill, declare themselves in favour but will not break ranks with Asquith and so earn the particular opprobrium of the suffragettes. At the same time a family quarrel among the Pankhursts is hidden from the reader, while daughter Christabel is mentioned through and credited for her intelligence and ingenuity, daughter Sylvia is mentioned once and that in a footnote. In 1914 Christabel performed a strategic flip and moved from a policy of war against the British government to complete support, Sylvia called her a Tory , and the quarrel was never resolved. Sylvia politically felt that Socialism would lead to equality and so drifted deeper in to the Labour party, while Christabel and Emmeline believed that equality would lead to Socialism, Adela Pankhurst doesn't get a look in ( see here, they were an interesting bunch, just a little too interesting maybe for Mama Pankhurst to comfortably cope with.
The Labour Party was another disappointment, Pankhurst in her pre-WPSU years had been backed by the Labour grouping for election as a Poor Law supervisor and to her local school board, she was also a Fabian but although Kier Hardy and George Lansbury are praised, the Labour MPs by 1914 along with the Home Rule Irish MPs, were propping up a weak Liberal administration and not leveraging their position to win suffrage for women (Redmond, the Home Rule group leader was apparently opposed to giving the vote to women). Pankhurst was "convinced of the futility of trusting to political parties" (p.16).
after a hundred years, everything still looks oddly familiar
Although Pankhurst declares that the WPSU will narrowly pursue the objective of votes for women, even on a very limited franchise, running through her story are frequent if sometimes implicit references to why women need the vote, structural and institutional biases against women, low wages, women's poverty - ie family poverty,unequal treatment in the law courts, the unjust treatment of women in workhouses and in prisons- Pankhurst is particularly upset listening to a woman give birth in the prison hospital - sexual predation of women and girls by men followed by punishment for the soon to be unmarried mother. Pankhurst's conception, very crudely expressed, of the superiority of women as practical creatures, as humane and compassionate mangers, holds within it the conception of women's suffrage and Parliamentary representation as something revolutionary which will bring about a fair and just society - getting the vote was not the desired end state, merely a necessary step towards a bigger goal which we might conceive as a more feminine administration and government. Therefore reforming measures including Lloyd- George's 'Childrens Charter' and National Insurance scheme are criticised for criminalising women for being poor and for the unequal provision of benefits respectively. And incidently there was a minority government propped up by Irish votes. Plus ça change...
Neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals were anti-women as such, both invented organisations which involved women in supporting the parties in fund raising and campaigning - the Primrose league for the Tories there was an equivalent Liberal body with a less memorable name. there were also some women opposed to women's suffrage
strategy
I was hoping to learn more of the thinking behind Suffragette strategy, but it turns out this is the wrong book for that - although Mother Pankhurst founded the WPSU and appeared frequently as its public matriarchal face, daughter Christabel seems to have replaced her pretty early on as strategic director, perhaps as early as page 45 depending on your edition!
Pankhurst frames her movement for women's suffrage as a war, the Salvation Army is an organisational model, Pankhurst desires absolute obedience from her supporters so that when first Suffragettes throw stones through Downing street windows the women apologise to Mrs Pankhurst for acting without orders. She repeatedly stresses that men's votes were won through violence, believing that rioting or the threat of rioting won earlier extensions to the franchise.
I am not convinced that she was correct in her analysis, in the British case arguments over the franchise were extremely stressful but within political parties. Troops were deployed to menace and overawe the Chartists just as police were deployed against striking coal miners in this period and later after WWI, soldiers fired on striking South Wales coal miners (Winston Churchill was involved in that too ) I didn't read anything here to shake me from my view that the issue of women's suffrage was as Max Planck is paraphrased as saying one in which change occurred due to one funeral at a time with the ousting of Asquith as Prime Minister (but not Party Leader) and the eventual Liberal Party split it was possible to legislate for votes for some women off the back of extending the franchise to all men over 21 in 1918, I suspect purely as a result of generational change. Women's suffrage had been repeatedly before Parliament since the days of John Stuart Mill - who Pankhurst mentions in her brief account of Suffrage movements before her time although she forgets the role of Mills' not-wife Harriet Taylor. What they did achieve was to capture the imagination. Reading Pankhurst, she gives the impression that Women's suffrage was dead in the water until she came along and revived it, other suffrage groups she admits existed, but they are portrayed as stirred into action by her, riding on her coat tails, and responding to her initiatives (even when they act before her group). Somehow I doubt that Millicent Fawcett would tell the same story, but it is a political memoir and that's to be expected.
Having said that it would be stupid to think that events progress in a certain direction forever delivering greater freedoms and getting closer to equality and fraternity, the highly visible tactics of the WPSU no doubt helped keep the issue in the forefront of minds even if they did not directly win the vote.
The WPSU true to Pankhurst's framing pursued their political objectives in a warlike manner - even when arrested and imprisoned, rather than this representing control by state power - no it is simply a new battlefield, the women refuse to wear prison uniform or to obey prison rules and talk to each other while exercising, they hunger strike. In a foreshadowing of WWI it becomes a war of attrition.
authority
The essence of the story seems to me to be about authority, the WPSU challenged both the liberal aspirations of a reforming Liberal administration and the authority of the government as an institution. 1909 saw the defeat of the 'Peoples budget' in the House of Lords which led to the Parliament Act (1911) giving the commons legal superiority over the House of Lords, the same Liberal administration which advanced itself as the champion of the people against the inherited and established privileged classes was being shown up as simply another form of entrenched power seeking to conserve its own authority and privilege.
Although having said that the movement looks to have been largely upper middle and upper class in character with supporters even in the House of Lords, so it is another family quarrel so to speak, within the ranks of the privileged, even if it did have a certain anarchic potential.
The denial on the part of the Suffragettes of the legitimacy of government authority coupled with Pankhurst's insistence on violent struggle as the only way to bring about change points forward to Ghandi in South Africa and India, or the IRA prisoners on Hunger Strike, and anti-colonial struggles broadly, impressive amounts of state violence end not in an assertion of state power but in discrediting the state - use of police, and mounted police, raids on the WPSU newspaper, force feeding fail to stop Suffragette activities and ran the risk of rebounding on the government - the purpose of all this use of force was mostly to prevent bands of activists presenting petitions to Parliament or to Downing Street. How it would have played out but for the advent of international war I can't imagine - it was a struggle that plainly took a toll on the Suffragettes - the force feeding was horrific and many seem to have been permanently damaged either by that or through hunger striking. An added and continual complication was the parallel struggle for Irish Home rule, civil war in Ireland delayed by the outbreak of a general European war. The downfall of Parnell due to his womanising hanging in the background of Ulysses as the fall of Troy does in the Odyssey, the first woman to be elected to the UK parliament was Constance Markievicz, as she was on the Sinn Fein ticket she did not take her seat, but further suggesting the uncomfortable entanglement of the movements for Irish and Women's independence in fin de siecle Britain.
