The Subjection of Women

From Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core
Jump to: navigation, search
The Subjection of Women
The Subjection of Women.jpg
Title page of the first edition
Author John Stuart Mill
Country England
Language English
Genre Essay
Published 1869
Publisher Longmans, Green, Reader & Dyer
Media type Print
Pages 188

The Subjection of Women is an essay written by John Stuart Mill in 1869,[1] possibly jointly with his wife Harriet Taylor Mill, stating an argument in favour of equality between the sexes. At the time it was published in 1869, this essay was an affront to European conventional norms for the status of men and women.

John Stuart Mill credited his wife, Harriet Taylor Mill, with co-writing the essay.[citation needed] While some scholars agreed by 2009 that John Stuart Mill was the sole author,[2] it is also noted that some of the arguments are similar to Harriet Taylor Mill's essay The Enfranchisement of Women which was published in 1851.[2][3] Harriet Taylor Mill's daughter, Helen Taylor, is believed to have contributed to the essay as well.[4]

Mill was convinced that the moral and intellectual advancement of humankind would result in greater happiness for everybody. He asserted that the higher pleasures of the intellect yielded far greater happiness than the lower pleasure of the senses. He conceived of human beings as morally and intellectually capable of being educated and civilised. Mill believed everyone should have the right to vote, with the only exceptions being barbarians and uneducated people.

Mill argues that people should be able to vote to defend their own rights and to learn to stand on their two feet, morally and intellectually. This argument is applied to both men and women. Mill often used his position as a member of Parliament to demand the vote for women, a controversial position for the time.

In Mill's time a woman was generally subject to the whims of her husband and/or father due to social norms which said women were both physically and mentally less able than men, and therefore needed to be "taken care of." Contributing to this view were both hierarchical religious views of men and women within the family and social theories based on biological determinism. The archetype of the ideal woman as mother, wife and homemaker was a powerful idea in 19th century society.

At the time of writing, Mill recognized that he was going against the common views of society and was aware that he would be forced to back up his claims persistently. Mill argued that the inequality of women was a relic from the past, when "might was right,"[nb 1] but it had no place in the modern world.[nb 2] Mill saw that having effectively half the human race unable to contribute to society outside of the home as a hindrance to human development.

"... [T]he legal subordination of one sex to another—is wrong in itself, and now one of the chief hindrances to human improvement; and that it ought to be replaced by a system of perfect equality, admitting no power and privilege on the one side, nor disability on the other."[5]


Mill attacks the argument that women are naturally worse at some things than men, and should, therefore, be discouraged or forbidden from doing them. He says that we simply don't know what women are capable of, because we have never let them try—one cannot make an authoritative statement without evidence. We can't stop women from trying things because they might not be able to do them. An argument based on speculative physiology is just that, speculation.

"The anxiety of mankind to intervene on behalf of an altogether unnecessary solicitude. What women by nature cannot do, it is quite superfluous to forbid them from doing."'[6]

In this, men are basically contradicting themselves because they say women cannot do an activity and want to stop them from doing it. Here Mill suggests that men are basically admitting that women are capable of doing the activity, but that men do not want them to do so.

Whether women can do them or not must be found out in practice. In reality, we don't know what women's nature is, because it is so wrapped up in how they have been raised. Mill suggests we should test out what women can and can't do—experiment.

"I deny that any one knows or can know, the nature of the two sexes, as long as they have only been seen in their present relation to one another."[7]

Until conditions of equality exist, no one can possibly assess the natural differences between women and men, distorted as they have been. What is natural to the two sexes can only be found out by allowing both to develop and use their faculties freely.[8]

Women are brought up to act as if they were weak, emotional, docile—a traditional prejudice. If we tried equality, we would see that there were benefits for individual women. They would be free of the unhappiness of being told what to do by men. And there would be benefits for society at large—it would double the mass of mental faculties available for the higher service of humanity. The ideas and potential of half the population would be liberated, producing a great effect on human development.

Mill's essay is clearly utilitarian in nature on three counts: The immediate greater good,[9] the enrichment of society,[nb 3] and individual development.

