|
|
|
|
|
Subjection Of WomenJohn Stewart Mill claims this essay was co-written with his wife, Harriet Taylor Mill in 1869- some focus on this more than others. This essay was an affront to the conventional norms of views on stature of men an women. The Subjection of Women (1869) offered both detailed argumentation and passionate eloquence in bitter opposition to the social and legal inequalities commonly imposed upon women by a patriarchal culture. Just as in On Liberty Mill defends the emancipation of women on utilitarian grounds. Mill was convinced that the moral and intellectual advancement of humankind would result in greater happiness for everybody. The Higher pleasures of the intellect yielded far greater happiness then the lower pleasure of the senses. He conceived of human beings as moral and intellectually capable of being educated and civilized. With a few exceptions, Mill believes everyone should have the right to vote. The exceptions are Barbarians Uneducated people The reason people should be able to vote is To defend their own rights and to learn to stand on their two feet morally and intellectually. This applies to men and women. Mill after all used his role as an MP to demand the vote for women - which was most controversial. Women at this time are subject to men and to a role in society because: Physically less able History; survival of the fittest - might makes right Hierarchical view of men and women in the bible Basic caveman mentality…..steal woman Idea that women were created for homemaking and child bearing At the time of writing this essay, emancipation of slaves in America was occurring Mill recognised that he was going against the common views of society and was aware that he would be forced to back up his claims persistently. Mill saw the inequality of women as a relic from the past, when might was right. It had no place in the modern world. The strong took and the weak were taken from. ‘Legal subordination of one sex to another is wrong in itself, and now one of the chief hindrances to human improvement; and that it ought to be replaced by a system of perfect equality, admitting no power and privilege on the one side, nor disability on the other.’ Mill saw this as a hindrance to development. No women doctors, lawyers, lecturers etc Are Women Naturally Unequal? Mill attacks the argument that women are naturally less good at some things than men, and should therefore be discouraged or forbidden from doing them. We simply don’t know what women are capable of, because we have never let them try - one cannot make an authorities statement without compelling evidence. We can’t stop women from trying things because they might not be able to do them. An argument based on speculative physiology is actually pointless. ‘The anxiety of mankind to intervene on behalf of nature….is an altogether unnecessary solitude. What women by nature cannot do, is quite superfluous to forbid them from doing.’ In this, men are basically contradicting themselves because they say women cannot do an activity and want to stop them from doing it. This means that men are basically admitting that women are capable of doing the activity. Whether women can do them or not must be found out in practice In reality, we don’t know what women’s nature is, because it is so wrapped up in how they have been raised. We should test out what women can and can’t do - experiment. ''‘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. Until conditions of equality exist, no one can possibly assess the natural differences between women and men, distorted as they have been What is natural to the two sexes can only be found out by allowing both to develop and use their faculties freely.’'' Women are brought up to act as if they were weak, emotional, docile - A traditional prejudice. E.g. men have bigger brains. If we tried equality, we would see that there were benefits for individual women. Claimed Aristotle and Plato were sexist - said women are emotional, irrational, soft and their testimony cannot be trusted. They would be free of the unhappiness of being told what to do by men And for society at large - doubling the mass of mental faculties available for the higher service of humanity. The ideas and potential of half the population would be liberated, producing a great affect on human development. A clearly utilitarian argument on two counts The immediate greater good - Enrich society - double brain power Individual development If society really wanted to discover what is truly natural in gender relations, Mill argued, it should establish a free market for all of the services women perform, ensuring a fair economic return for their contributions to the general welfare. Only then would their practical choices be likely to reflect their genuine interests. In addition, relations between men and women would be greatly improved Mill felt that men and women married to follow customs and that the relation between them was a purely domestic one. By emancipating women, Mill believed, they would be better able to connect on an intellectual level with their husbands improving relationships. Allows for stimulating conversations. Mill felt that the emancipation and education of women would have positive benefits for men also. The stimulus of female competition and companionship of equally educated persons would