A century ago this week, MPs voted in support of “the most destructive and dangerous thing ever done by this House of Commons”, in the words of one despairing opponent. Granting women equality by allowing them to vote would kill chivalry and leave government in the hands of those unfitted for it by either nature or temperament. Another MP said that women judged their work better done in other ways. “I think the majority of them are ready to say: ‘We doubt whether it is wise to accept the vote’,” he announced confidently.
It is an exquisite historical example of mansplaining, the term inspired by Rebecca Solnit’s essay Men Explain Things To Me. Ms Solnit is accomplished at making us see things which we have not quite registered or understood despite the fact they are in front of us. She noted recently that familiar things can become invisible; stepping outside them shows us how extraordinary they are. The social attitudes we take for granted may look both repellent and bizarre to our future selves, never mind our grandchildren.
In the early 20th century, votes for women was a highly controversial cause. Women – even otherwise progressive women – campaigned against female suffrage. Most politicians had opposed or shown no interest in reform and their obstruction drove women towards militancy. The suffragettes’ imaginative, radical and sustained activism, along with mainstream campaigning and women’s role in the first world war, turned public opinion, as the MPs’ vote demonstrated. The following year, an act finally extended suffrage to some women. That would slowly – too slowly – lead to fairer legislation and better representation. Not until late last year did the total number of women ever to have held a Commons seat surpass the current number of male MPs.
Ms Solnit posed a question of her own in her interview: “What will they think of us in the future, when we are like ‘We had buildings all over America for women and children to hide from fathers and husbands?’”
We are used to seeing those refuges as a victory for sustained efforts, over decades, to unpick the normalisation and tolerance of male violence against women they know. The question reminds us how painfully limited that success has been. Last week, it emerged that Shana Grice, a 19-year-old murdered by her ex-boyfriend, was fined for wasting police time after lodging complaints about him, because she had not disclosed their relationship. The police seemed to have no appreciation that she could be involved with him and also be at risk of serious harm, the judge noted. Days later, a court let off a man who had beaten his wife with a cricket bat and forced her to drink bleach with a suspended sentence, citing his possible future employment among mitigating factors.
The police and judiciary have made real strides in tackling violence against women. The thinking underpinning these decisions already appears wrong and anachronistic to many. But it reflects prejudices deeply embedded in our society. Draft sentencing guidelines issued on Thursday address precisely these attitudes. They say domestic abuse should be punished more severely than attacks on strangers because offences are rarely one-off, are likely to become more frequent and serious, and may result in death. The guidelines may save lives. They are also insufficient without better means to address official failings on domestic abuse. The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office has shown itself unwilling to intervene even when there is a clear pattern of leniency and many of the offences which arise in such cases are not among those which can be reviewed for unduly lenient sentencing.
One day – not a century away, one hopes – we will look back at an age where two women each week in England and Wales were killed by partners or ex-partners, and wonder that we could ever have let it happen.