March 27, 2017
Thank god we have people like Emmeline Pankhurst that existed in the world! What an inspiring and true pioneer of her generation so dedicated to the suffrage cause and paving the way for future generations of women. Incredible story of perseverance, of ardent passion and how a group of committed women incited others to gather together with a single minded purpose. This is an important history lesson that should be compulsory learning, how valuable to teach our young girls the lessons of this courageous group of women that sacrificed so much for the sole purpose of gaining the fundamental franchise of equal voting rights. It's a frustrating read and I was enraged at the obstacles encountered along the way by archaic mysogynist members of parliament who were intent to block all progression of the women's suffrage cause and I can now better understand the extreme measures of militancy these women undertook to get their message across. It was necessary!
As far as the writing it's all business and more a catalogue of factual accounts of the W.S.P.U. movement, you don't learn a lot of her personal life it's all about her political position and the actions and events that transpired between 1889 to 1914 at the commencement of the first World War where a temporary truce was agreed to. I personally was a tad bored with all the specifics, as the parliamentary side of things were explained in minute detail, although the standout for me was one of her impassioned speeches at one of her trials that was utterly brilliant and amazing but the rest of it I was left unable to connect on a personal level, but regardless my level of respect grew enormously after reading this book. We owe our freedom to these brave women! Hear hear!
As far as the writing it's all business and more a catalogue of factual accounts of the W.S.P.U. movement, you don't learn a lot of her personal life it's all about her political position and the actions and events that transpired between 1889 to 1914 at the commencement of the first World War where a temporary truce was agreed to. I personally was a tad bored with all the specifics, as the parliamentary side of things were explained in minute detail, although the standout for me was one of her impassioned speeches at one of her trials that was utterly brilliant and amazing but the rest of it I was left unable to connect on a personal level, but regardless my level of respect grew enormously after reading this book. We owe our freedom to these brave women! Hear hear!
April 24, 2015
Very surprised to enjoy this so much. I thought I knew all I wanted to about Emmeline Pankhurst. She was probably the first name I learnt in connection with the suffragette movement and arguably the most well known figure. In recent years I've learned more about her life that I didn't like, such as her dismissal of the Pethick-Lawrences, disownment of her two younger daughters, her activism in WW1 and some of her more militant tactics. So what else was there to find out? Quite a lot actually. Aside from being an interesting autobiography about her suffragette work, it was a very in depth, yet easily understood account of government, leaders, legislation and their inner workings. Totally infuriating to read about the sexist, misogynistic attitudes now, but amazing to realise just how much things have changed in 100 years. Certainly more than Emmeline Pankhurst would ever have believed. So I have come away with a new found love and appreciation for Mrs Pankhurst, I still don't agree with many of her decisions, but who am I to criticise her moves and motives from my privileged position in 2015.
January 31, 2021
Raw and Incredibly Brave
“My Own Story” was for me, a primer on women’s suffrage movement of England. The author, Emmeline Pankhurst delivers a unique detailed account of the prejudices against women.
Pankhurst details numerous painful situations like inhuman prison conditions, unjust prison sentences (I.e. 2 months for breaking a $2 window) and even death into this memoir.
A beautiful written; very well researched and very personal. Parts of this story were very painful for me to read because nobody should be treated this unfairly. It was a case of men having all the power—an abuse.
Strong recommendation.
“My Own Story” was for me, a primer on women’s suffrage movement of England. The author, Emmeline Pankhurst delivers a unique detailed account of the prejudices against women.
Pankhurst details numerous painful situations like inhuman prison conditions, unjust prison sentences (I.e. 2 months for breaking a $2 window) and even death into this memoir.
A beautiful written; very well researched and very personal. Parts of this story were very painful for me to read because nobody should be treated this unfairly. It was a case of men having all the power—an abuse.
Strong recommendation.
November 26, 2017
Emmeline Pankhurst, principale rappresentante del movimento delle suffragette, si batté contro l’ostilità del governo che non voleva riconoscere il diritto di voto alle donne.
La protesta, iniziata in modo pacifico interrompendo i discorsi dei rappresentati politici con una domanda ripetuta all’infinito: «Il governo liberale darà il voto alle donne?», non ottenendo che qualche vaga promessa destinata a perdersi nel nulla sfociò in atti di rappresaglia.
Emmeline e le donne del movimento subirono maltrattamenti, arresti, processi e condanne severe.
“ Hanno deciso che per gli uomini è vigliacco e disonorevole restare silenziosamente inerti dinanzi a regole tiranniche che impongono su di loro vincoli di schiavitù, ma che per le donne la stessa cosa non sarebbe vigliacca e disonorevole, solo dignitosa. Bene, le suffragette ripudiano nel modo più assoluto questa doppia scala di valori morali. Se è giusto per gli uomini lottare per la propria libertà – e Dio sa come sarebbe oggi la razza umana se non lo avessero fatto, dall’inizio dei tempi –, allora è giusto anche per le donne lottare per la propria libertà e per la libertà dei figli che portano in grembo.
Gli atti di protesta s’interruppero con l’inizio della Prima guerra mondiale, e il governo rilasciò le militanti incarcerate.
Ma… “… la lotta per la piena emancipazione delle donne non è stata abbandonata; essa è stata, per il momento, semplicemente sospesa. Quando il fragore delle armi cesserà, quando la normale, pacifica e razionale società riprenderà le sue funzioni, la richiesta verrà fatta di nuovo. Se non sarà accordata rapidamente, allora, ancora una volta, le donne prenderanno le armi che oggi hanno generosamente deposto. Non ci potrà mai essere una pace reale sulla terra finché alla donna, la metà materna della famiglia umana, non sarà data libertà nei consessi del mondo.”
In quest’opera autobiografica, Emmeline Pankhurst racconta la sua vita di donna, moglie, madre, fondatrice della “Women’s Social and Political Union”, attivista e simbolo della lotta per i diritti delle donne.
Un libro per le donne che combattono coraggiosamente ogni giorno contro le disparità.
Un libro per gli uomini, perché comprendano, se non l’avessero già capito, chi sono le donne e di cosa sono capaci. To’!
