John Stuart Mill’s work “The Subjection of Women” is a seminal piece in the history of feminist literature which was heavily inspired by the ideas of his wife Harriet Mill and published in 1869. In this essay, Mill argues for the liberation of women from the oppressive patriarchal society in which they were living and helped to pave the way for an intellectual and political struggle for gender equality which continues until today.
Utilitarianism
In his work Mill presents a utilitarian argument for gender equality. Utilitarianism is a moral theory that asserts that the right course of action is the one that maximises overall happiness and minimises suffering. Mill applies this principle to the issue of gender equality, arguing that the subordination of women is unjustifiable because it causes unnecessary suffering and is therefore inconsistent with the principle of utility.
“What in unenlightened societies colour, race, religion, or nationality are to some men, sex is to all women—an abrupt exclusion from almost all honourable occupations except ones that others can’t perform or aren’t willing to perform. Sufferings arising from this cause usually meet with so little sympathy that few people realize how much unhappiness is produced, even now, by the feeling of a wasted life. This will happen even more frequently when increased cultivation creates a greater and greater disproportion between women’s ideas and abilities and the scope that society allows for their activity.” (Mill 2017 [1869], 60)
Mill’s argument from the principle of utility centres around the notion that the subordination of women is harmful to society as a whole. He claims that when women are prevented from fulfilling their potential and contributing fully to society, it leads to a waste of human talent and resources. This waste, according to Mill, goes against the principle of utility, which dictates that society should strive to maximise overall happiness and minimise suffering.
Utilitarianism
Mill argues that the subordination of women may be seen as some form of historical accident rather than a natural or inevitable aspect of human society. Mill presents a historical argument for gender equality, challenging the idea that women have always been subordinated to men and arguing that there have been periods in history when women enjoyed greater freedom and autonomy.
“The independence of women seemed rather less unnatural to the Greeks than to other peoples in ancient times, because of the mythical Amazons (whom they believed to be historical), and the partial example of the women of Sparta, who, though they were •by law just as subordinate to men as the women in other Greek states, were more free •in fact; they were trained to bodily exercises in the same way as the men, giving ample proof that they were not naturally disqualified for them.” (Mill 2017 [1869], 8)
Mill argues that the subjection of women is not a natural and cites examples of ancient Greek and Roman societies in which women participated in public life and had more autonomy than in modern societies. He contends that it is only in the modern era that women have been relegated to the domestic sphere and excluded from many areas of public life. Mill attributes this change to historical developments, such as the rise of Christianity which led to the reinforcement of artificial gender roles to sustain patriarchal power structures that went in line with the Christian doctrine and ideology (i.e., God the father vs. Mary the mother).
Liberty
Mill argues that women’s subordination is a result of legal and social restrictions that limit their freedom and prevent them from pursuing their interests and goals. He contends that these restrictions are unjustified and that women should be granted the same legal and political rights as men, including the right to vote, hold public office, and receive equal pay for equal work. Mill believes that such legal and social changes will enable women to exercise their freedom and autonomy and live fulfilling lives.
“The love of power and the love of liberty are in eternal antagonism. Where there is least liberty, the passion for power is the most ardent and unscrupulous. The desire for power over others can’t cease to be a depraving agency among mankind until each individual human being can do without it, and that can’t happen until respect for each person’s liberty is an established principle.” (Mill 2017 [1869], 59)
Moreover, Mill argues that the subordination of women is inconsistent with the principles of individual liberty and self-determination. He contends that individuals should be free to pursue their interests and make their own choices without interference from others, including the government or societal norms. Mill argues that the subordination of women, which is often enforced through legal and social institutions, violates this principle of individual liberty and autonomy.
Conclusion
“The Subjection of Women” is an essential read in philosophy from a historical perspective. Much of the ideas in contemporary feminism and gender studies have been built on both John Stuart and Harriet Mill’s thoughts and ideas. They lived in an era were most of their ideas seemed absurd to the public. Today most of their visions have come to be in varying degrees around the world.
“People’s views about the nature of women are mere empirical generalisations, formed on the basis of the first instances that present themselves, with no help from philosophy or analysis. This is so true that the popular idea of women’s nature differs in different countries, according to how women have been shaped by the opinions and social circumstances of the country in question.” (Mill 2017 [1869], 39)
From arguing for the liberation of women from oppressive societal structures, and the essay puts forward several compelling arguments to support the case of gender equality. The arguments from the principle of utility, historical precedent, and individual autonomy are all powerful indictments against the subjection of women.
This article has been written with ChatGPT. The article has been proofread and edited by the author to ensure a proper academic and conventional representation of Mill’s work.