Opinion. seems overwhelmingly against granting martyrdom to the 9/11 plotters. In the militant wing of the suffragette movement, it was more evenly divided. Emily Wilding Davison, who threw herself under the king’s horse. in the Epsom Derby 95 years ago and died two days later, firmly believed it was the last resort in a campaign. making no impression on Britain’s ruling classes. One small part of her legacy is the history examiners’ favourite question: did the militants win the vote?Not according to contemporary reporting, of course. It was entirely typical of the coverage. that Davison’s sacrifice was denied recognition: the newspapers and newsreels were sure it was simply an accident. Even C.P. Scott’s Guardian believed it was a “futile tragedy”. The mighty Scott thought her “suicide” would set back the cause of votes for women. But it was a campaign that seemed already to be on the rocks. for successive attempts in Parliament had foundered on the votes not of the knights of the shires, but the urbane Prime Minister Herbert Asquith and the libidinous David Lloyd George.Misrepresentation was only one of the ways the efforts of the suffragettes were belittled. [The] establishment found the campaign for women’s votes incomprehensible and the press faithfully echoed its view. Suffragettes were depicted as alien creatures, sad misfits unable to capture a husband. Davison is probably as well remembered now as she was at the time of her death. But the reporting of the cause for which she gave her life bears remembering, too. Three generations later women are still too often reported and judged (by women, as well as by men) against non-existent stereotypes, which sometimes seem only marginally more subtle than the suggestion of lesbianism that underlay Edwardian accounts of the suffragettes. Excerpted from a comment by Anne Perkins in ‘The Guardian’
