You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
First-wave feminism is the earliest sustained, organised phase of the feminist movement, running roughly from the 1840s to the 1920s. Its central preoccupation was legal and political equality — above all the right to vote, but also rights to property, education, and the professions. It is best understood as liberal feminism in action: the application of Enlightenment liberal principles (individual rights, formal equality, government by consent) to the position of women. Its successes and its limitations together set the agenda for everything feminism did next, so a confident exam answer treats the first wave not as a historical curiosity but as a still-contested model of what feminist progress means.
For the Edexcel 24-mark question, the first wave is valuable in two ways. First, it supplies the historical anchor for the liberal-feminist strand, allowing you to show how abstract principles translated into a concrete political programme. Second, and just as importantly, its shortcomings provide the launching point for evaluation: almost every later development in feminist thought can be presented as a response to something the first wave did, or failed to do. Keeping both functions in view — the first wave as achievement and as provocation — is the key to using it well in an essay rather than merely narrating its history.
To grasp what the first wave was fighting against, it helps to recall how comprehensively women were subordinated in nineteenth-century Britain:
This was not, in feminist eyes, a natural state of affairs but a legally and socially constructed system of male power — patriarchy in its public, codified form.
It is important to grasp how comprehensive and mutually reinforcing these disabilities were. A woman barred from higher education could not enter the professions; barred from the professions, she had no means of economic independence; lacking economic independence, she was compelled into a marriage in which, under coverture, she forfeited control of her property and earnings; and lacking the vote, she had no political means of changing any of this. The exclusions formed a closed circle, each reinforcing the others, so that the subordination of women was not a matter of isolated unfairnesses but of an integrated system. This is why the first-wave campaigners came to see the vote as the strategic key: political power was the lever by which the whole interlocking structure might be prised open. Whether that judgement was correct — whether legal and political equality really was the master-key, or merely the most visible lock — is exactly the question that divides later feminists from the first wave.
Although she wrote half a century before the organised first wave, Mary Wollstonecraft supplied its intellectual foundations and is rightly treated as the founder of liberal feminism. In A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792) she argued:
Wollstonecraft's achievement was to turn the universal language of the Enlightenment — reason, rights, autonomy — against the exclusion of women, exposing the contradiction in a liberalism that proclaimed the rights of "man" while denying them to half of humanity.
Within the Edexcel specification Wollstonecraft is, strictly, one of the named liberalism thinkers; but because liberal feminism descends directly from her, she is legitimately cited in a feminism answer as the originator of the equal-rights tradition.
It is worth pausing on the radicalism of Wollstonecraft's move. The Enlightenment had proclaimed the rights of man and the equality of all rational beings, yet its leading thinkers had, almost without exception, excluded women from this universalism — Rousseau, whom Wollstonecraft directly criticised, held that women should be educated for the pleasure and service of men. Wollstonecraft's achievement was to take the Enlightenment at its word and to insist that, if rights flow from rational nature, and if women share that nature, then the exclusion of women is not merely an oversight but a logical contradiction at the heart of liberalism. In doing so she set the pattern for liberal feminism ever after: rather than rejecting liberal principles, it holds liberalism to account, demanding that its promises of equality and rights be extended to the half of humanity they had silently omitted. This is why first-wave feminism is so often described as liberalism "completing itself", and why its critics on the feminist left would later argue that completing liberalism was not the same as liberating women.
First-wave feminism was a transatlantic phenomenon, and the American movement is an instructive parallel to the British. The Seneca Falls Convention of 1848, organised by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott, produced the Declaration of Sentiments, which deliberately echoed the Declaration of Independence — "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal" — turning the founding language of American liberty against the exclusion of women. As in Britain, the demand for the vote became central, and as in Britain it was won only after decades of campaigning, culminating in the Nineteenth Amendment of 1920.
The American story also illustrates, in a particularly stark form, the racial fault lines that ran through first-wave feminism. The women's movement was closely entangled with the anti-slavery movement, yet after the Civil War the question of whether to support the enfranchisement of Black men ahead of, or alongside, women split the movement bitterly. Some white suffrage leaders made arguments that were explicitly racist, and Black women such as Sojourner Truth — whose reported question "Ain't I a woman?" later gave bell hooks the title of her book — were frequently marginalised within a movement that claimed to speak for all women. This entanglement is precisely the kind of exclusion that intersectional feminism would later expose, and it is a powerful illustration of why the charge of "speaking only for privileged women" has such force when levelled at the early movement.
The defining campaign of the first wave was for women's suffrage — the right to vote and to stand for election. The arguments were essentially liberal:
To understand the first wave it helps to reconstruct the arguments as they were actually deployed, since the opposition was formidable and respectable rather than merely reactionary. Two broad types of argument for suffrage were made. The first was the equality argument: women are rational, taxpaying adults and are therefore entitled to the vote on exactly the same grounds as men, with the denial of it an arbitrary injustice. The second was the difference argument: women, by virtue of their distinctive experience as mothers and managers of the home, would bring particular concerns — child welfare, public health, education, temperance — into political life, improving the quality of government. These two arguments sit in some tension (one says gender should be irrelevant, the other that women's distinctiveness is valuable), and that tension — between equality and difference — would recur throughout feminist history.
