Erhalten Sie Zugang zu diesem und mehr als 300000 Büchern ab EUR 5,99 monatlich.
- Herausgeber: Musaicum Books
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Sprache: Englisch
John Stuart Mill's 'The Subjection of Women' is a groundbreaking work in the realm of feminist literature, challenging the traditional patriarchal society of the 19th century. Written in a persuasive and logical manner, Mill discusses the inherent inequality and subjugation faced by women in both public and private spheres, advocating for their equal rights and opportunities. Drawing on philosophical and political theories, the book serves as a call to action for social reform and the recognition of women as individuals deserving of respect and autonomy. John Stuart Mill, a prominent philosopher and political economist, was a staunch advocate for individual liberty and social equality. Inspired by his own upbringing and the influential women in his life, including his wife Harriet Taylor, Mill was compelled to address the systemic injustices faced by women in society through his writing. His dedication to the principles of utilitarianism and liberalism shines through in 'The Subjection of Women', presenting a compelling argument for gender equality. I highly recommend 'The Subjection of Women' to readers interested in the history of feminism, political philosophy, and social justice. Mill's insightful analysis and persuasive rhetoric make this book a must-read for anyone seeking to understand the ongoing struggles for gender equality and the importance of individual rights. In this enriched edition, we have carefully created added value for your reading experience: - A succinct Introduction situates the work's timeless appeal and themes. - The Synopsis outlines the central plot, highlighting key developments without spoiling critical twists. - A detailed Historical Context immerses you in the era's events and influences that shaped the writing. - An Author Biography reveals milestones in the author's life, illuminating the personal insights behind the text. - A thorough Analysis dissects symbols, motifs, and character arcs to unearth underlying meanings. - Reflection questions prompt you to engage personally with the work's messages, connecting them to modern life. - Hand‐picked Memorable Quotes shine a spotlight on moments of literary brilliance. - Interactive footnotes clarify unusual references, historical allusions, and archaic phrases for an effortless, more informed read.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 277
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2017
Das E-Book (TTS) können Sie hören im Abo „Legimi Premium” in Legimi-Apps auf:
Ähnliche
THE SUBJECTION OF WOMEN
Table of Contents
Introduction
Against the drag of law and habit, a clear voice presses the claim that society has mistaken custom for truth, and that by fencing in the capacities of women it has impoverished the whole field of human endeavor, turning what should be a partnership in freedom into a system that measures worth by prescribed roles rather than tested ability.
The Subjection of Women is a work by John Stuart Mill, a nineteenth-century philosopher, political economist, and Member of Parliament. First published in 1869, it was composed in the mid-1860s and gathers arguments Mill had refined over years of public engagement. The book’s central premise is straightforward yet far-reaching: the legal and social arrangements that subordinate women are unjust, unsupported by reliable evidence about ability, and harmful to individual and collective progress. Without rehearsing every step of his case, this introduction situates the work in its time and explains why it remains essential reading today.
Mill wrote amid vigorous Victorian debates about marriage law, education, employment, and political representation. As an MP, he presented a major petition for women’s suffrage in 1866 and proposed, in 1867, that parliamentary reform should include women voters. Those efforts provide important context for the book’s publication in 1869. The volume does not merely echo legislative skirmishes; it sets them within a larger liberal argument about rights, consent, and the conditions under which talents can be discovered. The text speaks both to immediate injustices and to the principles by which a modern society might judge its institutions.
Part of the enduring power of this book lies in its style. Mill writes with a disciplined clarity that aims to persuade those who do not already agree, testing objections, weighing evidence, and inviting the reader to separate habit from reason. His prose maintains a calm temperature while advancing a radical claim: that only freely chosen relations and open opportunities can reveal what women—and men—can actually do. The method is literary as well as philosophical, using example, analogy, and measured cadence to carry arguments from the domestic sphere to law and public life.
Its classic status rests on several pillars. Intellectually, it distills core commitments of liberal thought—equality before the law, individual liberty, and the demand for justification of power—into a focused examination of gender. Historically, it became a touchstone for campaigns seeking property rights, access to education, professional entry, and political voice. Culturally, it has been kept in print, studied in universities, and cited across generations of debate about feminism and human rights. That combination of philosophical depth and civic consequence has secured the book a durable place in the canon.