result in the greater intellectual development of all. He stressed the insidious effects of the constant companionship of an uneducated wife or husband. In these days women did not know about politics - they were not allowed to. After dinner men went to the drawing room (withdrawing room) to talk about politics etc. Mill’s Proposals Mill attacks marriage laws, which are like the slavery of women ‘there remain no legal slaves, save the mistress of every house’ Eludes to the subjection of women becoming redundant as slavery did before it. End to monogamous marriages, harder for a woman to divorce a man than it is for a man to divorce his wife. Needs to be a reform of marriage legislation whereby it is reduced to a business agreement, not restricting either parties. Women should be able to own their own property - changing of inheritance laws Women should be able to work if they want to - independent financial stability freeing them from the dependence on men. Women should be able to vote - make up around half of the population thus have a right to a vote. Policies affect women too. Men will vote for the MP’s which will subordinate ''women. ‘Under whatever conditions, and within whatever limits, men are admitted to the suffrage, there is not a shadow of justification for not admitting women under the same’'' Remember the protective principal - this is the only way women can protect their rights. And the right to run for public office - women need a leader to bring their issues to the forefront - does this include clergy? Assumed so. Mill and Taylor felt that even in societies as unequal as England and Europe that one could already find evidence that when given a chance women could excel. He pointed to such English queens as Elizabeth I, or Victoria, or the French patriot, Joan of Arc. If given the chance women would excel in other arenas and at the very least they should be given the opportunity to try. Mill was not just a theorist - He actively campaigned for women’s rights as an MP and was the president of the Women’s suffrage society. Criticisms Does Mill go far enough? Is he right - are men and women equal? Women are naturally/biologically inferior? Was Mill really a true feminist? Women bound by contract of marriage to bring up the children…is this right? Are women now equal - Leaders - MP- FTSE 100 = Men! Conclusions / Interconnections The way Mill has interpreted subjects over time has changed. For many years Mill was seen as an inconsistent philosopher, writing on a number of separate issues. It is important to note the utility of his approach. There are some common themes: Utilitarianism Nothing should be ruled out because it is just ‘wrong’, or because no-one has done it in the past. When we are considering our policies, we should seek the greatest happiness of the greatest number. This leads to attacks on conventional views. If you wish to make something illegal, you need to prove what harm is being done. Individuals know their own interests best. 2. Progress of Society The greatest good is understood in a very broad sense- the moral and intellectual developments of society. Different societies are at different stages of development or civilisation. Different solutions may be required for them. What matters is how we encourage them to advance further. We ca say the same for individuals. Mill has a quite specific idea of individual progress, (1) Employing higher faculties (2) Moral development, people place narrow self interest behind them. 3. Individual self Dependence We are independent, capable of change and rational. Individual liberty provides the best route to moral development. As we develop, we are able to govern ourselves, make our own decisions, and not be dependent on what anyone else tells us to do. Democracy is a form of self dependence. This means: (A) Personal Liberty When we do not harm others, we should be able to express our own natures, and experiment with our lives (B) Liberty to Govern our own Affairs Civilized people are increasingly able to make their own decisions, and protect their own rights. Representative government is also a useful way of getting us to think about the common good ( C) Liberty for women as well as men All of Mill’s arguments apply to both men and women. Previous ideas about the different natures of men and women have never been properly tested. Women can participate in determining their own affairs too But there are still questions about Mill Some apply to his case as a whole; Do we accept his idea of development? Are some countries more civilized? Is Mill elitist? Does he defend equality and democracy for everyone or is he just interested in the rational and intelligent? Therefore: Is there a tension between his arguments about freedom of thought, and the authority he claims for the educated? There are many arguments which apply to his particular essays Utilitarianism - Can we be taught selflessness powerfully, without it compromising freedom and individuality? Is Mill’s account of higher pleasures too perceptive? Is the view of higher and lower pleasures valid? Is there any action which doesn’t affect other people On Liberty - Is the harm principal consistent? Does the distinction between self-regarding and other-regarding actions make sense? Subjection of Women - Does Mill have a fully developed idea of equality?
|
 |
| |
|
|