La protesta, iniziata in modo pacifico interrompendo i discorsi dei rappresentati politici con una domanda ripetuta all’infinito: «Il governo liberale darà il voto alle donne?», non ottenendo che qualche vaga promessa destinata a perdersi nel nulla sfociò in atti di rappresaglia.
Emmeline e le donne del movimento subirono maltrattamenti, arresti, processi e condanne severe.
“ Hanno deciso che per gli uomini è vigliacco e disonorevole restare silenziosamente inerti dinanzi a regole tiranniche che impongono su di loro vincoli di schiavitù, ma che per le donne la stessa cosa non sarebbe vigliacca e disonorevole, solo dignitosa. Bene, le suffragette ripudiano nel modo più assoluto questa doppia scala di valori morali. Se è giusto per gli uomini lottare per la propria libertà – e Dio sa come sarebbe oggi la razza umana se non lo avessero fatto, dall’inizio dei tempi –, allora è giusto anche per le donne lottare per la propria libertà e per la libertà dei figli che portano in grembo.
Gli atti di protesta s’interruppero con l’inizio della Prima guerra mondiale, e il governo rilasciò le militanti incarcerate.
Ma… “… la lotta per la piena emancipazione delle donne non è stata abbandonata; essa è stata, per il momento, semplicemente sospesa. Quando il fragore delle armi cesserà, quando la normale, pacifica e razionale società riprenderà le sue funzioni, la richiesta verrà fatta di nuovo. Se non sarà accordata rapidamente, allora, ancora una volta, le donne prenderanno le armi che oggi hanno generosamente deposto. Non ci potrà mai essere una pace reale sulla terra finché alla donna, la metà materna della famiglia umana, non sarà data libertà nei consessi del mondo.”
In quest’opera autobiografica, Emmeline Pankhurst racconta la sua vita di donna, moglie, madre, fondatrice della “Women’s Social and Political Union”, attivista e simbolo della lotta per i diritti delle donne.
Un libro per le donne che combattono coraggiosamente ogni giorno contro le disparità.
Un libro per gli uomini, perché comprendano, se non l’avessero già capito, chi sono le donne e di cosa sono capaci. To’!
November 10, 2020
"...it seemed to me that I had a duty to perform in giving to the world my own plain statement of the events which have led up to the women's revolution in England. Other histories of the militant movement will undoubtedly be written; in times to come when in all constitutional countries of the world, women's votes will be as universally accepted as men's are now ... the historian will be able to sit down in a leisurely fashion and do full justice to the strange story of how the women of England took up arms against the blind and obstinate Government of England and fought their way to political freedom. I should like to live long enough to read such a history."
- Emmeline Pankhurst
Every woman should read this incredible and inspiring book!
- Emmeline Pankhurst
Every woman should read this incredible and inspiring book!
October 9, 2021
Everyone knows the bare facts of the Suffragettes story in the UK – what started as a peaceful protest and campaign for votes for women, becoming ever more militant as demands to be heard were ignored. Reading this account by Emmeline Pankhurst just made my blood boil even over 100 years later. The passive aggression of politicians who refused to answer questions at public talks, not even giving the women their right to be heard. The downright opposition of (previously revered) people like Asquith and Churchill, the lies, and injustice. While men were preaching acts of sedition, violence and armed conflict in Ireland and Ulster and not even being arrested let alone imprisoned for doing so, respectable women were being jailed and force-fed simply for trying to present petitions to parliament.
If I can quote just one passage from the book it is this: “Why is it that men’s blood-shedding militancy is applauded and women’s symbolic militancy punished with a prison cell and the forcible-feeding horror? … men make the moral code and they expect women to accept it … well the Suffragettes absolutely repudiate that double-standard of morals. If it is right for men to fight for their freedom, then it is right for women to fight for their freedom and the freedom of the children they bear.” To illustrate the truth of this, later at Hyde Park the Government permitted the Ulster militants to advocate war and defend bloodshed, whereas the Suffragettes speaker was arrested before she had uttered more than a few words.
I closed this book with incredible admiration for what some of these women endured in order to get the vote. Their treatment by the government of the day went beyond inhumanity. It was barbarous.
If I can quote just one passage from the book it is this: “Why is it that men’s blood-shedding militancy is applauded and women’s symbolic militancy punished with a prison cell and the forcible-feeding horror? … men make the moral code and they expect women to accept it … well the Suffragettes absolutely repudiate that double-standard of morals. If it is right for men to fight for their freedom, then it is right for women to fight for their freedom and the freedom of the children they bear.” To illustrate the truth of this, later at Hyde Park the Government permitted the Ulster militants to advocate war and defend bloodshed, whereas the Suffragettes speaker was arrested before she had uttered more than a few words.
I closed this book with incredible admiration for what some of these women endured in order to get the vote. Their treatment by the government of the day went beyond inhumanity. It was barbarous.
August 30, 2023
"We are here, not because we are law-breakers; we are here in our efforts to become law-makers."
Suffragette and WSPU founder Emmeline Pankhurst begins her autobiography with a short retelling of her early years, awakening to the cause of women's suffrage and becoming politically active. The bulk of this book, however, covers the period between the founding of the WSPU and the militant truce on the eve of WWI.
Pankhurst thoroughly retells and logically explains the WPSU's evolution into a militant movement committed to political, social and industrial equality for women.
Pankhurst remains as relevant and perceptive today as she was over 100 years ago:
"Governments have always tried to crush reform movements, to destroy ideas, to kill the thing that cannot die."
"There is something that governments care far more for than human life, and that is the security of property, and so it is through property that we shall strike the enemy."
This was a slow read because of the Victorian and Edwardian language but well worth it - many of the arguments would not be out of place in current social and political movements.
It was horrifying to read the assault, isolation, imprisonment and torture that these brave women incurred and the sacrifices they made.
So many chills while reading this book, like when Pankhurst, as the general of her army, strategizes: "We had already demonstrated that our forces were impregnable. We could not be conquered, we could not be terrified, we could not even be kept in prison. Therefore, since the Government had lost in advance, our task was merely to hasten the surrender."
This was an amazing read from a master of political and social organizing.
Suffragette and WSPU founder Emmeline Pankhurst begins her autobiography with a short retelling of her early years, awakening to the cause of women's suffrage and becoming politically active. The bulk of this book, however, covers the period between the founding of the WSPU and the militant truce on the eve of WWI.
Pankhurst thoroughly retells and logically explains the WPSU's evolution into a militant movement committed to political, social and industrial equality for women.
Pankhurst remains as relevant and perceptive today as she was over 100 years ago:
"Governments have always tried to crush reform movements, to destroy ideas, to kill the thing that cannot die."