The influence of The Subjection of Women reaches beyond political theory into movements and literatures that reshaped public life. Early suffrage organizations in Britain and the United States drew on Mill’s arguments when articulating claims to the vote and to civil equality. Later activists and writers across liberal and feminist traditions have engaged with his reasoning—some extending it, others contesting its limits—thereby keeping it at the center of conversation. The book’s legacy is not a single school but a sustained dialogue about the relationship between justice, capability, and the institutions that structure everyday existence.
Readers encounter a set of claims that thread principle and practicality. Mill challenges the assumption that gendered roles reflect fixed nature, observing that social restrictions make it impossible to know the true range of women’s capacities. He argues that laws and customs should promote voluntary association and fair competition, not predetermined hierarchy. From domestic relations to access to work and education, the book asks what arrangements best foster free development of character. The question is empirical as much as moral: what social conditions most reliably let talent surface and choice govern?
The historical background sharpens the argument. In Mill’s Britain, married women’s property and legal standing were tightly constrained, higher education and many professions were largely closed to women, and civic participation was limited by statute and custom. These facts created a lived environment in which dependency was often enforced rather than chosen. Mill addresses this setting directly, not to rehearse grievances alone, but to show how institutional rules shape what people appear to be, and how reform can align practice with the ethical commitments a liberal society professes to hold.
Mill did not write in isolation. He credited Harriet Taylor Mill with shaping his thinking over many years, and her published writings on women’s rights in the 1850s form an important part of the intellectual backdrop. Their partnership, sustained by conversation and shared projects, helped develop the book’s emphasis on consent, reciprocity, and the testing of social arrangements by their effects on human flourishing. Acknowledging this collaboration matters because it exemplifies the very principle the work defends: that ideas advance when minds meet on equal terms.
As literature, the book rewards close reading. Its argument proceeds by patient accumulation rather than flourish, returning to first principles without losing sight of practical details. Mill anticipates objections, distinguishes prejudice from evidence, and insists that institutions justify themselves before the tribunal of reason. The effect is to transform a controversy into a public examination of assumptions. Even when a reader dissents from a premise or a conclusion, the text models a way of arguing that respects opponents while demanding clarity from them and from oneself.
Over time, The Subjection of Women has remained urgent because the questions it poses have not vanished. How should law respond to claims about nature and difference? What counts as a fair test of merit? Where do private choices meet public rules? Mill’s way of framing these issues—linking personal freedom to social progress—has allowed successive generations to apply his reasoning to new circumstances. The book is part of the history of feminism and of liberalism, and it continues to provoke refinement and response in both traditions.
To approach this work now is to encounter a voice speaking from the nineteenth century to a twenty-first-century world still debating equality in the family, the workplace, education, and politics. Its appeal endures because it joins moral clarity to practical inquiry, and because it treats the dignity of persons as a standard by which institutions must be measured. Without revealing the particular paths the argument takes, this introduction invites you to read with attention to both history and possibility, and to find in Mill’s pages a rigorous companion for contemporary reflection.
Synopsis
John Stuart Mill’s The Subjection of Women, first published in 1869, advances a sustained argument that the legal and social subordination of women is unjust and harmful to human progress. Writing as a philosopher and political economist, Mill situates the question within a broader liberal commitment to individual freedom and equal opportunity. He proposes to examine the institutions that govern gender relations—particularly law, custom, marriage, education, work, and political rights—by asking whether they accord with justice and social utility. The work proceeds by challenging inherited assumptions, testing common objections, and constructing a case for reform grounded in reason rather than tradition.
Mill begins by tracing women’s subordination to historical origins in force and customary authority, not to demonstrated superiority or free consent. He contends that social arrangements born from conquest or patriarchal power have often survived long after their original justifications have vanished. Because custom exerts a powerful and unexamined influence, he argues that institutions should be judged anew by their consequences for welfare and moral development. In this framing, the prevailing gender hierarchy is an anomaly within a society that increasingly accepts liberty and equality as political ideals, and thus requires rigorous scrutiny rather than deferential acceptance.
Turning to the domestic sphere, Mill scrutinizes marriage as an institution legally structured around the wife’s obedience and the husband’s authority. He argues that such an arrangement resembles despotism, however benevolent its intentions, because it concentrates power in one person and suppresses open disagreement. The law of coverture and related practices, in his view, dissolve a married woman’s legal personality, creating incentives that distort character on both sides. Against this, he proposes the ideal of marriage as a voluntary partnership between equals, where mutual respect and shared decision-making replace command and submission, and where affection is strengthened rather than policed by legal coercion.