The arguments against were equally varied. "Separate spheres" conservatives held that men and women were suited to different domains and that politics was properly a male preserve. Others argued that women were already "virtually" represented by their husbands and fathers, or that their supposed emotionality unfitted them for the rational business of politics, or that enfranchising women would distract them from the home and damage the family. Some opponents even argued that most women did not want the vote. Recovering these arguments matters because the suffrage campaign had to defeat them, and because several of them — especially the appeal to women's "nature" and to the sanctity of the private sphere — are exactly the claims that later feminist theory was constructed to refute.
The suffrage campaign is often remembered as a middle-class affair, and its leadership largely was, but the picture is more complex. There was a significant working-class and labour-movement dimension to the demand for the vote: textile workers in the north of England, for example, organised in support of women's suffrage, and the question of whether the campaign should demand the vote on the same (property-based) terms as men or press for universal adult suffrage was a genuine point of division. A franchise extended to women only on the existing property qualification would have enfranchised propertied women while leaving most working-class women (and men) still voteless — which is one reason some on the left were ambivalent about the mainstream suffrage demand. This debate prefigures the socialist-feminist critique that a feminism preoccupied with the concerns of propertied women may do little for the working-class majority, and it is a useful corrective to the simple story of a unified "women's movement".
In Britain the movement divided over tactics, a split that remains a classic case study in the ethics of political action. The two camps shared an identical goal — votes for women — but disagreed profoundly about how a powerless group ought to pursue change against an entrenched and unwilling establishment, a dilemma that recurs in every protest movement from the suffragettes to the civil-rights campaigners of the twentieth century:
| Group | Organisation | Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| Suffragists | National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies (NUWSS), led by Millicent Fawcett (founded 1897) | Peaceful, constitutional methods — petitions, lobbying, public meetings, patient persuasion |
| Suffragettes | Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU), led by Emmeline Pankhurst (founded 1903) | Militant direct action — disruption, window-breaking, arson, hunger strikes |
The suffragettes turned to militancy only after decades of constitutional campaigning had failed to deliver the vote. Their slogan, "Deeds, not words", captured a conviction that respectable persuasion alone would never move a Parliament with no interest in conceding power. The strategic debate — does militancy advance a cause by forcing it onto the agenda, or set it back by alienating moderate opinion? — is one historians still contest.
The argument can be set out on both sides, and doing so is excellent practice for the balanced evaluation the exam demands. In favour of militancy, it can be argued that decades of patient lobbying by the suffragists had produced little, that the suffragettes' disruption forced the question onto the front pages and into the centre of political debate, and that the spectacle of respectable women being arrested and force-fed dramatised the injustice of their exclusion. Against militancy, it can be argued that the violence alienated potential supporters in Parliament and the press, gave opponents a pretext to portray women as irrational and unfit for the vote, and may actually have delayed reform by hardening resistance; on this view it was the more moderate, constitutional suffragists who did the essential work of building broad public support. The most balanced conclusion is that the two wings were probably complementary — the militants making the issue impossible to ignore while the constitutionalists made enfranchisement appear safe and respectable — which is itself a model of the kind of nuanced judgement that distinguishes a strong answer.
| Year | Event |
|---|---|
| 1866 | John Stuart Mill presents a petition for women's suffrage to Parliament |
| 1897 | NUWSS founded under Millicent Fawcett |
| 1903 | WSPU founded under Emmeline Pankhurst |
| 1905–14 | Suffragette militancy intensifies; arrests, hunger strikes, and force-feeding follow |
| 1913 | Emily Davison dies after stepping in front of the King's horse at the Epsom Derby |
| 1918 | Representation of the People Act — women over 30 meeting a property qualification gain the vote |
| 1928 | Equal Franchise Act — all women over 21 gain the vote on equal terms with men |
Women's contribution to the war effort (1914–18) — in factories, on the land, in hospitals and transport — is widely credited with helping shift public and parliamentary opinion towards enfranchisement. Historians debate how much weight to give the war as against the decades of prior campaigning; the most balanced view is that the war made it politically easier to concede a demand the suffrage movement had already made irresistible.
The 1918 settlement repays close attention, because its limits are as revealing as its achievement. The vote was granted only to women over thirty who met a property qualification, whereas men received it at twenty-one. The age bar was, in part, a calculated political device: younger women had formed a large share of the wartime workforce, and enfranchising all adult women would have produced a female-majority electorate that nervous politicians were unwilling to create. The result was that the women first enfranchised were the older and more propertied — the least likely to be radical — while the young, often working-class women who had staffed the munitions factories were excluded for another decade. The partial victory of 1918 thus carried forward, into the very moment of enfranchisement, the class character that had marked the movement throughout, and it was not until the Equal Franchise Act of 1928 that the principle of genuine equality with men was finally conceded.
Though not a feminist in the modern sense, John Stuart Mill was the first wave's most important parliamentary ally:
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.