Provides a new understanding of the recurrent rhetorical need to employ conservative rhetoric in support of a radical cause

The Women’s Social and Political Union, the militant branch of the English women’s suffrage movement, turned to arson, bombing, and widespread property destruction as a strategy to achieve suffrage for women. Because of its comparative rarity, terrorist violence by reform (as opposed to revolutionary) movements is underexplored, as is the discursive rhetoric that accompanies this violence. Largely because of the moral stance that drives such movements, the need to justify violence is greater for the reformist than for the revolutionary terrorist. The burden of rhetorical justification falls even more heavily on women utilizing violence, an option generally perceived as open only to men. The militant suffragettes justified their turn to limited terrorism by arguing that their violence was part of a “just war.” Appropriating the rhetoric of a just war in defense of reformist violence allowed the suffragettes to exercise a traditional rhetorical vision for the sake of radical action. The concept of a just war allowed a spinning out of a fantasy of heroes, of a gallant band fighting against the odds. It challenged the imagination of the public to extend to women a heroic vision usually reserved for men and to accept the new expectations inherent in that vision. By incorporating the concept of a just war into their rhetoric, the WSPU leaders took the most conventional justification that Western tradition provides for the use of violence and adapted it to meet their unique circumstance as women using violence for political reform. This study challenges the common view that the suffragettes’ use of military metaphors, their vilification of the government, and their violent attacks on property were signs of hysteria and self-destruction. Instead, what emerges is a picture of a deliberate, if controversial, strategy of violence supported by a rhetorical defense of unusual power and consistency.  

Henpecked: Winston Churchill and Women’s Suffrage explores the recurrent interactions between Winston Churchill and the women’s suffrage movement in Britain. Churchill purposely concealed, under a discursive veil, his complex and shifting perceptions of women’s competency to use the franchise. In balancing a public stance that vaguely favored the “principle” of women’s suffrage with his, often private, opposition to the movement’s legislative efforts, he employed every available rhetorical tool. This book presents a new understanding of his early Parliamentary career, his ability to manipulate public and private discourse, and his complicated stance on women’s right to vote. This rhetorical history challenges the view that Winston Churchill was only dissuaded in his support of women’s suffrage by the militancy of suffrage activists.

Provides a new understanding of the recurrent rhetorical need to employ conservative rhetoric in support of a radical cause

The Women’s Social and Political Union, the militant branch of the English women’s suffrage movement, turned to arson, bombing, and widespread property destruction as a strategy to achieve suffrage for women. Because of its comparative rarity, terrorist violence by reform (as opposed to revolutionary) movements is underexplored, as is the discursive rhetoric that accompanies this violence. Largely because of the moral stance that drives such movements, the need to justify violence is greater for the reformist than for the revolutionary terrorist. The burden of rhetorical justification falls even more heavily on women utilizing violence, an option generally perceived as open only to men. The militant suffragettes justified their turn to limited terrorism by arguing that their violence was part of a “just war.” Appropriating the rhetoric of a just war in defense of reformist violence allowed the suffragettes to exercise a traditional rhetorical vision for the sake of radical action. The concept of a just war allowed a spinning out of a fantasy of heroes, of a gallant band fighting against the odds. It challenged the imagination of the public to extend to women a heroic vision usually reserved for men and to accept the new expectations inherent in that vision. By incorporating the concept of a just war into their rhetoric, the WSPU leaders took the most conventional justification that Western tradition provides for the use of violence and adapted it to meet their unique circumstance as women using violence for political reform. This study challenges the common view that the suffragettes’ use of military metaphors, their vilification of the government, and their violent attacks on property were signs of hysteria and self-destruction. Instead, what emerges is a picture of a deliberate, if controversial, strategy of violence supported by a rhetorical defense of unusual power and consistency.  

Henpecked: Winston Churchill and Women’s Suffrage explores the recurrent interactions between Winston Churchill and the women’s suffrage movement in Britain. Churchill purposely concealed, under a discursive veil, his complex and shifting perceptions of women’s competency to use the franchise. In balancing a public stance that vaguely favored the “principle” of women’s suffrage with his, often private, opposition to the movement’s legislative efforts, he employed every available rhetorical tool. This book presents a new understanding of his early Parliamentary career, his ability to manipulate public and private discourse, and his complicated stance on women’s right to vote. This rhetorical history challenges the view that Winston Churchill was only dissuaded in his support of women’s suffrage by the militancy of suffrage activists.