The role of the British and American suffrage movements in achieving women’s rights
by, Afzal Razvi (Australia)
Women were not allowed to cast their vote or choose their representatives in ancient Greece and Republican Rome, as well as in the few democracies that had emerged in Europe by the end of the 18th century. When the franchise was extended, as it was in the United Kingdom in 1832, women continued to be denied all voting rights. The question of women’s voting rights finally became an issue in the 19th century, and the struggle was particularly intense in Great Britain and the United States; but these countries were not the first to grant women the right to vote, at least not on a national basis.1 The women remained without the right of casting vote for centuries and they had been facing male chauvinism, however, in the early nineteenth century, women were provoked for their rights and a historical struggle for getting their equal rights started and in the late 19th century they were succeeded to get some of them but full rights were given to women in the early twentieth century in the USA and the United Kingdom.
A term citizenship has also been used to indicate such rights that women have been demanding for a long time. According to Mann Michael:
In contemporary Britain the term citizenship has been used to indicate a populist notion of fairness and justice for all Britains, as in the development of Citizens Charters. The intellectual focus of British social science debate on the topic has often been concerned with the extent to which class restricts effective access to citizenship.2
The debate on citizenship is concerned with the relationship of class to social mixing and omits gender. The civil element is composed of the rights necessary for individual freedom of the person, freedom of speech, thought and faith, the right to own property and to end with valid contracts, and the right to justice. As far as the political element is concerned, it is meant that the right to participate in the exercise of political power, as a member of a body invested with political authority. The corresponding institutions are parliament and councils of local government and the social element is considered the whole range from the right to a modicum of economic welfare and security to the right to share to the full in the social custom and to live the life of a civilised being according to the standards current in the society. The institutions most closely connected with it are the educational system and the social services.3
However, women in Britain before 1928 and in the US until 1920 did not have many of the features of either civil or political citizenship. Married women lacked the right to live anywhere other than where their husbands insisted. Married women, until late in the nineteenth century, did not have ‘the right to own property and to conclude valid contracts’, losing this right on marriage. Married women did not have ‘the right to justice’ in that they did not have the right to be free from the physical coercion of their husband. Women certainly did not have political citizenship either, since the vote was only granted to women in stages in 1918 and 1928. Women did not have the civil right to work at the occupation of their choice, since there were so many restrictions on the forms of employment open to women, ranging from the marriage bar in many white collar jobs to lack of access to skilled manual labour since they were denied access to apprenticeships4
Citizenship, especially the political aspect of this, has historically been bound up with participation in the public sphere. European women have historically been structured out of the public by the restrictions on their paid employment, restrictions on speaking in public, threats of violence if unaccompanied in public spaces, and their confinement to domestic duties.5This implies that the citizenship project is as open to women as it is to men, if certain overt forms of discrimination are removed. It implies, further, that there is a single model of citizenship to which women can aspire alongside men, that is, a certain modernist universalism about the citizenship project. But, this notion of a single model of citizenship has been brought into doubt by some recent feminist work.6
Turning to social citizenship, Lister suggests that the structure of payment of these benefits is detrimental to women because it is predicated on married women’s dependence. Three things are very important to secure the women social citizenship. Firstly, a change to individual rather than household entitlement. Secondly, a change so that the right to benefit is not dependent upon contributions, since that would be affected by labour market position where women are disadvantaged. The one example of this is the rather small and currently susceptible child benefit. Thirdly, she suggests that a coherent childcare policy is needed to facilitate women’s participation in the labour market.7
Marshall describes civil citizenship as being related to individual freedom — including liberty of the person, freedom of speech, the right to own property, and the right to justice.8 Yet these are rights which most women did not obtain until after political citizenship, and some, such as the right to justice from male violence, are still not fully secured.9 For most social theorists social citizenship is bound up with the provision of welfare, with the provision of an infrastructure which enables people to be guaranteed a minimum of provision of necessities.