A central pillar of Mill’s analysis is the claim that supposed differences in female nature cannot be known with confidence under conditions of systemic restraint. If women are trained from childhood to depend on male approval and excluded from many avenues of achievement, observed traits may reflect adaptation to subordination rather than innate disposition. Mill therefore urges the removal of legal and customary barriers so that genuine capacities can emerge. Only through real freedom of choice in education and careers can society learn which differences are durable and which are artifacts of unequal opportunity, a process he treats as both ethical and empirically necessary.
Mill applies this reasoning to labor and economic life, arguing that exclusion from trades and professions wastes talent and depresses overall productivity. He rejects the view that opening occupations to women would unfairly displace men, holding that free competition better allocates skill and rewards merit. He also criticizes legal rules that deprive married women of property and earnings, emphasizing the importance of economic independence for dignity and bargaining power. By enabling women to support themselves, he contends, society reduces coerced dependency and fosters more authentic domestic relations, while aligning labor markets with principles already accepted in other areas of economic policy.
The argument extends to political rights. Mill maintains that representation should attach to persons as such, not to sex, and that denying women the vote contradicts the very grounds on which modern representative government is justified. He addresses objections based on physical strength or military service by distinguishing political capacity from bodily force and by noting the many civic functions that do not depend on combat. Enfranchising women, he argues, would correct legislative blind spots, provide a check against laws made without their consent, and symbolize the status of women as equal members of the political community.
Mill engages at length with familiar defenses of separate spheres and the claim that motherhood or domesticity necessitates legal restriction. He counters that if most women prefer domestic roles, no prohibition is needed; freedom will produce that outcome without compulsion. He also disputes appeals to chivalry, which he regards as a flattering rhetoric masking real power imbalances. Concerns about sexual jealousy, family order, or social upheaval, he argues, are better addressed by mutual responsibility and fair laws than by institutionalized subordination, which breeds dependency, encourages moral weakness, and narrows the development of character in both women and men.
Throughout, Mill links gender equality to broader social and moral advancement. He predicts that partnerships between equals would cultivate honesty, self-command, and intellectual growth, benefiting children’s education and public life. More widely, he situates reform within a liberal vision that values diversity of life plans and respects experiments in living as sources of social learning. Removing constraints on half the population enhances the stock of ideas and talents available to society, strengthens justice by aligning law with moral principle, and deepens the habits of reciprocity that sustain free institutions beyond the household.
The Subjection of Women thus presents a coherent case for replacing inherited authority with principled equality across domestic, economic, and political domains. While attentive to practical objections and gradual change, it consistently urges that laws and customs be measured by their effects on freedom and human improvement. The work’s enduring significance lies in its articulation of a liberal feminist framework that treats gender hierarchy as a remediable injustice and a barrier to collective flourishing. Mill’s analysis continues to inform debates over rights, roles, and institutions by insisting that justice and utility converge in the equal citizenship of women.
Historical Context
John Stuart Mill’s The Subjection of Women appeared in 1869, in Victorian Britain under Queen Victoria’s long reign (1837–1901). The United Kingdom was a constitutional monarchy with a powerful Parliament, an established Church of England, and a legal system rooted in common law. Britain was also the core of a vast empire and the foremost industrial nation in Europe. Social hierarchy, property, and patriarchal family authority structured everyday life. Respectability, domesticity, and deference framed gender expectations, especially among the expanding middle class. Mill wrote within this milieu, arguing that the legal and customary subordination of women was not natural or inevitable but historically constructed and politically maintained.
A central legal backdrop to Mill’s treatise was the doctrine of coverture in English common law. Upon marriage, a woman’s legal identity was largely subsumed under her husband’s; he controlled her property, earnings, and domicile, and she faced obstacles in contracting or litigating independently. Equity courts could protect a wife’s “separate estate” only through special arrangements, and such provisions were limited. Mill’s book attacks this framework as a relic of status-based law incompatible with modern principles of liberty. He presents the domestic sphere as a site of legal subordination, challenging the presumption that marriage necessarily entails male governance.
