The Subjection of Women

“There was a time when the division of mankind into two classes, a small one of masters and a numerous one of slaves, appeared, even to the most cultivated minds, to be a natural, and the only natural, condition of the human race.”

This quote appears as part of a lengthy consideration of Ancient Greece and Rome’s practice of enslaving people and develops the theme of Liberty, Slavery, and Marriage. While Mill acknowledges that Greece and Rome remain models of democracy, they were flawed in their thinking when it came to slavery. Therefore, just as England saw fit to abolish slavery, so too should it release women from their bondage.

“Men do not want solely the obedience of women, they want their sentiments.”

Mill explains the comprehensive tyranny of marriage as part of his criticism of men’s selfishness. According to Mill, men want more from women than what they require from their “slaves”: They also want women to love them even as they oppress them.

“But if the principle is true, we ought to act as if we believed it, and not to ordain that to be born a girl instead of a boy, any more than to be born black instead of white, or a commoner instead of a nobleman, shall decide the person’s position through all life—shall interdict people from all the more elevated social positions, and from all, except a few, respectable occupations.”

The “principle” Mill here refers to is the free market—specifically, the notion that a competitive market will sort out which people are capable of a particular job and which are not. Since the feudal system was dismantled, England has had a capitalist economy, but Mill argues that a truly competitive market would simply allow the best person to win rather than unfairly prohibit some people from participating due to gender, race, or class.

“When we further consider that to understand one woman is not necessarily to understand any other woman; that even if he could study many women of one rank, or of one country, he would not thereby understand women of other ranks or countries; and even if he did, they are still only the women of a single period of history; we may safely assert that the knowledge which men can acquire of women, even as they have been and are, without reference to what they might be, is wretchedly imperfect and superficial, and always will be so, until women themselves have told all that they have to tell.”

Developing his argument about Nature Versus Society and the Gender Hierarchy, Mill rebuts those who argue women are “naturally” inferior to men or inclined to domesticity by highlighting the lack of scientific evidence supporting this hypothesis. There are no comprehensive historical studies of women and their capabilities; rather, a man takes what he knows of his wife and extends it to all women throughout history. Furthermore, even so-called experts of womanhood have failed to consider the female perspective. Until more women are allowed to voice their perspectives in both the public and private spheres, it is unjust to impose ideas of “natural womanhood” on them.

“The most frequent case of voluntary association, next to marriage, is partnership in business: and it is not found or thought necessary to enact that in every partnership, one partner shall have entire control over the concern, and the others shall be bound to obey his orders.”

In another appeal to logos, Mill compares marriage to the other main legal association in society—business partnerships. The analogy highlights the differences between the two institutions: When women marry, they must vow to obey their husbands and cede control of their lives to him, but no such legal requirement exists in business partnerships. The law trusts two men to figure out and divide responsibilities equitably. Mill suggests that to ensure the happiness and fulfillment of both parties, a similarly equitable sharing of power and responsibility should be the aim of marriage.

“To ordain that any kind of persons shall not be physicians, or shall not be advocates, or shall not be members of parliament, is to injure not them only, but all who employ physicians or advocates, or elect members of parliament, and who are deprived of the stimulating effect of greater competition on the exertions of the competitors, as well as restricted to a narrower range of individual choice.”

Per his argument that society suffers when only 50% of its members may participate, here Mill claims that by denying women entry into various crucial professions, society is left with a small pool of candidates in each sector. Moreover, those candidates don’t have to compete as much within this smaller pool and therefore may fail to develop their talents to the fullest possible extent. On top of all of this, society also misses out on the potentially excellent candidates excluded based on their gender instead of their ability.

“If anything conclusive could be inferred from experience, without psychological analysis, it would be that the things which women are not allowed to do are the very ones for which they are peculiarly qualified; since their vocation for government has made its way, and become conspicuous, through the very few opportunities which have been given; while in the lines of distinction which apparently were freely open to them, they have by no means so eminently distinguished themselves.”

In referencing knowledge gained from experience, Mill implicitly refers to a posteriori knowledge to strengthen his claim that women can succeed in politics and the public marketplace. The limited number of female leaders makes their historical impact all the more noticeable and supports Mill’s claim that women are not “naturally” unable to lead but rather have been prevented from doing so.

“It will be said, perhaps, that the greater nervous susceptibility of women is a disqualification for practice, in anything but domestic life, by rendering them mobile, changeable, too vehemently under the influence of the moment, incapable of dogged perseverance, unequal and uncertain in the power of using their faculties. I think that these phrases sum up the greater part of the objections commonly made to the fitness of women for the higher class of serious business.”

Mill considers the argument that women are irrational and overly emotional, rendering them incapable of intellectually demanding work. This was the stereotype imposed on Victorian women and used to justify limiting their education and opportunities.

“We cannot isolate a human being from the circumstances of his condition, so as to ascertain experimentally what he would have been by nature; but we can consider what he is, and what his circumstances have been, and whether the one would have been capable of producing the other.”

In another appeal to logos, Mill explains that we are all products of our environment. Therefore, to assume a woman’s nature based on who she seems to be ignores the fact that societal institutions might have molded her into what patriarchal society wants her to be.

“The superintendence of a household, even when not in other respects laborious, is extremely onerous to the thoughts; it requires incessant vigilance, an eye which no detail escapes, and presents questions for consideration and solution, foreseen and unforeseen, at every hour of the day, from which the person responsible for them can hardly ever shake herself free.”

Mill lists the responsibilities of a wife and mother to show that domestic work is laborious, even if it is often dismissed. Such women are busy with various tasks in the present, but they also must anticipate the future to adequately attend to the myriad needs of their husbands’ homes. The “onerousness” of this work lends weight to Mill’s arguments about Freeing the “Angel in the House” while also serving as evidence of women’s abilities.

“All the selfish propensities, the self-worship, the unjust self-preference, which exist among mankind, have their source and root in, and derive their principal nourishment from, the present constitution of the relation between men and women.”

Mill intentionally uses the word “mankind” in this passage to emphasize which gender is to blame for the current state of marriage, which inevitably leads to unhappy relationships because it is based on power. Men, relying on the law of force, wield physical power over their wives, but when they don’t, a wife is just as likely to become conceited and arrogant in the sway she holds over a seemingly weak husband. Because marriage is treated as a hierarchy rather than a partnership, all genders seek control at any cost, including their own happiness.

“The second benefit to be expected from giving to women the free use of their faculties, by leaving them the free choice of their employments, and opening to them the same field of occupation and the same prizes and encouragements as to other human beings, would be that of doubling the mass of mental faculties available for the higher service of humanity.”

As a utilitarian, Mill’s goal is to promote the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. Gender equality is an important step in achieving the utilitarian goal because, during the Victorian era, 50% of the population was underutilized, with many women confined entirely to the domestic sphere. For Mill, the more people that are involved in the advancement of society, the better off society will be.

“The moral influence of women has had two modes of operation. First, it has been a softening influence. Those who were most liable to be the victims of violence, have naturally tended as much as they could towards limiting its sphere and mitigating its excesses.”

Mill is not completely exempt from the assumptions of his era. The above represents an overgeneralization regarding women’s nature not unlike the overgeneralizations he has fought to undermine throughout his text. Mill does imply that women’s “moral influence” is learned rather than innate, suggesting that awareness of one’s victimization “naturally” produces a tendency toward peacekeeping (in fact, abuse victims can go on to perpetuate abuse themselves). Mill uses this gender stereotype to his advantage, arguing that women’s supposedly less violent nature will create a less violent society if they participate in politics.