The actual struggle for women’s rights was started in the middle of the nineteenth century and it has been one of the most significant forces for democratic changes in the modern history. Feminism the conscious desire for equality between the sexes was first originated in the countries of the west and particularly in the industrialised countries but later on it was introduced to almost all the countries of the world. Woman suffrage, the centrepiece of women’s rights has been a self-consciously international and political movement. The term women rights entered the vocabulary in 1792 with the publication of Englishwoman Mary Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of woman. The earliest known feminist treatise, Vindication was a response to the declaration of the Rights of Man (1789), the central document of the French Revolution, which had failed to address women’s inequality.10
With the new economic order, paid work for the emerging middle class moved outside the home and into factories, offices, and shops. Accompanying and justifying this differentiation between public and private worlds was a new ideology about women, variously called the “cult of true womanhood,” the “cult of domesticity,” or the “ideology of separate spheres.” Woman, it was argued, and should be pious, pure, maternal, domestic, passionless, and submissive. The middle class, intent upon distinguishing itself from society’s “lower orders” and retaining its values in the face of rampant industrialization and urbanization, did so by promoting notions of feminine respectability and moral superiority. If mean were creating an amoral political and economic order (and many believed they were, women would embody religiosity and virtue.
For much of the 19th century the actual struggle for women’s rights remained largely the province of socialists. However, women’s suffrage challenged the ideology of separate spheres at its core because voting was understood as a distinctly masculine privilege and prerogative. As women left the home to reshape and reform society, however, they came to understand that the vote would provide them with the best means of reforming society. By the late 1890’s the WCTU, under the leadership of committed feminist and socialist Frances E. Willard, constituted the majority of women suffrage activists American West and Midwest. Women’s organizations in many countries made the fight for suffrage their most fundamental demand because they saw it as the defining feature of full citizenship. The philosophy underlying women’s suffrage was the belief in “natural rights.” Woman suffrage claimed for women the right to govern themselves and choose their own representatives. It asserted that women should enjoy individual rights of self-government, rather than relying on indirect civic participation as the mothers, sisters, or daughters of male voters.
Women’s enfranchisement took many decades to achieve because women had to persuade a male electorate to grant them the vote. Many men–and some women–believed that women were not suited by circumstance or temperament for the vote. Western political philosophers insisted that a voter had to be independent, unswayed by appeals from employers, landlords, or an educated elite. Women by nature were believed to be dependent on men and subordinate to them. Many thought women could not be trusted to exercise independence of thought necessary for choosing political leaders responsibly. It was also believed that women’s place was in the home, caring for husbands and children. Entry of women into political life, it was feared, challenged the assignment of women to the home and might lead to disruption of the family.
American women were the first in the world to voice organized demands for the vote. Abolitionist activists Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, along with several other women friends, convened a meeting in Stanton’s hometown of Seneca Falls, N.Y., “to discuss the social, civil, and religious condition and rights of women.” At the convention, held on July 19-20, 1848, Stanton read her “Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions,” and the convention debated and approved a series of resolutions designed to win equality for women. The most controversial, included at Stanton’s insistence, stated that “it is the duty of the women in this country to secure to themselves their sacred right to the franchise.”11
During the civil war suffragists stopped their demands for the time being hoping that after the war they will definitely be granted the right for vote both white and black. So, women engaged in many kinds of patriotic activity, some of which had clear political overtones, such as being spies and messengers, amassing provisions, or assisting military units in the field. Yet perhaps the most concerted action of a political nature was that undertaken by a group of local Philadelphia women to raise money for General Washington’s soldiers. Headed by Esther DeBerdt Reed, the wife of Pennsylvania chief executive Joseph Reed, and Sarah Franklin Bache, the daughter of Benjamin Franklin, the “ladies” of Philadelphia went about the city collecting funds for the cause.
…Interestingly, the attempts to justify women’s participation in such quasi political projects would be similar to the justification for women’s benevolent activities in the post war era. There was praise for women’s strength of purpose and their willingness to sacrifice. But ultimately women were seen as different from men: patriotic contributors, though unsuited for a direct political role.12
Eventually, the republicans succeeded in passing the 14th and 15th amendments that gave the right for vote to only black men and women were still there in the past position. At this point the suffragists in America divided into two groups Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, her long-time colleague, refused to support the 15th Amendment because it did not enfranchise women, favouring passage of another constitutional amendment to do so.