Mid-century reforms highlighted both the change and the continuity of women’s legal position. The Custody of Infants Act (1839) made limited concessions to mothers’ custodial rights. The Matrimonial Causes Act (1857) created a civil court for divorce, but divorce remained costly and the grounds were unequal for husbands and wives. Parliament also passed the 1853 Act to protect women and children from aggravated assault, acknowledging domestic violence while offering limited remedies. Mill’s analysis resonates with this context: piecemeal reforms signaled a shift toward civil equality, yet preserved core asymmetries that treated women as dependents rather than autonomous citizens.
Electoral politics sharpened these debates. The Reform Act of 1832 had expanded representation but explicitly framed the parliamentary franchise in male terms. Chartism (late 1830s–1840s) mobilized mass petitions for wider male suffrage, demonstrating the power of organized political pressure. After Mill was elected Member of Parliament for Westminster (1865–1868), he presented a women’s suffrage petition in 1866 with roughly 1,500 signatures and, in 1867, proposed substituting “person” for “man” in the Second Reform Bill. The amendment failed, but it publicized the suffrage cause. The Subjection of Women, published soon after, distilled arguments sharpened by these parliamentary confrontations.
A nascent women’s movement had been developing in London and provincial cities since the 1850s. The Langham Place circle fostered discussion, founded the English Woman’s Journal (from 1858), and supported practical employment initiatives. Reformers such as Barbara Leigh Smith Bodichon promoted legal change, including property rights. The Kensington Society (mid-1860s) convened women intellectuals who helped organize the 1866 suffrage petition. In 1867, suffrage societies formed in Manchester and London, coordinating lectures, pamphlets, and petitions. Mill’s book engaged this rising associational world, providing philosophical scaffolding for activists who were reframing women’s claims as questions of citizenship and justice rather than charity.
The book also sits within a transatlantic intellectual genealogy. Mary Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792) remained a touchstone for arguments about education and equality. In the United States, the 1848 Seneca Falls Convention adopted a Declaration of Sentiments calling for women’s civil and political rights, and American campaigns for property and suffrage circulated widely via print. British and American periodicals exchanged reports, and reformers corresponded across the Atlantic. Mill’s arguments—grounded in liberal, rights-based reasoning and empirical appeals—echoed this broader first-wave feminist milieu while targeting specifically British legal and institutional barriers.
Education stood at the heart of mid-century reform. Before the 1860s, girls’ schooling commonly emphasized accomplishments over rigorous study. New institutions challenged that pattern: Queen’s College, London (1848), and Bedford College (1849) offered women higher instruction. Frances Mary Buss founded the North London Collegiate School for Girls in 1850, promoting academic curricula. In 1869, Girton College near Cambridge opened as the first residential college for women at Cambridge. Although universities largely withheld degrees from women for decades, these initiatives signaled a shift. Mill’s insistence that supposed “natural” differences reflected unequal opportunities aligned with tangible experiments in women’s education.
Industrial capitalism reshaped women’s work and domestic life. By the 1851 Census, domestic service was the largest female occupation, while textile mills, workshops, and home industries employed many others at low wages. Protective legislation such as the Mines and Collieries Act (1842) barred women from underground work; the Ten Hours Act (1847) and later Factory Acts regulated hours for women and young persons. Yet legal and cultural norms maintained the ideal of separate spheres, reserving public and political life for men. Mill’s critique targeted this mismatch: a society reliant on women’s labor and intellect still denied them legal autonomy, professional access, and political voice.
Rapid improvements in communication amplified reform debates. Railways linked towns and cities from the 1830s, while the electric telegraph (1840s) and a national postal system reshaped networks of correspondence and petitioning. Reductions in “taxes on knowledge”—the repeal of the newspaper stamp (1855), advertising duty (1853), and paper duty (1861)—fueled a cheaper press and vigorous periodical culture. Learned societies, debating clubs, and public lectures flourished. Mill’s arguments circulated within this dynamic print sphere; petitions for women’s rights could be coordinated quickly, and responses—supportive or hostile—appeared in newspapers and reviews, turning private grievances into public questions of law and policy.
