News out of London on April 25 was supposed to be good news for women – something for them to celebrate. But if you think about it, elation won't necessarily be your state of mind. See what you think. A report by Art Daily provided much of the information shared in this article.

A bronze statue by British artist Gillian Wearing was unveiled on a piece of prime real estate in London – opposite the Parliament building – to honor Millicent Fawcett, who got the women of England the right to vote a century ago. No other statue of a woman has stood on the site, which is filled with 11 male figures from history, like Mahatma Gandhi, Winston Churchill, and Nelson Mandela.

Given the momentousness of Fawcett's achievement, why did it take 100 years to acknowledge her with statuary?

Heroine worship

At the unveiling, British Prime Minister Theresa May didn't seem to notice the century-long time lapse and spoke only of her gratitude to Fawcett: “I would not be here today as prime minister, no female MP's would have taken their seats in parliament, none of us would have the rights we now enjoy. The struggle to achieve votes for women was long and arduous.” Does that make you glad, ladies? Are any of you asking why there was a struggle in the first place?

Why now?

These questions mounted when the prime minister noted that Fawcett “faced fierce opposition.” Again, why was a struggle necessary.

Why weren't women allowed to vote? The same question goes to the struggle in the US. What made women so unworthy in the voting booth that special “arduous” efforts had to be exerted to allow them in?

Long haul

And even today, Fawcett statue wasn't easy to bring off. Petitions advocating it had to be circulated for two years!

Discuss this news on Eunomia

“Courage Calls To Courage Everywhere,” says the placard held by the statue. Why must courage be mustered to get a right to vote or to get a statue of a woman on Parliament Square? Are you getting this – the silliness of it all? Who decided that women weren't up to the task of voting? And what was the reasoning? The art world offers clues.

Art historian Karl Scheffler wrote of women as”beasts without souls.” Edgar Degas called them "animals." And Picasso got the message about female beastliness when he painted “Woman with Stiletto,” which pictures a hungry cavernous mouth. Joan Miro joined in with his painting “Head of a Woman” baring pterodactyl-like teeth.

Founding father speaks

When Thomas Jefferson said, “We hold these truths To be self-evident," he was talking about equality. But such truths haven't been as obvious as he suggested - even to him. Didn't he get his daughter's teenage chambermaid pregnant? Likely, women should be as grateful as the British prime minister is about the statue of Fawcett in Parliament Square. But I'm not. There's such a thing as taking too long to apologize.