Consequently, in 1869 Julia Ward Howe and Lucy Stone founded the American Woman Suffrage Association, which accepted men as members, worked for black suffrage and the 15th Amendment, and worked for woman suffrage state-by-state. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who, with Lucretia Mott, called the 1848 gathering at Seneca Falls, founded with Susan B. Anthony the National Woman Suffrage Association, which included only women, opposed the 15th Amendment because for the first time citizens were explicitly defined as male, and worked for a national Constitutional Amendment for woman suffrage.13 however, in 1890, the above two organisations joined forces as the National American Women Suffrage Association.
This emergence of the suffrage organisations opened the feminist movement and provided a fresh wave to the cause. This impact many countries and similar movements were started in Austria, Germany, France, Italy, Russia, Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands, Australia, Ireland, south Africa and Argentina.
Indeed, after the 14th and 15th amendments suffragists believed that they saw a constitutional door open to them to exercise the franchise. This was in the language of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which gave due process and equal protection under the law to “persons” without qualifications as to gender. Under this legal claim, some women tried to vote but were refused or their ballots were put in separate boxes and not counted. In Rochester, New York, in November 1872, Susan B. Anthony herself and her sisters succeeded in casting their votes. Acting under legal advice given by Anthony’s lawyer, Henry R. Selden, they had convinced the registrars of the propriety of their claims and had been allowed to deposit their ballots. Two weeks later, they were arrested. At her arraignment, Susan B. Anthony refused to deposit bail when set. Selden deposited it for her. But when learned that if sent to jail, she could challenge the proceeding under federal habeas corpus, she attempted belatedly to have bail cancelled.
The venue was transferred to Canandaigua for trial, where the judge was less open to Anthony’s claims and Selden’s arguments. He directed a verdict of guilty and imposed a fine on Anthony — although when she refused to pay, he shrewdly refrained from imprisoning her and therefore exposing his ruling to federal challenge. Anthony had emerged a heroine. An idealistic reformer, she had shown herself willing to submit to the unappealing and unfamiliar conditions of a nineteenth-century jail for the sake of her convictions. Her case had pointed up the need for a new constitutional amendment. These bold women continued their struggle and at last, in June 1916, 5000 women were marched in Chicago to the Republican National Convention hall in a tremendous rainstorm.
Their efforts convinced the convention to include a Woman’s Suffrage plank in the party platform and got Presidential candidate Charles Evans Hughes to endorse the proposed constitutional amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Three years later Congress finally passed the Susan B. Anthony Amendment. Although Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton devoted 50 years to the woman’s suffrage movement, neither lived to see women gain the right to vote. But their work and that of many other suffragists contributed to the ultimate passage of the 19th amendment in 1920. The 19th Amendment provides men and women with equal voting rights.
“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”14
The demand for the Rights of Woman in the late eighteenth century provided the basis and the framework for modern feminism. In Britain its emergence was closely bound up with the broad range of social and economic changes brought by industrialization and urbanization in the later eighteenth century, the expansion in wealth and power of the middle class, and the new emphasis on individualism and economic independence which accompanied it. But it was the political upheaval of the French Revolution and the debates about political rights and citizenship which surrounded it that brought the first extensive discussion of women’s emancipation, the central concern of modern feminism.15
A strong wave to get citizenship or equal rights for women came in early 1860s in Great Britain. Although Women were not granted with full citizen rights, however, a few individuals had called for vote but principally, women still did not have the right to cast their vote equal to men. Additionally, the parliamentary franchise was still perceived as a privilege not a right16 and in early 1960s in Britain some of the rights were given to women but these were conditionally not independently as Martin Pugh has described in two steps: (1) “Parliament was held to represent not individuals but communities . . . so in a family a father or husband might represent the interests of his daughter or wife”; (2) “possess the economic self-sufficiency, the education, the knowledge to be an independent and responsible voter.”17
The first British woman suffrage committee was formed in Manchester in 1865. In 1866 Elizabeth Garrett, a physician, collected more than 1,500 petition signatures demanding suffrage for women. John Stuart Mill, a philosopher and the husband of Harriet Taylor Mill, was elected to Parliament on a platform of woman’s suffrage in 1865. The next year he attached an amendment to enfranchise women to the Reform Bill, but his amendment was soundly defeated. In May 1867, Mill introduced an amendment to Benjamin Disraeli’s reform bill to substitute the word “people” for the word “man.”