"There is something that governments care far more for than human life, and that is the security of property, and so it is through property that we shall strike the enemy."
This was a slow read because of the Victorian and Edwardian language but well worth it - many of the arguments would not be out of place in current social and political movements.
It was horrifying to read the assault, isolation, imprisonment and torture that these brave women incurred and the sacrifices they made.
So many chills while reading this book, like when Pankhurst, as the general of her army, strategizes: "We had already demonstrated that our forces were impregnable. We could not be conquered, we could not be terrified, we could not even be kept in prison. Therefore, since the Government had lost in advance, our task was merely to hasten the surrender."
This was an amazing read from a master of political and social organizing.
June 17, 2019
Such an important part of our history. Emmeline Pankhurst’s autobiography about her and her fellow Suffragettes’ fight for the vote in the late 19th and early 20th century. How they fought the government and suffered grave injustice and violence that led them to take militant actions, just as men have done before them when the King or government have not listened. Only, the men were celebrated for it while the women were tortured. How they refused to obey laws they had no say in making. How they wanted to be law makers and not law breakers, and eventually succeeded. Read it to know what happened!
March 9, 2018
Most people have heard of Emmeline Pankhurst and her campaign for women's suffrage up to 1914. In this book she gives us her view of it and the reasons for the growing militancy in the WSPU she founded. She wanted representation on the same terms as men in national elections, which is only fair.
The UK electoral franchise before the Great War was very unfair. Only a minority of wealthier men could vote. The Liberal Party, when in power, introduced three Representation of the People Acts, which increased the number of men eligible to vote and extended the franchise across the social spectrum. They wanted representation for all men, without wealth or householder qualification, which is only fair.
The fourth Act gave all adult males (over 21) the right to vote and also extended this right to women over thirty who were registered as resident, married to a resident or a graduate in a university constituency, but it was not passed until 1918. We have David Lloyd George and Millicent Garrett Fawcett to thank for that enormous extension of enfranchisement in the UK. Even after all the deaths in the war and the influenza epidemic, the removal of (most) plural voting and the limitations on women voters, the Act tripled the electorate.
In the unfair electoral situation existing before 1918 the WSPU (from 1903), other women's suffrage groups and the Liberal Party were all working for fairness (as were the Labour Parties). Emmeline Pankhurst opposed universal suffrage because she thought it would never happen. (I would like to think she was not ideologically opposed, but the only Parliamentary candidates she was prepared to endorse were all opposed to it.) She wanted a Women's Suffrage Bill put before Parliament.
Many Liberal MPs supported women's suffrage, but were opposed to the WSPU's plans for limited enfranchisement as giving more votes to wealthy women at the expense of working class men. Attempts were made before the war to couple together demands for increased male enfranchisement and women's enfranchisement, but they all failed and the two groups ended up opposing each other. Neither got their bills through Parliament.
As a believer in democracy, I find disenfranchisement on grounds of wealth or social status iniquitous. As a believer in women's rights, I would have been as frustrated as the women who joined the WSPU at their lack of parliamentary representation. I would not have wanted to choose between them.
A small case study as example:
At the time of the 1918 'Coupon' Election my grandparents were a serving soldier, a pupil-teacher living with her parents in a farm cottage, a very junior merchant seaman and a nursemaid, later nanny. The 1918 Act gave the first three the right to vote in principle, although only the soldier was old enough to do so. The nanny lived in her employer's houses and had to wait until the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act in 1928.
If an Asquith Universal Male Suffrage Bill without any provision for women had become law, my grandfathers would have gained the right to vote when they were 21 in 1917 and 1924, my grandmothers would not.
If Mrs Pankhurst's supporters had introduced a Women's Suffrage Bill on the same basis as male suffrage and it had become law, my grandfathers might have gained the right to vote when they became householders in 1946 and 1929 (I say might because neither of them ever owned their homes), my grandmothers would not. My sailor grandfather was not at sea during the 1930s until he joined the RAF (Air Sea Rescue) during the Second World War, but if he had been my grandmother could have been registered as the householder instead of him and voted in local elections. Under Mrs Pankhurst's bill (but not Mr Asquith's) she could also have voted in national ones, so the last grandparent to be enfranchised under the legislation as actually passed would have been the first.
What did Mrs Pankhurst and the valiant women of the WSPU achieve?
Some historians have sidelined her and even said she delayed women's suffrage, many women feel she got them the vote. She estimated that her proposals would have enfranchised about 500,000 women; Mrs Fawcett's compromise proposal in the 1918 Act enfranchised over 8 million women, along with an addition 6 million men. The 1928 Act, introduced by a Labour government and enacted by a Conservative one, had almost universal support.
There is no escaping the fact that working with the Government enfranchised approximately sixteen to seventeen times as many women as burning down their houses (even if the suffragette campaign had succeeded). Mrs Pankhurst and the WSPU campaign certainly weakened the Liberal government and probably delayed universal male suffrage. They did, however, keep the cause of women's suffrage in the newspapers, which was one of her aims. Some newspapers reported favourably, some unfavourably and some reported gleefully on anything which harmed the Liberal government, but they kept reporting. Lloyd George was in favour of women's suffrage and introduced it as quickly as he possibly could. Keir Hardie, the leader of the emergent Labour Party, was also in favour. WSPU militants attacked both of them, which was either a very poor choice of targets or due to their support for the working-classes of both sexes.
Force-feeding and the Cat and Mouse release and re-arrest measures were discredited after WWI. They were not used on later hunger strikers in prison demanding political status and several were allowed to die. I hesitate to call this a positive achievement, but it did have publicity value.
Edit: I have since read more about the history of the women's suffrage movement and the events that were organised as part of that campaign. Several of the most successful ones mentioned in this book were organised by the NUWSS, not the WSPU. I would have to check the text carefully to see if Mrs Pankhurst explicitly claims otherwise, but she certainly gives the impression that all these women were her supporters.
The UK electoral franchise before the Great War was very unfair. Only a minority of wealthier men could vote. The Liberal Party, when in power, introduced three Representation of the People Acts, which increased the number of men eligible to vote and extended the franchise across the social spectrum. They wanted representation for all men, without wealth or householder qualification, which is only fair.
The fourth Act gave all adult males (over 21) the right to vote and also extended this right to women over thirty who were registered as resident, married to a resident or a graduate in a university constituency, but it was not passed until 1918. We have David Lloyd George and Millicent Garrett Fawcett to thank for that enormous extension of enfranchisement in the UK. Even after all the deaths in the war and the influenza epidemic, the removal of (most) plural voting and the limitations on women voters, the Act tripled the electorate.
