Yes

by Wayne Leon Learmond

Created on: April 14, 2010   Last Updated: April 15, 2010

If one wants to answer this question then one has to look back to the past and the fight for Women's Rights - especially during the 18-1900s. It was precisely because of women, fighting for their right to even win the vote, that women today are in the positions that they are.  But are women better off than they where in the past? This article will look back to the past, at the foundations of Womens Rights. The article will also look at the present, and where women  stand now, in the 21st Century.

In 1897, when Millicent Fawcett {1847-1929} founded the Movement for Womens Suffrage, that movement was formed on the basis of, not just Women's Rights {ie: the right to vote} but on basic human rights too. If one looks back to that time, when women really had no right at all, and no say in their lives  - even though they had to pay the same taxes as men, then one can see the hardship that they suffered. 

Although Millicent Fawcett meant well, and wanted no violence in the fight for change in Women's Rights {for fear that men would simply say that the women could not be trusted} it was felt that change itself was far too slow in coming. Fawcett stressed on patience, and peaceful demonstrations, Yet it was felt that something more was needed to shock men into finally giving women they craved for...the 'vote'.

In 1903 Emeline Pankhurst {1858-1928} was just the type of woman who would do it.  Pankhurst,who along with her daughters, Sylvia and Christabel, became leading campaigners for the right for women to vote. To wait would have meant disaster.  They formed the Womens Social and Political Union, and this 'union' became known as The Suffragettes.

The Suffragettes, burned down churches,smashed windows, and caused as much trouble as they could - even getting themselves arrested and sent to prison. Whilst in prison many of them went on hunger strike {which was something that the government at that time,just did not want.}  Indeed, the government where very fearful that should any of the Suffragettes die in prison, through hunger strikes, then they would be looked upon as martyrs for their 'cause'. The government subsequently gave the orders for the prison guards to force feed the women, whether they liked it or not.

This did not stop the women though, as many of them continued on the course of violent uprisings, chaining themselves to railings, causing as much mayhem as they could at political gatherings, smashing windows, and firebombing churches. One has to understand though, that through the years the right to vote has always been fought for by those who where denied that right. - be they women or men. Although women held many positions in employment during the 18 -1900s, they still did not have the right that all men took for granted... the right to vote. Discrimination was widespread against women, who could not be trusted to vote because they did not {according to men} understand the workings of Parliament.

Would the Suffregettes have become more violent in their actions?  Without a shadow of doubt, they would have done. After all they had firebombed churches and even the house of Britain's most famous politiician at that time, David Lloyd George. This was even more surprising as Lloyd George was thought to be a staunch supporter of 'Womens Rights' and their fight to win the vote.

Comparing what women have now, to the past, it is plain to see that women, since the time of Emeline Pankhurst, women have come a long long way. In fact, Pankhurst , if she where alive now, would be astounded as to how far women have come. Yet, even in the positions of power that women have achieved for themselves in this day and age, there is still widespread discrimination against women achieving,and reaching certain posts, and certain goals.

Comparing womens wages to that of their male counterparts {even though many are doing the same job} one can clearly see that they still fall significantly behind the men when it comes to wages and bonuses. This is blatent discrimination that has still yet to be addressed - even though some companies have looked at this and acted accordingly.  There are many companies, though that still insist on paying their male and female employees more, or less, according to their gender, that is a disgrace that should not be tolerated in today's society.

Discrimination exists too in the type of employment that many men feel women are 'suited for'. Although there are countless women now, who are in high-powered positions {and are there through sheer hard work}, there are also many who feel that they have been denied that right of striving for those positions exactly because they ARE women. Even in the line of sport, do we still see not nearly enough women on the 'Board' or even as chairperson. Those roles are still being held by the middle or upper classes, who are predominately, white, male, and middle aged.  There are nowhere near enough females, white or black for that matter, that can fill these roles just as well?  Why is this?

The answer to that is simply because of 'tradition'.  In many companies, -especially sport clubs - there is a history of tradition that states that only men, middle or upper class, white, and aged around 50 plus can understand the workings of the position that they are in. There are simply too may clubs who still think this way, and in the process are denying perfectly capable women,both white and black, the opportunity to shine in such positions. 

Until this barrier of tradition is broken, then we are never going to get enough women into politics {both local and national}, and onto the 'boards' of those companies who, for too long, have had it all their own way. The Status Quo must be challenged wherever there is widespread discrimination ie: lack of employment opportunities based on gender, lower wages based on gender, or even early retirement based on age and gender.

It is interesting to note that newscasters who are male, are twice as likely to be kept on as females who are basically around the same age. There have been recent cases in the UK in which newscasters who where female, where being 'finished off' because they where seen to be 'too old' and would not come across well on screen. This,despite the fact that those women had enormous experience in the line of presenting the news, and where in fact, very professional. They where also being paid a lot less than their male counterparts. Again, this is a disgrace that has been allowed to continue for years.

No matter which way one looks at it, there is no escaping the fact that {although many women hold down high-powered jobs} there is sitll widespread discrimination,when it comes to hiring and firing women.  There are still some very old-fashioned views indeed when looking at women in the workplace - or in any other walk of life.

Women are still - in many places -  seen as second class citizens, who are paid much less than their male counterparts and are sacked simply because they are too old and are females. Until this outdated and old-fashioned view changes, then many women will still continue to struggle in their fight for equal rights in the 21st Century. If she could have gazed into the future, that is something that Emeline Pankhurst would never have thought would be still going on by now.

Learn more about this author, Wayne Leon Learmond.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.