There were seventy-three votes for Mill’s amendment and 196 against it. Although women were not included in the extension of the franchise in 1867, they continued their arguments and organized woman suffrage societies, many of which had both male and female members.18As the new suffrage organisation was formed, women from Edinburgh, Bristol, and Birmingham became its members and from London Lydia Becker, Elizabeth Wolstenholme, and Jacob Bright got its membership. Some other suffrage groups were also organised afterward. Many women who were active in the suffrage movement during the next decades were members of these new suffrage committees. An excellent example is the Committee of the London Society whose membership included Millicent Garrett Fawcett, Frances Power Cobbe, Margaret Lucas, Emily Davies, Clementia Taylor, and Caroline Ashurst Biggs. In Edinburgh, the suffrage society elected as its first president, Priscilla Bright McLaren, the sister of John and Jacob Bright and the wife of Duncan McLaren, an Edinburgh MP. Priscilla McLaren has been described as the life and mainspring of the movement in Scotland for many years.19
In Manchester in April 1868, Lydia Becker made a resolution at the first public meeting held in support of woman suffrage: That the exclusion of women from the exercise of the franchise in the election of members of Parliament, being unjust in principle and inexpedient in practice, this meeting is of the opinion that the right of voting should be granted to them on the same terms as it is, or may be granted to men.20 The demand that women should receive the vote on the same terms as men remained the objective of the major British suffrage organizations until 1914.21
Women in Britain received the municipal franchise in 1869, a fact that American women used repeatedly in their arguments for the franchise. During the next decades, bills and resolutions on woman suffrage were brought before the House of Commons with debates taking place for many years. There was much debate again at the time of the 1884 Reform Bill. When woman suffrage was not included in the 1884 bill, interest in woman suffrage waned in some quarters, although as a reform, it remained important to some groups. Since it was believed that mothers should take an interest in their children’s education and in local charities, local suffrage was more acceptable than national suffrage. In 1869 unmarried women householders could vote in municipal elections.
The national movement became more active around 1905. It engaged in mass public demonstrations that generated publicity and attracted the interest of educated middle-class women, women textile workers, and poor women, notably in the East End of London. The moderate National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies, led by Millicent Garrett Fawcett, expanded membership, publicized the issue, organized speaking tours, and distributed a journal.22
In 1870, a journal for women ‘Woman’s Journal’ was established by Lucy Stone the Journal was edited by Mary Livermore for its first two years. After that, Lucy Stone and her husband, Henry Blackwell, assumed full editorial control. Later, Alice Stone Blackwell joined her parents on the editorial staff. The Woman’s Journal became the leading woman suffrage newspaper in the United States. In Britain, the Woman’s Journal was well known and read by suffragists and those interested in women’s rights and women’s issues. In May 1888, the Englishwoman’s Review described the Woman’s Journal as “the best women’s paper in America, or indeed in any country.23
The suffrage papers in Britain and America were major connecting links between the two movements. In Britain, Lydia Becker’s The Women’s Suffrage Journal, and the Englishwoman’s Review, edited by Caroline Ashurst Biggs until her death in August 1889, and afterward by Helen Blackburn, discussed the progress of the suffrage campaign in both Britain and the United States. As Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who, with Lucretia Mott, called the 1848 gathering at Seneca Falls, founded with Susan B. Anthony were popular among Britain suffragists likewise, Millicent Garrett Fawcett, who played a major role in the British suffrage movement during its entire duration, became increasingly well known to American suffragists during the 1870s and 1880s.
