Notes on John Stuart Mill's Subjection of Women

Christian Perring, Ph.D., with the aid of the work of PHL002 students

I. The social organization that puts men above women is wrong.

It was derived from physical superiority, not rational justification.
No alternative social hierarchies, such as placing women above men, have been tried to see which organization of society maximizes the happiness of society.
Whatever reasons there were in the past for allowing men to rule women may not be good ones now.

Mill compares the relationship of men over women to slavery.
Although slavery in Christian Europe had been all but abandoned for me, for women it had become a form of dependence.
Historically the obedience of slaves had been obtained by the use of fear, but in the case of women the mind had been enslaved. Women were conditioned from childhood: all their nature was to live for others.

Objection: Women's obedience and subservience to men is voluntary, unlike a slave's obedience to his master.
Reply: Women are not given much choice in how to live their lives. Furthermore, their education enslaves their minds, so their actions are not truly voluntary.

When they are able to protest, they do:

by increasing the number of written protests
by petitioning Parliament for suffrage
by pushing for equality in education
by pushing for admission into the professions

The small origins of women's protesting against excessive oppression will lead to calls for full-blown equality with men. All revolutionary movements start with modest protests and build on them.
It is not surprising that women do not protest brutal treatment by their husbands more, for even when they protest, the judicial system hands them back to their husbands, doubtless to suffer more vioence. So of course few women protest their maltreatment by husbands.
Women are taught that it is their duty to be obedient to men. Their whole point in life becomes to be accepted by men, due to the following powerful forces:

the natural attraction between men and women
the wife's total dependence on her husband's power: everything she gets she gets through him
the wife's only access to "consideration" (esteem, or regard) from anyone is through her husband's approval.

II. There should be equality between husbands and wives

Slavery as an arrangement of society wrong.
So slavery should also not exist in the private world of a marriage.
To live together as equals is a true virtue of human beings.
English law gives women very few rights, maybe fewer than slaves used to have in Rome. She swears her obedience to her husband at their marriage, and this is enforced by law for the rest of her life.
The family is a school in which children learn about right and wrong. They should learn about true cooperation, not having power on one side and obedience on the other, in the same way that people best learn about virtue in a free society.
Anyone who can live as the absolute master of his family cannot love freedom.
The whole of modern history consists of the slow wearing away of the distinctions between free male citizens, slaves, women, and the "unenfranchised" residents, i.e., people who had no legal rights.

Objection: There is no need for reform of the marital laws because there are countless cases of men who treat their wives very well. Loving authority goes with loving submission.
Reply: This is great when it works, but ... there are all degrees of love and affection toward family and all kinds of men, good and wicked. There is no proof that all men are fit to be trusted with the power of a husband. Laws not made to protect us from good people, but from bad people. "Meanwhile, laws and institutions require to be adapted, not to good men, but to bad."

III. Women should be allowed to compete equally for positions in society.

If male society could admit that women were equal, then they would be able to admit the injustice of excluding half the population from obtaining rewarding jobs and positions in public life. But men are mainly unable to face women as equals.
In the past, it was rare for men to even bother trying to justify their exclusion of women from positions of power.
When they did try to justify the exclusion, it was generally on the ground that it was better for society (which meant the interests of men).
But in Mill's day, the general justification of the exclusion of women from the public sphere is that women are unfit for jobs outside of the family.
The only legitimate reason there could be for preventing women from competing with men for public jobs would be if the most talented women did not match the least talented men. But that is obviously now how the talents of men and women are divided.
It is not sufficient for the justification of exclusion of women to show that the average ability of women is less than the average ability of men. That would simply mean that fewer women would get jobs than men, and that will happen anyway since many women will choose to be mothers rather than have careers.
Women have proved themselves to be worthy and capable of equality with men in many different realms. While there may be some areas where women have not shown as much ability as men, in most there have been women who have shown themselves comparable in ability to the the best men.
Society as a whole can't afford to reject women because it works against both women and society as a whole.
Even if society could afford to exclude women from jobs, it would still be unfair to do so; unfair not just to women, but also to men, who would benefit from women's skills.
There is no evidence that women are less gifted than men, and so there is no evidence that the oppression of women is for their own good.