In the unfair electoral situation existing before 1918 the WSPU (from 1903), other women's suffrage groups and the Liberal Party were all working for fairness (as were the Labour Parties). Emmeline Pankhurst opposed universal suffrage because she thought it would never happen. (I would like to think she was not ideologically opposed, but the only Parliamentary candidates she was prepared to endorse were all opposed to it.) She wanted a Women's Suffrage Bill put before Parliament.
Many Liberal MPs supported women's suffrage, but were opposed to the WSPU's plans for limited enfranchisement as giving more votes to wealthy women at the expense of working class men. Attempts were made before the war to couple together demands for increased male enfranchisement and women's enfranchisement, but they all failed and the two groups ended up opposing each other. Neither got their bills through Parliament.
As a believer in democracy, I find disenfranchisement on grounds of wealth or social status iniquitous. As a believer in women's rights, I would have been as frustrated as the women who joined the WSPU at their lack of parliamentary representation. I would not have wanted to choose between them.
A small case study as example:
At the time of the 1918 'Coupon' Election my grandparents were a serving soldier, a pupil-teacher living with her parents in a farm cottage, a very junior merchant seaman and a nursemaid, later nanny. The 1918 Act gave the first three the right to vote in principle, although only the soldier was old enough to do so. The nanny lived in her employer's houses and had to wait until the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act in 1928.
If an Asquith Universal Male Suffrage Bill without any provision for women had become law, my grandfathers would have gained the right to vote when they were 21 in 1917 and 1924, my grandmothers would not.
If Mrs Pankhurst's supporters had introduced a Women's Suffrage Bill on the same basis as male suffrage and it had become law, my grandfathers might have gained the right to vote when they became householders in 1946 and 1929 (I say might because neither of them ever owned their homes), my grandmothers would not. My sailor grandfather was not at sea during the 1930s until he joined the RAF (Air Sea Rescue) during the Second World War, but if he had been my grandmother could have been registered as the householder instead of him and voted in local elections. Under Mrs Pankhurst's bill (but not Mr Asquith's) she could also have voted in national ones, so the last grandparent to be enfranchised under the legislation as actually passed would have been the first.
What did Mrs Pankhurst and the valiant women of the WSPU achieve?
Some historians have sidelined her and even said she delayed women's suffrage, many women feel she got them the vote. She estimated that her proposals would have enfranchised about 500,000 women; Mrs Fawcett's compromise proposal in the 1918 Act enfranchised over 8 million women, along with an addition 6 million men. The 1928 Act, introduced by a Labour government and enacted by a Conservative one, had almost universal support.
There is no escaping the fact that working with the Government enfranchised approximately sixteen to seventeen times as many women as burning down their houses (even if the suffragette campaign had succeeded). Mrs Pankhurst and the WSPU campaign certainly weakened the Liberal government and probably delayed universal male suffrage. They did, however, keep the cause of women's suffrage in the newspapers, which was one of her aims. Some newspapers reported favourably, some unfavourably and some reported gleefully on anything which harmed the Liberal government, but they kept reporting. Lloyd George was in favour of women's suffrage and introduced it as quickly as he possibly could. Keir Hardie, the leader of the emergent Labour Party, was also in favour. WSPU militants attacked both of them, which was either a very poor choice of targets or due to their support for the working-classes of both sexes.
Force-feeding and the Cat and Mouse release and re-arrest measures were discredited after WWI. They were not used on later hunger strikers in prison demanding political status and several were allowed to die. I hesitate to call this a positive achievement, but it did have publicity value.
Edit: I have since read more about the history of the women's suffrage movement and the events that were organised as part of that campaign. Several of the most successful ones mentioned in this book were organised by the NUWSS, not the WSPU. I would have to check the text carefully to see if Mrs Pankhurst explicitly claims otherwise, but she certainly gives the impression that all these women were her supporters.
February 6, 2021
Savo laiku Emmeline Pankhurst buvo turbūt pavojingiausia moteris Jungtinėj Karalystėj, sukūrusi kovingą, kriminalinį moterų teisių judėjimą, kurio centre buvo moterų balsavimo teisės iškovojimas. Savo autobiografijoje Emmeline pasakoja apie karingos WSPU organizacijos įkūrimą, kovą su valdžios nenoru pripažinti moterų teises, įvairiausias aktyvizmo strategijas ir kodėl moterys jų ėmėsi. Knygoje daug detalių pasakojimų apie politines aplinkybes ir įvykius, moterų judėjimo veiklą, bet itin mažai pačios Pankhurst asmeninio gyvenimo, kuris buvo labai įdomus ir, deja, savotiškai dramatiškas.
Daug apie sufražisčių veiklą galima sužinoti iš gausių antrinių šaltinių (dabar prileista begalė knygų!), bet asmeniniai liudijimai prideda gylio ir tikrumo: girdėtos ir kitur skaitytos istorijos, papasakotos tą išgyvenusio asmens, tarsi atgyja prieš akis. Pvz., buvo labai įdomu paskaityti apie sufražisčių susidūrimus su jų oponentais Čerčiliu, Lloydu, Asquithu, įstrigo kalėjimuose patirto smurto ir prievartinio maitinimo aprašymai, policijos persekiojimo istorijos ir visos detalės apie pačių moterų keisčiausius ir neįtikėtinus aktyvizmo būdus (padeginėjimai, sprogdinimai, langų daužymai, grafičiai, išpuoliai meno galerijose ir dar daug visko). Knygoj nemažai cituojamos pačios Pankhurst įvairiuose mitinguose sakytos kalbos. Rekomenduočiau turbūt tiems, kas jau yra susipažinę su sufražisčių istorija ir nori geriau suprasti motyvus ir aplinkybes, kaip ir kodėl atsirado šis sufražisčių judėjimas.
Daug apie sufražisčių veiklą galima sužinoti iš gausių antrinių šaltinių (dabar prileista begalė knygų!), bet asmeniniai liudijimai prideda gylio ir tikrumo: girdėtos ir kitur skaitytos istorijos, papasakotos tą išgyvenusio asmens, tarsi atgyja prieš akis. Pvz., buvo labai įdomu paskaityti apie sufražisčių susidūrimus su jų oponentais Čerčiliu, Lloydu, Asquithu, įstrigo kalėjimuose patirto smurto ir prievartinio maitinimo aprašymai, policijos persekiojimo istorijos ir visos detalės apie pačių moterų keisčiausius ir neįtikėtinus aktyvizmo būdus (padeginėjimai, sprogdinimai, langų daužymai, grafičiai, išpuoliai meno galerijose ir dar daug visko). Knygoj nemažai cituojamos pačios Pankhurst įvairiuose mitinguose sakytos kalbos. Rekomenduočiau turbūt tiems, kas jau yra susipažinę su sufražisčių istorija ir nori geriau suprasti motyvus ir aplinkybes, kaip ir kodėl atsirado šis sufražisčių judėjimas.