If society really wanted to discover what is truly natural in gender relations, Mill argued, it should establish a free market for all of the services women perform, ensuring a fair economic return for their contributions to the general welfare. Only then would their practical choices be likely to reflect their genuine interests and abilities.

Mill felt that the emancipation and education of women would have positive benefits for men also. The stimulus of female competition and companionship of equally educated persons would result in the greater intellectual development of all. He stressed the insidious effects of the constant companionship of an uneducated wife or husband. Mill felt that men and women married to follow customs and that the relation between them was a purely domestic one. By emancipating women, Mill believed, they would be better able to connect on an intellectual level with their husbands, thereby improving relationships.

Mill attacks marriage laws, which he likens to the slavery of women, "there remain no legal slaves, save the mistress of every house." He alludes to the subjection of women becoming redundant as slavery did before it. He also argues for the need for reforms of marriage legislation whereby it is reduced to a business agreement, placing no restrictions on either party. Among these proposals are the changing of inheritance laws to allow women to keep their own property, and allowing women to work outside the home, gaining independent financial stability.

"Mill's Logic; Or, Franchise for Females," Punch, or the London Charivari (30 March 1867)

Again the issue of women's suffrage is raised. Women make up half of the population, thus they also have a right to a vote since political policies affect women too. He theorises that most men will vote for those MPs who will subordinate women, therefore women must be allowed to vote to protect their own interests.

"Under whatever conditions, and within whatever limits, men are admitted to the suffrage, there is not a shadow of justification for not admitting women under the same."[10]

Mill felt that even in societies as unequal as England and Europe that one could already find evidence that when given a chance women could excel. He pointed to such English queens as Elizabeth I, or Victoria, or the French patriot, Joan of Arc. If given the chance women would excel in other arenas and they should be given the opportunity to try.

Mill was not just a theorist; he actively campaigned for women's rights as an MP and was the president of the National Society for Women's Suffrage.


The way Mill interpreted subjects over time changed. For many years Mill was seen as an inconsistent philosopher, writing on a number of separate issues. Consistency in his approach is based on utilitarianism, and the good of society.


Nothing should be ruled out because it is just "wrong" or because no one has done it in the past. When we are considering our policies, we should seek the greatest happiness of the greatest number. This leads to attacks on conventional views. If you wish to make something illegal, you need to prove what harm is being done. Individuals know their own interests best.

Progress of society

The greatest good is understood in a very broad sense to be the moral and intellectual developments of society. Different societies are at different stages of development or civilisation. Different solutions may be required for them. What matters is how we encourage them to advance further. We can say the same for individuals. Mill has a quite specific idea of individual progress, (1) Employing higher faculties (2) Moral development, people place narrow self-interest behind them

Individual self-reliance

We are independent, capable of change and of being rational. Individual liberty provides the best route to moral development. As we develop, we are able to govern ourselves, make our own decisions, and not be dependent on what anyone else tells us to do. Democracy is a form of self-dependence. This means:

  1. Personal Liberty — As long as we do not harm others, we should be able to express our own natures, and experiment with our lives
  2. Liberty to Govern our own Affairs — Civilized people are increasingly able to make their own decisions, and protect their own rights. Representative government is also a useful way of getting us to think about the common good.
  3. Liberty for women as well as men — All of Mill's arguments apply to both men and women. Previous ideas about the different natures of men and women have never been properly tested. Women can participate in determining their own affairs too.

