The Subjection of Women – John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor
As published by Oxford World’s Classics in: On Liberty – John Stuart Mill (2008, originally published: 1869)
This post is about my thoughts while reading part I of this 4 part treatise on the subjection of women, written by John Stuart Mill in cooperation with his wife, Harriet Taylor (though she is not acknowledged as such in any of the published editions, as Ana remarked in her introductory post).
Just think about the fact that John Stuart Mill wrote The Subjection of Women in 1861, 69 years after Mary Wollstonecraft wrote A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, and Mill still felt the need to plead for the education of women, of their right to be educated. Progress, much?
Mill’s argument in part I centres around the idea that in history, men have cast aside all forms of inequality: there has come an end to white men’s slavery, to the inequality between classes (or at least, there has been a start) and the slavery of Africans. According to Mill, one form of slavery still exists: that of women’s submission to men. This is the hardest form of slavery to break, because it is seen as the most “natural” one.
Accordingly, Mill proceeds to reflect on the idea that women are naturally inferior to men, and states that:
Neither does it avail anything to say that the nature of the two sexes adapts them to their present functions and position, and renders these appropriate to them. Standing on the ground of common sense and the constitution of the human mind, 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. If men had ever been found in society without women, or women without men, or if there had been a society of men and women in which the women were not under the control of the men, something might have been positively known about the mental and moral differences which may be inherent in the nature of each. What is now called the nature of women is an eminently artificial thing – the result of forced repression in some directions, unnatural stimulation in others.
It is nice to see this argument, which we have seen in A Vindication, further developed. What I find most surprising in reading all these classic texts, is how old this idea actually is. Most of the time, it is one of the first things you get taught when you start learning about gender. Yet, it is something that we still feel the need to explain and underline all the time, it has not become commonly accepted that the differences between men and women are not natural, but socially conditioned.
He goes on to say that, the fact that we hear so little about the experiences of women, or their political or social ideas, is because they have had little chance to develop them, let alone express them:
It is but of yesterday that women have either been qualified by literary accomplishments or permitted by society, to tell anything to the general public. As yet very few of them dare tell anything, which men, on whom their literary success depends, are unwilling to hear. Let us remember in what manner, up to a very recent time, the expression, even by a male author, of uncustomary opinions, or what are deemed eccentric feelings, usually was, and in some degree still is, received; and we may form some faint conception under what impediments a woman, who is brought up to think custom and opinion her sovereign rule, attempts to express in books anything drawn from the depths of her own nature.
Ah, but then Mill does something that might work against the emancipation of women. He denies the existence of women writers as a group to be reckoned with, and furthermore states that many of the works written by women were only written to enhance their chances of a good marriage, etcetera.
The greater part of what women write about women is mere sycophancy to men. In the case of unmarried women, much of it seems only intended to increase their chance of a husband. Many, both married and unmarried, overstep the mark, and inculcate a servility beyond what is desired or relished by any man, except the very vulgarest. But this is not so often the case as, even at a quite late period, it still was. Literary women are becoming more free-spoken, and more willing to express their real sentiments. Unfortunately, in this country especially, they are themselves such artificial products, that their sentiments are compounded of a small element of individual observation and consciousness, and a very large one of acquired associations. This will be less and less the case, but it will remain true to a great extent, as long as social institutions do not admit the same free development of originality in women which is possible to men.
How often have women’s voices been written out of history, consciously or unconsciously, I wonder? Here, Mill certainly tries to make a point for women’s rights, and yet, he does not acknowledge the work done by women in his time or before him. Nor does he seem to point to earlier texts written on the subject of women’s right, at least not in the first part of his treatise.
There is one more paragraph I would like to remark upon, and that is the paragraph in which he compares the lot of women to that of slaves or sailors, saying that in all cases, the argument has always been that (white, upper-class) men, have to force their inferiors to do a certain job, because otherwise it would not happen. Instead, Mill argues, we should pay every person what their job is worth, and oppression would not be necessary anymore. Mary Wollstonecraft uses the same comparisons, sailors and slaves. It makes you wonder.. Certainly, the time at which these texts were written made these comparisons work, they were recent examples of inequality, the abolitionist movement was well-known at the time, etcetera. But I cannot shake the feeling that part of the comparison is unfair, somehow? However, I am not certain yet why I feel that way. Maybe it is because it feels wrong to lump every form of oppression together under one category, to compare them as if there is no difference in circumstances, needs, cruelty, etcetera? And yet, dividing such issues from each other, keeping them completely separate, seems wrong too. That happened during the feminist waves in the twentieth century, in which class and ethnicity were often forgotten. So I don’t know what to think, really.
So far, The Subjection of Women is an easier read than Vindication was. It is more to the point, less rambly, written in a style that feels more contemporary. I am not sure if I am enjoying it better, it is simply that it is easier to reflect upon, since it is a faster read.
This post was written for A Year of Feminist Classics. Interested? Please consider joining us..
He addresses the issue of writing/literature later on in what I thought was a more sensible manner. But I agree that there was a lot he’s not acknowledging.
