Source 6, an essay by B. Harrison written in 1993, illustrates the idea of many people that it helped to back up the Anti’s physical strength idea; “the idea that men and women had separate roles because women are, on average, physically weaker than men”. To me this is irrelevant; this idea had been popular in previous years when opponents of suffrage had claimed that women were not worthy of the vote as they could not fight for their country. Yet how on earth can this be argued when the women did so much to ensure the victory of the war? It is evident that even though women were not on the frontlines, without their efforts from home the war could simply have not been won! In this sense they did fight for their country as they put themselves out further than they usually would have to, to protect King and country and to defend what they fought was right. Source 6 conflicts this by arguing that women did not go through “the horrors of the frontline” and that most women stayed at home whilst the men went to war. Whilst this is true, I still do not think that it omits their substantial efforts at home, and this is backed up by my previous point that physical strength was no longer enough to keep the women from having the vote. Somebody had to stay at home and run the country- old politicians were not blamed for staying at home and working in an administration role because they could not fight so why should women be? The final point of Source 6 is that the First World War “pushed all peace time agenda down the line”. Whilst this is arguably valid, once the war was won these issues would inevitably arise once again, and in my opinion it helped to bring them even closer to the forefront, as it allowed women to be seen in a different light, and also helped the suffragettes get out of what was turning into somewhat of a reoccurring rut. I think that the…