Readers of the Woman’s Journal became familiar with Fawcett through the frequent mention of her in the pages of the newspaper. In June 1872, Mary E. Beedy described Fawcett and her sister, Elizabeth Garrett Anderson, as two of the British movement’s most prominent leaders. Characterizing the sisters as well balanced and practical, Beedy observed, “No one can find any reasonable ground for criticism in these women, judged either by the standard for men or for women, they are equally satisfactory. They can think and work like men, while they have the manners and bearing of women.” 24
The Women’s Franchise League was founded. The organization was committed to including married women in any woman suffrage bill. Members included Elizabeth Wolstenholme Elmy, Harriet McIlquham, Alice Scatcherd, Emmeline and Richard Parkhurst, Clementia and Peter Taylor, Jane Cobden Unwin, Ursula Bright, Florence Fenwick Miller, and Harriot Stanton Blatch. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Isabella B. Hooker were corresponding vice presidents who supplied information regarding the progress of woman suffrage in the United States. An active member of the organization, Harriot Stanton Blatch later wrote, “Mrs. Pankhurst and I, burdened as we were by young children and domestic cares, were the admiring neophytes of the circle.”25
Dohm wrote in 1873, the stronger emphasis on the difference between the sexes, the clearer the need for the specific representation of women. She blamed men for wilfully ignoring the necessity of women’s vote, and chided them for their fears that somehow the entire female sex might disappear along the unfamiliar path of voting rights.26 In 1876, Dohm returned to the issue in her book Women’s Nature and Right citing historical precedents for women’s exercise of political power. She disputed the range of arguments made against woman suffrage. She remarked:
We cannot conscientiously blame the men for not caring to place women on equality with themselves. We find it but natural that they should hold fast the prerogative of their sex. What rank or class ever voluntarily ceded their privileges? We find it perfectly natural that they do not care to cook or look after their children; for the presence of women in governmental affairs is to the cleverest men inseparable from the idea that they themselves must in such a case spend part of their strength in the kitchen and nursery.27
After the election of 1874 and 1884, the main parliamentary supporters of the women’s suffrage bill insisted on including in the bill a clause explicitly excluding married women from the suffrage. At this point Becker argued that the suffrage movement should support the 1874 women’s suffrage bill put forward by William Forsyth Q.C.28
On this matter Becker was fully supported by the leader of the suffrage movement, Millicent Garrett Fawcett, who was becoming increasingly important in the whole suffrage campaign. She said:
I really don’t care whether married women have votes or not. I cannot enter into the feelings of those who violently object to married women having votes. I do not think that there would be an end to domestic virtue and domestic affections if they had votes; but I do recognise that there is a strong feeling in the country against married women’s suffrage, and that there is not a strong feeling against the suffrage being exercised by single women and widows who possess the necessary qualification; and believing as I do, that all practical grievances will be removed by the enfranchisement of single women, I, for one, should be perfectly contented with a Women’s Suffrage Bill which did not enfranchise married women.29
The very nature of nineteenth-century feminism made the question of imperialism a central one; in seeking to establish the political basis of women’s oppression and to demand the recognition of women’s place in the nation, mid-Victorian feminists embraced existing ideas of that nation, and, by extension, of the empire. In the 1890s and more particularly the early twentieth century, the question of women’s rights finally became a matter of intense public and political debate.
After decades of discussion of the “woman question” amongst activists, writers, artists, scientists, moralists, and educators, questions about the nature and the situation and the demands of women began to feature in the popular imagination, as Punch cartoons of the late 1880s and 1890s, featuring powerful and athletic women on bicycles or cricket fields, or bullying effeminate men at cocktail parties, serve to show.30 Public discussion and press coverage became even more extensive with the advent of militancy and the massive suffrage demonstrations which developed after 1907.31
The nature of the “woman question” changed in this period too: extensive discussion of the “new woman” in the 1890s raised a number of questions about marriage and sexuality that had rarely been publicly debated previously.32
The new methods of campaigning used by militant suffragettes and moderate suffragists alike, with the ever-expanding use of banners, posters, pageants, plays, and marches, ensured that the battle for political rights was accompanied by an equally powerful battle of representations. In the course of this, the conventional Victorian feminine ideal was challenged by contrasting images of women: as militant and martyred in the style of Joan of Arc; as strong and composed professional women, especially doctors, lawyers, and Members of Parliament; or, for anti-suffragists, as drunken slatterns, shrewish housewives and neglectful and immoral wives and mothers.33
For a hostile literary representation of suffragettes. The increasing prevalence of images and discussions of the ‘woman question’ at this time bore witness to a massive increase in feminist organization, agitation and activity. This was most notable in the rapid increase in suffrage societies and suffrage activity in the early twentieth century.34
While the “new woman” debate focused on issues and ideas which were surfacing for the first time in the late nineteenth century, it was accompanied by discussion and new perspectives on earlier feminist developments. This period saw a significant rehabilitation of Mary Wollstonecraft, with a series of biographies and critical studies as well as a number of new editions of the Vindication.35 In 1890s Emmiline Pankurst and her daughters Christbel and Siylvia stressed open air campaigning, factory gate meetings and street corner speaking to bring the suffrage message to a wider audience, including working class women.