July 9, 2016
New favourite book ever...
If I could only save three books from a burning building, this volume would be there. (The others...1984 and The Plague Dogs). What an inspirational and captivating account detailing the relentless struggle for suffrage by our more militant ancestresses, as told by Emmeline Pankhurst. With only a scant understanding of the topic previously I was most interested by the depth of the account, in particular understanding the background for the rise of the militant WSPU, borne of frustration from the previous century of peaceful campaigning. Time and time again the 'franchise' question was defeated, avoided or ignored. There was simply no other way. I couldn't put this book down and when I got to the end, I knew that I would read it again and again. Yet Mrs Pankhurst wrote this book in 1914, so I always knew the story would be half finished. I wanted to see through her own eyes the impact of the first world war on the suffrage cause, and hear her own reaction to finally achieving the vote. It was never meant to be an autobiography, and so Emmeline is dispassionate about her family; her children and her late husband (except insofar as his role in the early suffrage campaigns). No, her passionate narration is reserved exclusively and solely for the amazing story of the militant WSPU, just as its' subscribers were exclusively and solely dedicated to a single unaltered goal: VOTES FOR WOMEN!
If I could only save three books from a burning building, this volume would be there. (The others...1984 and The Plague Dogs). What an inspirational and captivating account detailing the relentless struggle for suffrage by our more militant ancestresses, as told by Emmeline Pankhurst. With only a scant understanding of the topic previously I was most interested by the depth of the account, in particular understanding the background for the rise of the militant WSPU, borne of frustration from the previous century of peaceful campaigning. Time and time again the 'franchise' question was defeated, avoided or ignored. There was simply no other way. I couldn't put this book down and when I got to the end, I knew that I would read it again and again. Yet Mrs Pankhurst wrote this book in 1914, so I always knew the story would be half finished. I wanted to see through her own eyes the impact of the first world war on the suffrage cause, and hear her own reaction to finally achieving the vote. It was never meant to be an autobiography, and so Emmeline is dispassionate about her family; her children and her late husband (except insofar as his role in the early suffrage campaigns). No, her passionate narration is reserved exclusively and solely for the amazing story of the militant WSPU, just as its' subscribers were exclusively and solely dedicated to a single unaltered goal: VOTES FOR WOMEN!
September 6, 2021
Five stars for the courageous life she's led. It's not a literary piece of work, it's the account of anger and anguish of a suffragette. It's the tale of millions of brave women fighting for something as basic as right to citizenship. The account exposes the hypocrisy of the male legislators; their polar opposite approach while dealing with male and female militants. People call Mrs. Pankhurst a controversial suffragette, I'd say controversial times require controversial measures.
October 6, 2020
Reading this in 2020 in the midst of the BLM movement is such a wild ride. One of those books that I keep brining up in conversations because it is STILL so relevant today. While people's opinions of Emmeline Pankhurst may be divided, this book was easy to ready, and enjoyable throughout. I couldn't put it down.
October 14, 2025
las memorias de la líder del movimiento sufragista inglés. me parece una lectura totalmente necesaria para todo el mundo.
bastante fácil de leer teniendo en cuenta la carga temática. emmeline pankhurst, tu recuerdo no muere 🩷
bastante fácil de leer teniendo en cuenta la carga temática. emmeline pankhurst, tu recuerdo no muere 🩷
October 17, 2015
As I was going to see Suffragette - in cinemas now, go see it! - I decided upon reading this memoir first. Though I am not afraid of calling myself a feminist, the militant suffragette movement has always troubled me in terms of morality, right and wrong, whether it was truly necessary.
If there is anything this book has managed to convince me of, it is that it was, indeed, necessary. Pankhurst narrates the story from the very beginning, when ideas of suffrage were slowly materialising in a political environment, and the suffrage movement was peaceful and tried to reach their goal through official paths, by supporting and working for political parties and attempting to get a suffrage bill read in parliament. What speaks from these years is a deep sense of frustration, of men considering women's suffrage not a real issue that must be discussed but almost a joke, something that can be treated with glee and ignored at will. It is from this that the militant movement, the WSPU was begun - after twenty years of being ridiculed for their desire for honest political representation, some women realised there were other paths to be taken if women's enfranchisement was ever to become law.
That is the story Pankhurst here tells her reader: how women fought for their right to vote, how they were cast down again and again, how they were abused in the country's prisons, how the government refused to treat them as political prisoners while they were at the same time told to fight like men had fought for their enfranchisement. A deep, deep anger speaks from this text at times, a disappointment in the government, a feeling of being cheated over and over again, a sense of intense unfairness. At the time of writing, 1914, the War had just started, leading to a truce, but there is a bitterness speaking from the pages for fighting so long already, and now having to wait even longer for what is woman's due.
My Own Story made me understrand why the WSPU used civil disobedience as a tool, how destroying property is indeed linked to political campaigning, and how - if the women, perhaps, did go too far - the treatment they received was cruel and inhumane and could but lead to more extreme forms of militancy.
If you know a lot, if you know a little, if you know absolutely nothing about the Suffrage movement in England but would like to get a deeply personal insight into the campaign for women's right, read this book. I'm not saying Pankhurst is right about everything - this remains a highly subjective story - but I do think she does justice to the events as well as not shying away from the horrors she encountered in her battle. Hers is a voice that deserves to be heard.
If there is anything this book has managed to convince me of, it is that it was, indeed, necessary. Pankhurst narrates the story from the very beginning, when ideas of suffrage were slowly materialising in a political environment, and the suffrage movement was peaceful and tried to reach their goal through official paths, by supporting and working for political parties and attempting to get a suffrage bill read in parliament. What speaks from these years is a deep sense of frustration, of men considering women's suffrage not a real issue that must be discussed but almost a joke, something that can be treated with glee and ignored at will. It is from this that the militant movement, the WSPU was begun - after twenty years of being ridiculed for their desire for honest political representation, some women realised there were other paths to be taken if women's enfranchisement was ever to become law.
