As stated previously, Pankhurst thought that hostility was necessary in order for women to achieve equal rights. Wright introduced “sex-hostility”; he said that women became this way because they were unmarried and sexually frustrated. He also warned that the suffrage movement would allow women to become economically independent (Perry 223). Pankhurst thought of violence as the only thing that could help progress the movement, whereas Wright believed hostility would have a negative impact on the movement. It is intriguing how both authors use the concept of hostility in completely opposite …show more content…
She argued that women should have a voice in the parental rights and the future of the child after risking her life to carry it (Perry 219). She believed that this right would be hugely revolutionary in the lives of women. Wright thought that a woman being independent and unmarried was one of the worst things that could happen for the women’s suffrage movement. He identified the excess female population of England as a problem. He grouped unmarried women into a group and labeled them as feminists, claiming their ambition would not stop at demands for equal pay (Perry 223). It is interesting that Wright mentioned equal pay, because in Pankhurst’s speech she claims that men receiving higher wages than woman as an additional injustice. She said, “Take the industrial side of the question: have men’s wages for a hard day’s work ever been so low and inadequate as are women’s wages today?” (Perry 220). This was historically significant because the wage gap was not addressed before the women’s suffrage