Mill’s intellectual formation matters for understanding the book’s tone and method. Raised by the philosopher James Mill and influenced by Jeremy Bentham, he embraced utilitarianism while developing a robust defense of individual liberty. His On Liberty (1859) and Considerations on Representative Government (1861) articulated principles later applied to women’s status. Harriet Taylor, whom he married in 1851, was a key collaborator; her essay Enfranchisement of Women appeared in 1851. After her death in 1858, Mill acknowledged her influence. Helen Taylor, his stepdaughter, worked with him on political campaigns. The Subjection of Women synthesizes these liberal and feminist strands into a systematic legal and moral case.
Events beyond Britain lent urgency to claims about universal rights. The British Parliament abolished slavery in most colonies in 1833, and public antislavery activism left a deep cultural imprint. During the American Civil War (1861–1865), Mill published The Contest in America (1862), supporting the Union and emancipation. These struggles against domination informed liberal arguments that civil status should not rest on inherited categories. Mill’s book extends that logic to gender, contending that denying half the population equal civil standing wastes talent and entrenches injustice. Though the contexts differ, the shared emphasis is the incompatibility of modern liberal states with systems of inherited subordination.
Religious currents also shaped debate. Evangelical revivalism, Anglican authority, and Nonconformist traditions all influenced attitudes toward marriage, sexuality, and moral reform. The Matrimonial Causes Act (1857), which shifted divorce from ecclesiastical to civil courts, symbolized an ongoing negotiation between religious doctrine and civic authority. Meanwhile, the Contagious Diseases Acts (from 1864) subjected women suspected of prostitution in garrison towns and ports to coercive medical examinations, provoking organized protest from 1869. Such controversies highlighted the state’s power over women’s bodies and reputations. Mill’s emphasis on consent, dignity, and legal equality resonated amid these disputes about morality, public order, and individual rights.
Campaigns for women’s property rights gathered momentum alongside suffrage. Reformers compiled case studies and legal analyses, notably Barbara Leigh Smith Bodichon’s Brief Summary of the Laws of England concerning Women (1854), to publicize injustices. Parliamentary committees and sympathetic MPs introduced bills through the 1860s. The Married Women’s Property Act (1870) soon allowed married women to retain earnings and certain property acquired after marriage, and broader reforms followed in 1882. Mill’s book provided philosophical justification for such changes by arguing that property control and personal autonomy were inseparable, and that retaining coverture contradicted both justice and the economic efficiency prized by industrial society.
When The Subjection of Women was published, it entered a vigorous review culture. The book was widely discussed in Britain and abroad, with some commentators praising its clarity and moral force, and others dismissing its proposals as destabilizing to the family and social order. Mill’s insistence on evidence—pointing to women’s achievements where barriers were lowered—challenged critics who relied on custom or intuition. The mixture of philosophical argument, legal analysis, and practical reform proposals made the book accessible to campaigners and intelligible within parliamentary discourse, ensuring that its claims reverberated beyond philosophical circles.
Comparative law underscored that women’s subordination was neither uniquely British nor inevitable. The Napoleonic Code in France entrenched marital authority of the husband; similar constraints appeared across continental Europe. In the United States, Married Women’s Property Acts began appearing from the 1830s and 1840s, notably in New York (1848), yet reforms varied widely by state and rarely delivered full equality. These cross-national contrasts furnished Mill with an empirical repertoire: where laws changed, women’s capabilities manifested; where barriers remained, inequality persisted. The book thus invited readers to treat gender hierarchy as a policy choice, not a natural order, and to compare outcomes across jurisdictions.
The immediate political aftermath showed incremental but tangible shifts. The Municipal Franchise Act (1869) extended the local government vote in England and Wales to some women ratepayers, and the Elementary Education Act (1870) enabled women to vote for—and serve on—school boards. Educational institutions for women expanded, and professional barriers began to loosen in specific fields; Elizabeth Garrett Anderson had qualified as a physician in 1865, a milestone that reformers publicized. While parliamentary suffrage for women remained decades away, these measures reflected growing acceptance of civic participation beyond the household—the very terrain of equality that Mill had argued was both just and socially beneficial.
