Sex and Suffrage in Britain, 1860-1914

by Susan Kingsley Kent

Although other historians have viewed the suffrage movement as aimed at exclusively political ends, she argues that such a categorization ignores many of the most compelling reasons why thousands of middle and upper-class women risked ostracism, obloquy, and, often, physical harm in the pursuit of the right to vote and why their efforts met with such intense opposition. The alliance of respectable" middle-class women with prostitutes, the attack on marriage, and the suffragists' distrust of the medical profession are among the topics the author addresses. Drawing on hypotheses advanced by Michel Foucault, she asserts that feminists sought no less than the total transformation of the lives of women.

Originally published in 1987.

The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback and hardcover editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905.

Genres: History, Nonfiction

306 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1987

Reviews

[C. B. · Rating 4 out of 5]

In some ways, this is a reparative reading of first-wave feminism from the perspective of a 1980s second-wave feminist. Kent argues that the personal was always political; that suffragettes and suffragists were not as narrowly concerned with legal change as some would have. This is undoubtedly true, as the book amply demonstrates by examining the work of major feminists of the period who sought wide-reaching changes in sexual relations. This book is now a classic and an excellent reference work.

[Ally · Rating 3 out of 5]

Informative and a nice change to the usual discourse on First Wave Feminism but the structure and organization take away from obviously careful research.

[Nightwitch · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thorough scholarly overview of how the suffrage movement in Britain viewed sex and women's roles. I found the parts that went over the literature and views of the era (both progressive and not) to be most interesting - there were some segments that tried to deal with "modern" (i.e. 1980's) feminism that were just not that interesting.

[Kelsey · Rating 4 out of 5]

Susan Kingsley Kent’s Sex and Suffrage in Britain, 1860-1914 argues that women’s gender was defined as being entirely sexualized beings. The suffrage movement is portrayed by Kent as the female pursuit of obtaining sexual autonomy through economic independence and equal legal representation. The early campaign during the nineteenth century was not solely focused on obtaining suffrage. Kent argues that “historians have tended to characterise the women’s suffrage campaign in England as an exclusively political movement, an attempt on the part of women to share in the general enfranchisement that occurred throughout the nineteenth century.” Alternatively, Kent’s study finds the feminist movement was focused on breaking the double standard of the sexual objectification of women. Sex and Suffrage in Britain is written clearly and with a vivid narrative which successfully engages the reader in a unique approach to the history of women’s rights. Kent is critical of the nineteenth century feminist’s and favorably reflects on militant efforts in the early twentieth century. She gives a voice to the often villainized militant suffragists and provides a new layer to the historical narrative on the British feminist campaign.
There are a few challenges to Kent’s argument, predominately in her claims of a universal of thinking among feminist throughout the time period and themes in the book. First of all, the definition of the causes by all three cohorts being predominately similar is countered within her own sources. The sources highlight that women saw changing times, and believed this required an adaptation to the feminist movement’s methodological approach. If the work is about women in the middle class historical context needs to be included and additional information as to the benefits the feminist movement gained from the middle class constructs. Kent has a tendency to homogenize the class and the overall suffrage movement, especially in regards to the public response of the militant feminist cause. Kent sees the militant cause for suffrage as being justified because so few gains had been made by the earlier cohorts. However, she does not mention the various reform acts that gave partial suffrage to various groups of women throughout the nineteenth and twentieth century. She also only highlights the anti-suffrage women as opposing the militants, failing to mention the moderate suffragettes who refused to be affiliated with the extremists. Had Kent engaged with these topics, it would provide depth to her argument. Overall, the work sheds light on the perceived sexualized roles of all women in the period, and provides a new narrative in response to the militant feminist movement. Her writing is captivating, appears to be fairly well researched, and provides a thorough overview of many key British feminists. The epilogue does an excellent job of bringing the study forward into the post war years allowing for an understanding of the huge impact the First World War had on women’s progress. Furthermore, the epilogue provides great relevance for Kent’s argument and engages her in the historiography of women’s rights.