Upon first glance, I believed the article to be an actual documentation of a women’s suffrage meeting in Victorian London and was excited to read an authentic discussion between suffragists in that time. It didn’t take too long for me to realize though that this was a highly satirical article that really made a mockery of the women fighting so hard to obtain a basic human right that should be bestowed upon every citizen. The first give away that this article is satirical was the name of the chairwoman, “Mrs. Shrieker.” After that, I realized that the previous paragraph where the author writes
It being thought desirable to secure unnbiassed utterance, none of the male sex were permitted to be present. Husbands were, however, suffered to attend in an antechamber and, with the view to their comfort and consolement, notes of the proceedings were from time to time sent out to them.
the author is completely facetious. To the average Victorian male reader I assume that this would be quite hilarious and I actually found myself disappointed for several reasons. First, I was disappointed that this article was satirical because I had been excited to read a documentation of a women’s suffrage meeting. Second, I was disappointed because I had believed that having a women’s only meeting to discuss the vote was completely valid and justified. Third, I was disappointed because I realized that it is the view of the author that having a women’s only meeting is absolutely absurd.
The author of this article certainly does not take women as individual human beings seriously, particularly on an intellectual level. This is especially evident in the names he has given the women in this mock account of a suffrage meeting. The women have names such as “Mrs. Snorter,” “Mrs. Scratcher,” “Mrs. Prettywoman,” and of course “Mrs. Shrieker.” The only woman with any semblance of a normal name is “Mrs. Smith” or “Mrs. Smyijthe” whose name the writer wasn’t even sure of. Of course, satirical articles are meant to make jokes but I think the naming of the women reveals the misogynistic sentiment of the writer. Reducing women to unpleasant sounds like shrieking and snorting is really harsh and in the case of “Mrs. Prettywoman” where she has been reduced to her looks is total objectification.
Much of the article is focused on ridiculing the women’s behavior, for example there are many instances where the writer adds silly remarks of the women in attendence in parenthesis:
(Cries of “Dear no!” and loud cheering.) Englishwomen were alive and awake to what was wanted. Reform was what they wanted, and their husbands might rely on it that they would get no rest until Reform was granted. (Hear!) She (MRS. SNORTER) meant mischief, she could tell them. (Renewed cheering, and screams of “So do we!”) She perhaps was not possessed of so sharp a tongue as some people(Sensation, and cries of “Name: name!”) but MR. SNORTER might depend he’d not have a night’s peace, until she got her Right to Vote safe underneath her pillow!
As opposed to making an ideological argument through satirical means against women having the right to vote, the writer makes fun of the type of woman who demands the right to vote– although I suppose that this in itself shows the ideology of the writer. No argument needs to be made because the writer and presumably the male readers of this article already believe that women are inferior and do not deserve the right to vote.
Bibliography
“Great Reform Meeting.” Punch. 1859. Dictionary of Victorian London. Lee Jackson. Web. 15 February 2016.