Technological and cultural change continued to alter daily life in ways that reinforced Mill’s themes. Expanding rail networks enabled women to travel for education, employment, and activism; postal and telegraph systems facilitated national coordination of campaigns. Cheap print sustained debates about marriage law, employment, and education. Public lectures and debating societies offered platforms for female speakers, challenging conventions about women’s public presence. Such developments did not, by themselves, dissolve legal subordination, but they undermined the claim that women’s capacities were unsuited to public life. Mill’s arguments thus intersected with a widening experiential base that showcased women’s competence in civic and professional roles, given opportunity and rights equalization. The Subjection of Women stands as a mirror and a critique of its era. It reflects the Victorian world’s mixture of reform and restraint—industrial dynamism alongside legal hierarchy, political expansion alongside gender exclusion. It also functions as a normative brief, drawing on liberal principles, comparative observation, and the lived realities of education, work, and marriage to argue that subordination by sex is incompatible with a modern, free society. Positioned amid petitions, statutes, and public controversies, Mill’s book distilled a historical moment into a lasting challenge to the institutions that defined it.
Author Biography
John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) was a British philosopher, political economist, and parliamentarian whose work helped define liberal thought in the nineteenth century. Writing in the Victorian era, he developed influential positions in ethics, political theory, logic, and social reform. Mill advanced a version of utilitarianism attentive to individuality and moral development, defended freedom of expression through the “harm principle,” and produced major treatises on logic and political economy. His essays and books sought to reconcile empirical rigor with a humane, reformist outlook. Across philosophy, law, and public policy, Mill’s arguments became touchstones for debates about rights, democratic institutions, and the limits of state power.
Mill received an intensive home education guided by the philosopher and historian James Mill and shaped by the utilitarian circle around Jeremy Bentham. He mastered classics, logic, and political economy early, and began writing for periodicals in his youth. Employed by the East India Company from his teens, he balanced civil service with a growing literary career. In early adulthood he experienced a noted mental crisis, after which he credited poetry—especially Wordsworth—with broadening his moral sensibilities. Mill’s engagements with Romantic and conservative critics, and his studies of thinkers such as David Hume, Adam Smith, and Auguste Comte, tempered and deepened his utilitarian commitments.
A System of Logic, first published in the 1840s, established Mill’s reputation as a methodologist of science and inquiry. He articulated principles of inductive reasoning, formulated well-known “methods” for causal inference, and defended the application of empirical procedures to moral and social questions. The work challenged intuitionist and purely deductive approaches by emphasizing observation, hypothesis testing, and the careful weighing of evidence. It influenced legal reasoning, the social sciences, and educational curricula well into the twentieth century. While later philosophers debated its limits, A System of Logic secured Mill’s place at the center of English-language discussions about scientific method and the scope of empirical knowledge.
Principles of Political Economy appeared later in the 1840s and quickly became a standard text. Synthesizing classical economics with a reformist social outlook, Mill distinguished between the relatively fixed “laws of production” and the malleable “laws of distribution,” insisting that institutions and norms shape how wealth is shared. He defended competitive markets while allowing that cooperative enterprises and social reforms could advance welfare. Through successive editions he revised positions in light of new evidence and criticism, modeling intellectual openness. The book informed public debate on trade, labor, and poverty, and it bridged technical economics with moral and political considerations.
Mill’s mid-century essays consolidated his moral and political philosophy. On Liberty set out the harm principle: power may be exercised over individuals against their will only to prevent harm to others. He offered a robust defense of free discussion and individuality as engines of personal and social progress. In Utilitarianism he refined the tradition he inherited, arguing for qualitative differences among pleasures and exploring the relation between justice and utility. Considerations on Representative Government analyzed electoral systems, political participation, and institutional checks, endorsing broader suffrage and experiments such as proportional representation to protect minorities and improve deliberation.
A committed advocate of gender equality, Mill published The Subjection of Women in 1869, arguing that legal and social constraints on women lacked justification and harmed society. He acknowledged the formative influence of his long-standing intellectual partner, Harriet Taylor Mill, on his thinking about liberty and equality. As Member of Parliament for Westminster in the mid-1860s, he promoted women’s suffrage—most notably by proposing an amendment to extend the franchise—and supported civil liberties and accountability for abuses, including outspoken opposition to the repression in Jamaica. His Auguste Comte and Positivism assessed the promise and perils of positivist social science for liberal society.
After the dissolution of the East India Company in 1858, Mill devoted himself increasingly to writing and public causes. He spent his later years partly in France, where he died in 1873 at Avignon. His Autobiography appeared shortly thereafter, offering an account of his intellectual development, while Three Essays on Religion was published posthumously in the 1870s, prepared for print by close collaborators. Mill’s legacy endures across philosophy, economics, and political theory: the harm principle informs contemporary free speech debates; his views on welfare and institutions shape policy discussions; and his arguments for equality continue to influence democratic and feminist thought.