That is the story Pankhurst here tells her reader: how women fought for their right to vote, how they were cast down again and again, how they were abused in the country's prisons, how the government refused to treat them as political prisoners while they were at the same time told to fight like men had fought for their enfranchisement. A deep, deep anger speaks from this text at times, a disappointment in the government, a feeling of being cheated over and over again, a sense of intense unfairness. At the time of writing, 1914, the War had just started, leading to a truce, but there is a bitterness speaking from the pages for fighting so long already, and now having to wait even longer for what is woman's due.
My Own Story made me understrand why the WSPU used civil disobedience as a tool, how destroying property is indeed linked to political campaigning, and how - if the women, perhaps, did go too far - the treatment they received was cruel and inhumane and could but lead to more extreme forms of militancy.
If you know a lot, if you know a little, if you know absolutely nothing about the Suffrage movement in England but would like to get a deeply personal insight into the campaign for women's right, read this book. I'm not saying Pankhurst is right about everything - this remains a highly subjective story - but I do think she does justice to the events as well as not shying away from the horrors she encountered in her battle. Hers is a voice that deserves to be heard.
July 2, 2015
The writing itself was somewhat detached - almost more of a daily log than a real autobiography. But that did not detract from the bravery and dedication of the suffragettes and their allies, nor from the frustrating sexism and misogyny they dealt with daily. I also loved this book because it makes you think about where to draw the line when fighting for one's rights. Is there even a line? Where does protest become revolution? Or insurrection?
Luckily, a lot has changed in just 100 years - enough that reading about the political reality of women at that time seems almost unbelievable. But there are some incredible parallels to our modern times that cannot be ignored. Specifically, Mrs. Pankhurst's often repeated statement that to truly fight for change, you have to hit them where it hurts - namely, property. That targeting mailboxes and golf courses can do far more than all the peaceful marches and banner-hoisting in the world. It immediately made me think of the recent and ongoing unrest in so many places over police brutality and violence against black communities - the media portrays the unrest as "riots", but are they not also following the militant suffragettes' example? That in order to truly gain the rights and equality denied to you, you must make your statement against property? It's the same question the suffragettes asked - why is safety of property considered more important than equal rights for an entire segment of society?
For a book written 100 years ago, regarding a different minority in a different country, there are certainly many parallels to what I see in the news almost every day. It really makes you think.
Luckily, a lot has changed in just 100 years - enough that reading about the political reality of women at that time seems almost unbelievable. But there are some incredible parallels to our modern times that cannot be ignored. Specifically, Mrs. Pankhurst's often repeated statement that to truly fight for change, you have to hit them where it hurts - namely, property. That targeting mailboxes and golf courses can do far more than all the peaceful marches and banner-hoisting in the world. It immediately made me think of the recent and ongoing unrest in so many places over police brutality and violence against black communities - the media portrays the unrest as "riots", but are they not also following the militant suffragettes' example? That in order to truly gain the rights and equality denied to you, you must make your statement against property? It's the same question the suffragettes asked - why is safety of property considered more important than equal rights for an entire segment of society?
For a book written 100 years ago, regarding a different minority in a different country, there are certainly many parallels to what I see in the news almost every day. It really makes you think.
May 2, 2017
Emmeline Pankhurst, these days, has a reputation for being stern and deeply unforgiving of those who have the temerity to disagree with her - a reputation that's probably deserved given that she cut off all ties with two of her daughters (even packing one off to Australia).
But, what this book shows is that she was undeniably a great leader who galvanised women into action. While her militancy tactics may or may not have done more harm than good in getting woman the vote, she certainly was instrumental in raising the issue in public consciousness.
I can't help but feel that, like the double standards she so often refers to in this book. history would have treated her differently had been male. There's been many a male leader with just as many personality flaws as Pankhurst but who are remembered for their achievements rather than the fact they were difficult customers.
But, what this book shows is that she was undeniably a great leader who galvanised women into action. While her militancy tactics may or may not have done more harm than good in getting woman the vote, she certainly was instrumental in raising the issue in public consciousness.
I can't help but feel that, like the double standards she so often refers to in this book. history would have treated her differently had been male. There's been many a male leader with just as many personality flaws as Pankhurst but who are remembered for their achievements rather than the fact they were difficult customers.
May 25, 2014
The most powerful aspect of My Own Story - part autobiography, part history, part justification of militancy - is that it was written before the battle for women's votes was won. The effect is that the reader comes close to feeling like an real-time participant in the escalating battle between the W.S.P.U. and the government. Pankhurst doesn't necessarily come off as likeable or at times even reasonable, but there is no doubting her courage and the courage of countless other women. Although I remain unconvinced by Pankhurst's tactics, this book succeeded in making me understand why so many women believed them necessary.
February 27, 2015
Emmeline's own account up to 1914, before she threw herself into the war effort, but before 1918 when women's suffrage was finally granted.
Written in a report style and full of political details I skimmed over, but an amazing story of a long, bitter struggle against a stubborn male dominated political system holding tightly onto their patriarchal control of women's rights. Her many years working with the poor: women, children and the workhouses made clear the hopeless prospects for women. They had no rights and nothing could change until they had the vote, and this inspired her life long work.
Written in a report style and full of political details I skimmed over, but an amazing story of a long, bitter struggle against a stubborn male dominated political system holding tightly onto their patriarchal control of women's rights. Her many years working with the poor: women, children and the workhouses made clear the hopeless prospects for women. They had no rights and nothing could change until they had the vote, and this inspired her life long work.
September 17, 2016
Amazing, thought-provoking, inspiring, at times enraging, but all in all a very deep and enjoyable read. At a certain page I realised that if I met Mrs Pankhurst in real life I would follow her without second thought, I would devote all I have to the common cause and fight with all my strength. It made me realise that standing my ground despite everything is possible. Every female must read this book, because this is the history that is extremely important and that is omitted by most school book creators. It is a shame to say that a few years ago I had absolutely no idea who suffragettes had been. Knowledge is power, girls!
April 27, 2018
Una lettura illuminante, a tratti dura, ma che mi ha coinvolto e fatto pensare molto. Donne straordinarie che hanno dato tutto per l'emancipazione femminile, per acquisire finalmente lo status politico e sociale che gli spettava senza fermarsi mai di fronte a nulla. Derise, picchiate, imprigionate, torturate ma sempre più forti e convinte che stessero lottando per una causa che avrebbe sortito dei cambiamenti sociali radicali ed epocali...
Dovremmo essere tutte grate a queste figure così indomite e fiere...
Dovremmo essere tutte grate a queste figure così indomite e fiere...
