J.S. Mill and “The Subjection of Women”

          According to J.S. Mill, laws and social beliefs (commonly originated by the very existence of those laws) support an unequal system which remains from the twilight of humankind. Mill refers to the law of the strongest as a possible source of this ancient and incredibly resistant state of things.

          This situation given, Mill tries to fight against it with those two arguments. The fist one is the right-based: it is wrong itself that women have to be subjected to men. It is a natural right of every woman to be regarded and to be given the same opportunities as men have.

          The second basic argument put forward is a utility-based one. Keeping women away from certain jobs and public capabilities is a way of hampering human improvement. In a very intelligent manoeuvring, Mill attacks the system within the system. He knows Free Trade and Liberal Democracy are based on competition between individuals and associations to find the best ones and the most qualified. Those chosen by their own merits are entitled to work for that mentioned human progress, and they are surely going to make it better than the rest of people.

          Although, as we can see in this second argument, Mill manages to criticise the system within the system itself, it is possible to find more radical aim in his writing when he declares that the legal subordination of women should be “replaced by a principle of perfect equality”.

          Having taken into account the main reasons which Mill gives to show how mischievous is the subjection of women, it is necessary to consider some contradictions he seems to be oblivious to. The right-based argument lose ground since he declares the so-called nature of women is artificial and pernicious. He assures that “the nature of the two sexes” cannot be known. Then it becomes quite difficult to sustain a right-based argument (based on natural rights) when we are not able to discern human nature. Shortly, it is possible to state that Mill does not dare define women’s nature.

          Nevertheless, Mill’s greatest failure comes when he finds that “the most suitable division of labour between two persons” in a marriage in which “the man earns the income and the wife superintends the domestic expenditure” and takes care of children and the household. Unfortunately for the brilliant beginning of his book, he is now defining quite well the nature of women in a very sexist and traditional way.

          Referring to the second argument, the utility-based one, he seems to limit competition between men and women to the case in which a woman decides not to manage a household (in other words, when she choose not to marry) or there is a separation on just terms after marriage. He is actually regarding the contract of marriage an equal one as long as man earns the money and women takes care of the rest.