I also agree that the comparison to slavery is sometimes unfortunate. There’s a bit in particular where he mentions rape (in that oblique, Victorian way) that made me go “You can’t be serious?”. But I’ll save the full rant for my post
Anyway, like Trisha at Eclectic/Eccentric was saying, he may have used that comparison because it was likely to have an emotional pull.
Pingback: Tweets that mention The Subjection of Women, part I | Iris on Books -- Topsy.com
I’m looking forward to reading this after Ana’s and now your introduction. Sounds like some interesting points, especially the comparisons.
I think that’s exactly it—considering that slavery had only recently been abolished in the United States four years before Mill wrote and published this, comparing the the more intellectual subjugation of women to the complete subjugation of slavery can feel a little flippant. (And he apparently ignores the fact that there’s overlap between ex-slaves and women who deserve education and other fun things. Oh boy.) While it is important to keep these different issues on a spectrum, they are quite different in circumstances.
Don’t totally think Mill discounts all female writers … he makes some nice points later in the essay.
I agree with you on the comparison of slavery to woman subjection and especially marriage (I noticed he did that a lot — compare marriage to slavery) … I don’t think it is quite right to put the two issues on the exact same level as one another as they were worlds apart (and literary omnivore is right he did forget about female ex-slaves entirely), but it does pull at the heartstrings and I’m sure that was what he was trying to do.
Keep plugging away at the book … I liked chapter II & III the best
I also found this much easier (and therefore more enjoyable) to read than Mary Wollstonecraft’s piece. Hers was clearly reactionary whereas Subjection seems well thought out with arguments built up and explored (whether or not I agreed with them).
I was also uncomfortable and unsure about his comparisons to slavery though I did get the impression he was using that as a tool to let people know that society is not now as enlightened as they might think. That yes, one group now free but hey! Look! There is this other group with very few rights living in your own households. Not so evolved as we thought we were.
I’m having to stop myself here, feel like I could just keep going on. This sort of stuff really stirs it up!
If this is an easier read than Wollstonecraft then I might read it. I love to read about feminist issues from these earlier times, but at the same time I find them difficult to get through because I get frustrated with the ideas. Great post.
The greater part of what women write about women is mere sycophancy to men.
I can actually see his point here. I mean, I wouldn’t say “the greater part,” not anymore, but think about COSMO. Vogue. All the popular literature on how to be pleasing to the male gaze. The vast romance-novel industry, by women and for women, which has its good points (sex-positivity, for example) but also glorifies the idea of finding personal completion in marriage and romantic love. It strikes me as somewhere between sycophancy to men, and an expression of women’s own internalized sexism. And just greed, I suppose, since sex sells.
It doesn’t seem to me that Mill is arguing that there have been no female literary pioneers before him, or that all of his own female peers are sycophantic and unoriginal, just that the majority are, due to the way they’re socialized. But I’m judging based on the quotes you pulled and a faint memory of reading this in college, so no promises about deep accuracy.
I remember reading a little bit about John Stuart Mill in my women’s studies courses. He seems to be writing to a contemporary audience in some ways. But I really like what you said about the lumping of all oppressions together: it is so easy to do. But then I think, what about women of color? Or women in other countries? They face unique obstacles and when we lump all forms of oppression together, I think we flatten that difference a bit and make it difficult to really capture their experiences. It’s all to easy to only talk about feminism from the vantage point of the white American woman; it becomes so much more complicated when you add in other groups of women: women of color, lesbians, poor women, ect.
This is a wonderful topic – one that I’m sure many of us could go on and on about. I know that I wish to take more feminism classes before I graduate. Every time someone mentioned the word, I can’t help but get fired up.
I still haven’t read Wollstonecraft but this does sound like one I should also read.Thanks for this.
I did not reject the comparison with slavery, including the fact that control of one group by another group on the basis of some inherent characteristic (race of gender) is bad for both master and slave. My post: http://silverseason.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/the-subjection-of-women/
Pingback: The Subjection of Women – Discussion Post « A Year of Feminist Classics
Umm, I agree with you that Mill maybe could have mentioned more of the women who had managed to break through and make their mark in literature and philosophy – namely Mary Wollstonecraft, as Mill’s essay follows on a great deal from the arguments she first laid down a few decades previously.
I’ve also found Mill an easier read than Wollstonecraft, although I enjoyed Vindication more, I must say. The more radical tone of Wollstonecraft’s polemic resonates a lot more with me than the more measured, liberal tone of Mill’s.
Pingback: Wrap-Up: The Subjection of Women « A Year of Feminist Classics
What bothered me as well re: women’s accomplishments was that Mill seems to deny individual female agency in favor of this mass brainwashing that potentially makes all women suspect and precludes any sort of mold-breaking. But I wonder if his ignorance of women’s contributions to the arts and literature was really all that willful. It could very well have been that he was simply unaware of them since they were not emphasized at the time, whereas today we have Women’s Studies and other feminist scholar rediscovering previously forgotten works, as well as publicizing contributions from other cultures (i.e. Tale of Genji).