See also



  1. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques (1948). The Social Contract. London: George Allen & Unwin. p. 103. To yield to force is an act of necessity, not of will ; it is at most an act of prudence. In what sense can it be a duty?... for if force constitutes right, the effect changes with the cause, and any force which overcomes the first succeeds to its rights. As soon as men can disobey with impunity, they may do so legitimately; and since the strongest is always in the right, the only thing is to act in such a way that one may be the strongest. But what sort of a right is it that perishes when force ceases? If it is necessary to obey by compulsion, there is no need to obey from duty; and if men are no longer forced to obey, obligation is at an end. We see, then, that this word right adds nothing to force; it here means nothing at all. Obey the powers that be. If that means, Yield to force, the precept is good but superfluous; I reply that it will never be violated... If a brigand should surprise me in the recesses of a wood, am I bound not only to give up my purse when forced, but am I also morally bound to do So when I might conceal it? For, in effect, the pistol which he holds is a superior force.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  2. Mill, John Stuart (1869). The Subjection of Women. London: Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer. p. 10. [T]he law of the strongest seems to be entirely abandoned as the regulating principle of the world's affairs: nobody professes it, and, as regards most of the relations between human beings, nobody is permitted to practice it.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  3. Mill, John Stuart (1869). The Subjection of Women. London: Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer. p. 82. The moral training of mankind will never be adapted to the adapted to the conditions of the life for which all other human progress is a preparation, until they practice in the family the same moral rule which is adapted to the normal constitution of human society.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>


  1. Mill 1869
  2. 2.0 2.1 Tong, Rosemarie (2009). Feminist Thought: A More Comprehensive Introduction. Westview Press (Perseus Books). p. 17. ISBN 978-0-8133-4375-4.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  3. Mill 1851, 310.
  4. A History of Modern Psychology
  5. Mill 1869, 1.
  6. Mill 1869, 48.
  7. Mill 1869, 39.
  8. Okin, Susan Moller (1979). "John Stuart Mill Liberal Feminist". Women in Western Political Thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. p. 217.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  9. Mill 1869, 81.
  10. Mill 1869, 96.


Amos, Sheldon (1870), "The Subjection of Women", The Westminster Review, XCIII (583): 63–89<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
Andrews, Helen (2017), "Romance and Socialism in J. S. Mill", American Affairs, I (2): 199–208<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
Annas, Julia (1977), "Mill and the Subjection of Women", Philosophy, LII (200): 179–94<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
Browne, Matthew (1870), "The Subjection of Women", The Contemporary Review, XIV: 272–86<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
Catt, Carrie Chapman (1911), "Foreword", The Subjection of Women, New York: Frederick A. Stokes Company, pp. v–xv<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
Cobbe, Frances Power (1869), "The Subjection of Women", The Theological Review, VI (26): 355–75<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
Dixon, W. H. (1869), "The Subjection of Women", The Athenæum (2173): 819–20<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
James, William (1869), "Women's Suffrage, by Horace Bushnell and the Subjection of Women by John Stuart Mill", The North American Review, CIX (225): 556–65<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
MacCaig, Donald (1870), A Reply to John Stuart Mill on The Subjection of Women, Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
Mill, John Stuart (1851), "The Enfranchisement of Women", Westminster & Foreign Quarterly Review, LV (2): 289–311<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
Mill, John Stuart (1869), The Subjection of Women, London: Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
Mozley, Anne (1869), "Mr. Mill on the Subjection of Women", Blackwood's Magazine, CVI (647): 309–21<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
Oliphant, Margaret (1869), "Mill on the Subjection of Women", The Edinburgh Review, CXXX (266): 291–306<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
Pyle, Andrew (1995), The Subjection of Women: Contemporary Responses to John Stuart Mill, Bristol: Thoemmes Press<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
Sampson, Ronald V. (1966), The Psychology of Power, New York: Pantheon Books<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
Shanley, Mary Lyndon (1981), "Marital Slavery and Friendship: John Stuart Mill's The Subjection of Women", Political Theory, IX (2): 229–47<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
Stephen, James Fitzjames (1869a), "Mr. Mill on the Subjection of Women", Pall Mall Gazette (June 29)<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
Stephen, James Fitzjames (1869b), "Mr. Mill on the Subjection of Women", Pall Mall Gazette (August 23)<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
Stephen, James Fitzjames (1873), Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, New York: Holt & Williams<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
Stove, David (1993), "The Subjection of John Stuart Mill", Philosophy, LXVIII (263): 5–13<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
Taylor, Henry (1870), "Mr. Mill on the Subjection of Women", Fraser's Magazine, I (2): 143–65<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
Ward, Wilfrid (1914), "John Stuart Mill", Men and Matters, London: Longmans, Green & Co., pp. 145–200<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
White, Carlos (1870), Ecce Femina, Boston: Lee & Shepard<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.

External links