‘Women for Westminster,’ Feminism, and the Limits of Non-Partisan Associational Culture

Abstract

The year 1918 witnessed not only the partial enfranchisement of British women but also the removal of the bar to women serving as members of parliament. Yet, while women were quick to exercise their voting rights, the entrance of women into Westminster was a much slower process.¹ One woman was elected to parliament in December 1918, the Countess Markievicz; however, the Sinn Fein candidate refused to take her seat in the Commons. The first woman MP did not enter parliament until a year later, when Nancy Astor replaced her husband as member for Plymouth Sutton — more a triumph for dynasty than for feminism. Until the 1945 general election, only 38 women served as MPs, leading Brian Harrison to refer to them as ‘Women in a Men’s House.’² As Adrian Bingham’s chapter in this volume underscores, initial assumptions about the momentum towards greater equality in the 1920s often failed to live up to expectations. Several arguments have been put forward to explain the failure of women to make greater inroads at Westminster, both in the more immediate aftermath of suffrage, and in more recent years. These have included resistance to the nomination of female candidates by male-dominated selection committees, or an unwillingness to allocate women winnable seats; the reluctance of voters (male and female) to vote for women candidates; and women’s comparative lack of interest in running for office.³