April 13, 2016
Well worth reading. The way the establishment fought against women's voting rights is scary and it wasn't that long ago. They also unsurprisingly manipulated the press and reneged on promises. Films like Suffragette only show the half of it.
That said this is Emmeline's versions of events, worth reading are the books by Jill Liddington: Rebel Girls, and One Hand Tied Behind Us which give a much broader view. Noteworthy omissions in Mrs P's book include her estranged daughter Adela who was shipped off to Australia ....
That said this is Emmeline's versions of events, worth reading are the books by Jill Liddington: Rebel Girls, and One Hand Tied Behind Us which give a much broader view. Noteworthy omissions in Mrs P's book include her estranged daughter Adela who was shipped off to Australia ....
December 30, 2015
A fantastic detailed account of the suffragette. Emmeline writes in a very factual unattached manner but that didn't stop me from getting attached. I could not put this down. This period in history was about way more than women getting the right to vote, it was about us females being recognised as people. What these woman achieved was amazing. Hats off to them. These woman changed history and I for one am thankful to them. everyone should read this book.
December 9, 2015
Insightful, Moving & Fascinating! A Powerful Read! I Loved It!
July 22, 2021
What a fucking cool woman
March 7, 2017
Knowing Emmeline Pankhurst by reputation only, and having watching and thoroughly enjoyed Suffragette which tells the story through the eyes of one those less famous women who worked and fought with Emmeline, I wasn't sure how I would feel about this. Luckily, Mrs Pankhurst lived up to her reputation, holding back nothing to tell the story not just of her but of the men and women she met, was inspired by and held back by. Emmeline is as clear and concise in her writing as she was in her speeches and her passion for women's suffrage and for our rights in general comes through on every page, as well it should given the way the system, Government and men in general treated her and her peers. Written in 1914, before the vote was granted to women in the UK, Emmeline writes with a quiet optimism that things are starting to move in the right direction and with a pride for her part in its progress. This optimism may be correct but I'm sure she'll be frustrated by how slow other changes are in coming, and the backwards steps that are evident across the Women's Rights movement and of how many of us are no longer proud to call ourselves feminists.
Small side note: her pride in her title of Suffragette, and the many others given to her by friends and enemies alike, is particularly important, especially at the moment as so many of us see being a feminist as a bad thing and try to apologise for it or cover it up by describing ourselves as something else. We need to look again at this and take Emmeline's approach, taking pride in the title of feminist, embracing it and loving it. This makes it stronger and shows that women's rights are not debatable, optional or contraversial. Instead it shows them to be an expected part of life, as important as the rights of men, religions, races and creeds.
Therefore, I am a feminist and proud of it.
Small side note: her pride in her title of Suffragette, and the many others given to her by friends and enemies alike, is particularly important, especially at the moment as so many of us see being a feminist as a bad thing and try to apologise for it or cover it up by describing ourselves as something else. We need to look again at this and take Emmeline's approach, taking pride in the title of feminist, embracing it and loving it. This makes it stronger and shows that women's rights are not debatable, optional or contraversial. Instead it shows them to be an expected part of life, as important as the rights of men, religions, races and creeds.
Therefore, I am a feminist and proud of it.
September 11, 2020
Alhoewel ik niet alles snapte van het Britse juridische en sociale landschap en de staat waar in het boek tegen gerebelleerd wordt, krijgt dit boek 5 sterren. Emmeline wilde alles opgeven wat ze had (ook haarzelf) voor het grotere doel: stemrecht voor vrouwen in Engeland. Be like Emmeline.
June 14, 2025
This memoir made me realise that "women's issues" remain the same as they were early last century, and we haven’t progressed as far as we like to think. There was more that felt familiar than not—the same political dirty tricks, the same keeping those without power down, and the same lies (sobering to think). These women started by trying to be agreeable and reasonable, working within the existing system, but eventually realised the only way they’d get what they wanted was to demand it. It was tedious reading through all the political motions and counter motions—imagine how much more tedious it must have been to endure them in real life. It was a good book, and I’m glad I read it. I plan to read more about these badass suffragettes.
November 19, 2015
An undervalued time in history. Women rising up and demanding to be counted as human beings. The extraordinary toll they put on themselves. Being beaten by police, angry mobs of men, forced feeding when they went on hunger strike, the abuse received when they went on thirst strike. This book clearly explains why non-violence resistance would never have worked for these women. Although they never shed blood or purposefully hurt anyone but themselves. These thousands of women, that's what it became, were all courageous and determined to prove they were not "the weaker sex". This book is part of a "motion picture" and it is still true the fight is far from over. One could say from Emmeline's position in life as a moneyed lady she could take these risks. But to push yourself to death is not something for the idle rich few. She risked her life and her daughters too were willing to risk theirs for what they believed was a fundamental right. Women of all backgrounds and walks of life joined the ranks of Suffragettes, going to prison, being abused, likely dying all for a great cause. But the cause is hardly old at all and is far from won in all countries around the world. Whether it is the basic right to be recognised as a human being by law or the right to have free access to contraception and abortion or protection from violent partners or other family members. Where do you find the same number of women coming together to protest and even to protest violently? It's hardly anywhere in the history books and women around the world need to come together again and rise up for justice. Women must take their cue from their past like Emmeline Pankhurst and fight to the death for our rights. Even onto death like Emily
Wilding Davison. A woman even now people argue that she was mentally unhinged to have thrown herself under a race horse. Well if fighting for your rights is insanity than she is guilty as charged. All these women knew what was at stake and they were prepared to die for a worthy cause than to continue living as little more than slaves and being subpar and never having a say in anything. The person I could say that was insane in all of this was the former prime minister Asquith. To have allow tortures go against these women could only have been insanity. To have been so afraid to allow women the same basic rights as men at that time, well then he must have been insane. Emmeline never saw the fruits of their hard labours come about, however, her daughters and their descendants did. She would have said the fight was worth it and the fight is still a worthy one that goes on today. Every child should read this book as well as every adult.
Wilding Davison. A woman even now people argue that she was mentally unhinged to have thrown herself under a race horse. Well if fighting for your rights is insanity than she is guilty as charged. All these women knew what was at stake and they were prepared to die for a worthy cause than to continue living as little more than slaves and being subpar and never having a say in anything. The person I could say that was insane in all of this was the former prime minister Asquith. To have allow tortures go against these women could only have been insanity. To have been so afraid to allow women the same basic rights as men at that time, well then he must have been insane. Emmeline never saw the fruits of their hard labours come about, however, her daughters and their descendants did. She would have said the fight was worth it and the fight is still a worthy one that goes on today. Every child should read this book as well as every adult.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 261 reviews