Historians and political scientists have deemed the twentieth century 'the Conservative Century', owing to the electoral and cultural dominance of the Conservative Party in Britain. This book traces the relationship among women, gender and the Conservative Party from the 1880s to the present, and thereby seeks to fill that gap. A gender inclusive approach allows for a more nuanced understanding of political machinations, power and the unprecedented popularity of both conservatism and unionism in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The suffragette Christabel Pankhurst, was regarded as a charismatic, radical figure, who was the co-leader of the Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU), a notorious suffrage organization campaigning for the parliamentary vote for women in Edwardian Britain. In 1928 Lady Iveagh, Vice-Chairman of the National Union of Conservative Associations (NUCA), claimed that one million women were members of the Conservative Party. The book focuses on how the Primrose League re-made itself for its female members between 1914 and 1932. It shows that the Conservative Party leadership and male candidates were keen to present themselves as the champions of home interests, playing up their family-man credentials against their rowdy electoral culture of Labour. The book also examines inquires how the deliberate choice of middlebrow rhetoric as well as the language of citizenship enabled Conservative women to construct a cross-class language of democracy. It explores British conservatism, highlighting the history of the Tory Party as part of the study of women and their sectional interest in 'the politics of gender'.
Women’s voluntarism, Conservative politics and representations of womanhood
middlebrow and ‘ordinary’ conservatism, and helped to produce a distinct understanding
of ‘common sense’. This chapter examines how the deliberate choice of middlebrow
rhetoric as well as the language of citizenship enabled Conservative women to construct a cross-classlanguage of democracy. This language was particularly instrumental in mobilising and indeed, in their own terms, ‘infiltrating’ the voluntary
sector and gaining large constituencies of support.
A language of caution: defending ‘women’s interests’ but not ‘feminism’
Incrementally, since the end of the