Indeed, by 1915, woman suffrage again became an issue when electoral reform was being discussed due to the possible disenfranchisement of men who were away from their normal residences due to the war. A number of organizations and individuals turned their attention to including women in any proposed change. Moreover, a change in leadership in the country had affected the situation. In December 1916, David Lloyd George replaced Asquith as prime minister. By January 1917, the Conference on Electoral Reform recommended that some measure of woman suffrage be included in any changes. In March 1917, the proposed change regarding woman suffrage was approved by an overwhelming majority in the House of Commons.
The largest of the pre-war suffrage organization, the NUWSS, was the central group in a number of conflicts throughout the 1920s. In 1917, Eleanor Rathbone, the distinguished philanthropist, followed Millicent Garrett Fawcett as president of the NUWSS. Her approach was suggested by her proposed motto of the society: ‘I am a woman and nothing that concerns the status of women is indifferent to me.’36In 1919 Eleanor Rathbone played an important role in developing the six major demands of the National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies, equal pay for equal work, equal suffrage and promotion of the candidature of women for Parliament, an equal moral standard between men and women, equality in industry and the professions, widows’ pensions and equal guardianship and active support for the League of Nations.37
In 1925, Eleanor promoted a new feminism and in her address to the NUSEC annual meeting, she explains that now the time has changed and we must not see our problems through the men’s eyes.38As the largest single organization working for a government women’s suffrage bill during the fifteen years before the war, the National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies generated suffrage propaganda in a variety of printed forms -handbills, posters, pamphlets, and several suffrage magazines.39
Indian women and other “women of the East” were familiar topics to the readers of the Women’s Franchise and Common Cause, two of the suffrage periodicals supported by the NUWSS during this period.40In the first quarter of the 20th century, the interest in having a woman’s perspective came from two sources. First, the European feminist challenge to political and social practices…Second, anthropology’s claim to view society as a whole made more likely the systematic study of women’s role.41
Butler’s Indian campaign focused what had been decades of British feminist interest in Indian women on the necessity of women’s suffrage at home for the sake of “our Indian sisters” in the empire. Knowledge about Indian women — along with understanding, “the first condition of all mutual help” — fitted British feminists for imperial service and made its social and political effectiveness contingent on votes for women in the imperial nation.42
Other than Josephine Butler and Eleanor Rathbone, Margaret Cousines devoted her life to the causes of Indian national independence and women’s rights. 43. Educational improvements for Indian women were an out going concern among feminists until World War I and beyond. While presenting tribute to Butler Millicent Garrett Fawcett’s said: Her Work and Principles, and Their Meaning for the Twentieth Century ( 1927) honouring the centennial birthday of the great organizer of the pan European campaign against state-regulated prostitution. As one reviewer put it, Butler’s work and principles “wrought a change in social ethics, not only in her own country, but in the whole world greater perhaps than that affected by any other single person in recent times.”44
British suffragists also worked for Iranian women throughout the colonial period but particularly during the year 1906-1911. “Iranian women made gigantic leaps in articulating their social and political demands during these years and participated in a wide range of revolutionary and feminist activities.”45 In his 1912 The Strangling of Persia, the American W. Morgan Shuster concluded: “The Persian women since 1907 had become almost at a bound the most progressive, not to say radical, in the world…”46
A prominent Iranian reformer Yahya Dawlatabadi, who paid a concrete role in the constitutional movement in Iran during 1905-1911, visited London and he also went to the WSPU’s headquarters. He was very much impressed with the feminist work of Annie and Emmiline. He praised the leadership of Emmiline by expressing his views, ‘my familiarity with the affairs of the English [suffragettes] boosted my hope for the progress and exaltation womanhood everywhere.’47British suffragist commentaries on Iranian women’s appeals to British and other women are exemplary of the nascent global sisterhood of woman that is still being shaped by dialogues between women of different feminist outlooks in various parts of the world.48
In conclusion, it can be said that woman of empire in the late twentieth century was succeeded to get her all rights equal to man. However, in few countries, women are still struggling for such rights. Additionally, it is also notable that in some countries where women have been granted the right to vote but they are still looking for other rights equal to men. Moreover, the influence of the women of empire can be seen everywhere in the world.
Note: References are available on request.