THE SUBJECTION OF WOMEN
CHAPTER I
The object of this Essay is to explain as clearly as I am able grounds of an opinion which I have held from the very earliest period when I had formed any opinions at all on social political matters, and which, instead of being weakened or modified, has been constantly growing stronger by the progress of reflection and the experience of life. That the principle which regulates the existing social relations between the two sexes — the legal subordination of one sex to the other — is wrong itself, and now one of the chief hindrances to human improvement; and that it ought to be replaced by a principle of perfect equality, admitting no power or privilege on the one side, nor disability on the other.
The very words necessary to express the task I have undertaken, show how arduous it is[1q]. But it would be a mistake to suppose that the difficulty of the case must lie in the insufficiency or obscurity of the grounds of reason on which my conviction rests. The difficulty is that which exists in all cases in which there is a mass of feeling to be contended against. So long as opinion is strongly rooted in the feelings, it gains rather than loses instability by having a preponderating weight of argument against it. For if it were accepted as a result of argument, the refutation of the argument might shake the solidity of the conviction; but when it rests solely on feeling, the worse it fares in argumentative contest, the more persuaded adherents are that their feeling must have some deeper ground, which the arguments do not reach; and while the feeling remains, it is always throwing up fresh intrenchments of argument to repair any breach made in the old. And there are so many causes tending to make the feelings connected with this subject the most intense and most deeply-rooted of those which gather round and protect old institutions and custom, that we need not wonder to find them as yet less undermined and loosened than any of the rest by the progress the great modern spiritual and social transition; nor suppose that the barbarisms to which men cling longest must be less barbarisms than those which they earlier shake off.
In every respect the burthen is hard on those who attack an almost universal opinion[2q]. They must be very fortunate well as unusually capable if they obtain a hearing at all. They have more difficulty in obtaining a trial, than any other litigants have in getting a verdict. If they do extort a hearing, they are subjected to a set of logical requirements totally different from those exacted from other people. In all other cases, burthen of proof is supposed to lie with the affirmative. If a person is charged with a murder, it rests with those who accuse him to give proof of his guilt, not with himself to prove his innocence. If there is a difference of opinion about the reality of an alleged historical event, in which the feelings of men general are not much interested, as the Siege of Troy example[1], those who maintain that the event took place expected to produce their proofs, before those who take the other side can be required to say anything; and at no time these required to do more than show that the evidence produced by the others is of no value. Again, in practical matters, the burthen of proof is supposed to be with those who are against liberty; who contend for any restriction or prohibition either any limitation of the general freedom of human action or any disqualification or disparity of privilege affecting one person or kind of persons, as compared with others. The a priori presumption is in favour of freedom and impartiality. It is held that there should be no restraint not required by I general good, and that the law should be no respecter of persons but should treat all alike, save where dissimilarity of treatment is required by positive reasons, either of justice or of policy. But of none of these rules of evidence will the benefit be allowed to those who maintain the opinion I profess. It is useless me to say that those who maintain the doctrine that men ha a right to command and women are under an obligation obey, or that men are fit for government and women unfit, on the affirmative side of the question, and that they are bound to show positive evidence for the assertions, or submit to their rejection. It is equally unavailing for me to say that those who deny to women any freedom or privilege rightly allow to men, having the double presumption against them that they are opposing freedom and recommending partiality, must held to the strictest proof of their case, and unless their success be such as to exclude all doubt, the judgment ought to against them. These would be thought good pleas in any common case; but they will not be thought so in this instance. Before I could hope to make any impression, I should be expected not only to answer all that has ever been said bye who take the other side of the question, but to imagine that could be said by them — to find them in reasons, as I as answer all I find: and besides refuting all arguments for the affirmative, I shall be called upon for invincible positive arguments to prove a negative. And even if I could do all and leave the opposite party with a host of unanswered arguments against them, and not a single unrefuted one on side, I should be thought to have done little; for a cause supported on the one hand by universal usage, and on the other by so great a preponderance of popular sentiment, is supposed to have a presumption in its favour, superior to any conviction which an appeal to reason has power to produce in intellects but those of a high class.
