The artifacts I am examining for my essay are opposing pieces regarding the suffragette movement in the United Kingdom. As an intersectional feminist, I have always been drawn to movements that support women’s rights. More specifically, I am an activist for supporting the individuality of women and fighting against the patriarchal view of what “womanhood” is. These two pieces captured me with the caption– “The Appeal of Womanhood”– and the imagery around it.
The first piece is a postcard designed by Harold Bird, who created this to announce an anti-suffrage meeting for the National League for Opposing Women Suffrage in 1912. The rhetorical situation of this image corresponds to the political climate of the time period. As the women’s suffrage movement surged in the U.K., Bird appealed to the public in order to get more support for the opposing side. Bird specifically tried to target supporters of the anti-suffrage movement so that they could gain more traction in opposing the extension of voting rights to women.
The second piece is a poster designed by pro-suffragist Louise Jacobs. She created this piece in 1912 for the Suffrage Atelier, a group of artists who promoted the Votes for Women campaign through art. The rhetorical situation of this image also corresponds to the political climate of the time period, where the women’s rights movement in the U.K. was at its peak due to increased sex trafficking, use of sweatshops, and child labor. Additionally, the situation was the creation of Bird’s postcard. This poster is a direct response to his anti-suffrage message.
Because of this, there are many parallels that exist between Bird’s postcard and Jacob’s poster. The woman and the bottom banner are practically identical, along with the silhouette of the British Parliament in the background. However, the colors vary, along with the background members and the upper banner. There could be significant elements to analyze within both the differences and the similarities. Is there a reason why the bottom text is the same? Why is the “appeal of womanhood” emphasized in each picture? Why are the background characters different? Do the different colors evoke different emotions? Do the different art styles convey a different message? There are many perspectives I would like to consider as I compare these similar pieces to each other.
For my Civic Engagement Speech, I would like to delve into the poster designed by Louise Jacobs. Her poster is more appealing to me and I feel as though I can analyze more with the additional background characters and writing on the banner.
I think it was a great idea how you found two artifacts that were directly related to each other, yet were pushing for the opposite outcomes. The similarity in the images is very eye-catching and their is a lot to analyze within the wording, the background, as well as the situation behind the artifacts. I am very interested to see how you develop those ideas further, especially since you feel a personal connection to the suffrage movement and these artifacts.
These two artifacts are almost perfect for comparison. Their very similar style and message has a multitude of connections for analysis. Personally, I am really fascinated with the “No Votes, Thank You” artifact on the top left. I am really trying to decipher the meaning of the of the worker running in the background. I’m really interested to see where you will take this.
I love your two artifacts! I find it especially fascinating that the second one (by Louise Jacobs) was made in response to the first — that’s a wonderful discovery that will give you plenty of material for analysis. What I find particularly captivating about seeing these two images side by side is that in both cases, the woman in front who holds the banner is incredibly regal. Yet the implication is entirely different in the two images: the first one portrays her as what a woman *should* be (as opposed to what women might be, comparing it to the woman with the hammer in the background), while the second image almost seems to say that this is what a woman is and will continue to be. There are a lot of different ways to interpret this, so I’m very much looking forward to your speech and analysis in the coming weeks!
I really like your choice for these two artifacts. The subtle differences in the pictures that seem very similar are very interesting. It is extremely thought-provoking how those little details completely changed the meaning of the artifacts, making them present an opposite claim. These were cool finds! Great job :).