What Mill found paradoxical was that in the modern age, when in other areas the principles of liberty and equality were being asserted, they were yet not applied to the condition of women. No one believed in slavery any more, yet women were sometimes treated worse than slaves and this was accepted as beyond questioning.
Mill wanted to explain this resistance to women’s equality in the contest of a general acceptance of the principles of equality and liberty. He did so by first presenting and then defeating the arguments for women’s subordination, and then providing his own arguments for women’s equality.
The first argument for women’s inequality which Mill refuted was that since historically it has been a universal practice, therefore there must be some justification for it. Contrary to this, Mill showed that other so called universal social practices like slavery, for example, had been rejected, so perhaps given time women’s inequality would also become unacceptable. Mill also said that from the existence of something, one could argue for the Tightness of that thing, only if the alternative has been tried, and in the case of women, living with them on equal terms had never been done.
Image Source: img05.deviantart.net
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The reason why women’s inequality had survived slavery and political absolutist was not because it was justifiable, but because whereas only slave holders and despots had an interest in holding on to slavery and despotism, all men, Mill argued, had an interest in women’s subordination.
A second argument for women’s inequality was based on women’s nature women were said to be naturally inferior to men. Mill’s response was that one could not make arguments about women’s inequality based on natural differences because these differences were a result of socialisation. Mill was generally against using human nature as a ground for any claim, since he believed that human nature changed according to the social environment.
At the same time, Mill also pointed out that in spite of being treated so differently from men, many women throughout history had shown an extraordinary aptitude for political leadership here Mill cited examples of European queens and Hindu princesses.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The third argument refuted by Mill was that there is nothing wrong with women’s subordination because women accept it voluntarily. Mill pointed out that this claim was empirically wrong many women had written tracts against women’s inequality and hundreds of women were already demonstrating in the streets of London for women’s suffrage.
Further, since women had 1-10 choice but to live with their husbands, they were afraid that their complaints about their position would only lead to worse treatment from them. Lastly, Mill also claimed that since all women were brought up from childhood to believe “that their ideal of character is the very opposite to that of men; not self-will, and government by self-control, but submission, and yielding to the control of others,” what was not to be remarked was that some women accepted this subordination willingly but that so many women resisted it.
The last point against which Mill argued was that for a family to function well, one decision maker is needed, and the husband is best suited to be this decision maker. Mill scoffed at this argument the husband and wife being both adults, there was no reason why the husband should take all the decisions.