That the principle which regulates the existing social relations between the two sexes—the legal subordination of one sex to the other—is wrong in 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.
Mill states at the beginning of “The Subjection of Women” that the object of this essay is to explain this principle as clearly as he can. Mill is acutely aware of the wording of his thesis. He writes, “The very words necessary to express the task I have undertaken, show how arduous it is.” The difficulty of achieving gender equality is formally expressed through the difficulty in spelling out the task. This powerful opening statement criticizes the current gender dynamics and lays out the agenda for the essay on two grounds: the subjection of women is (1) immoral and (2) inefficient on utilitarian grounds. Mill notes that he has held this principle from the very earliest period, and it has only grown stronger with his experience.
We must consider, too, that the possessors of the power have facilities in this case, greater than in any other, to prevent any uprising against it. Every one of the subjects lives under the very eye, and almost, it may be said, in the hands, of one of the masters—in closer intimacy with him than with any of her fellow-subjects; with no means of combining against him, no power of even locally over-mastering him, and, on the other hand, with the strongest motives for seeking his favour and avoiding giving him offence.
In this quote, Mill examines the unique challenges faced by the program of women’s emancipation. Women are uniquely disadvantaged in their struggle for equality due to their close and dependent relationships with men, who hold power over them in every aspect of their lives. Women, under the constant surveillance of their husbands, literally can’t find the time and opportunity to unite against male figures. Furthermore, wives's only chance for improving their lot is to seek their husbands’ approval. In other words, women, the oppressed, are being bribed not to fight their husbands, the oppressors, because they are one family of shared interest. And at the same time, a woman is scared off from potential rebellion, since her life and fate are up to her husband. This unique relationship between the oppressed and the oppressor makes women’s fight for freedom complex and difficult.
But the true virtue of human beings is fitness to live together as equals; claiming nothing for themselves but what they as freely concede to everyone else; regarding command of any kind as an exceptional necessity, and in all cases a temporary one; and preferring, whenever possible, the society of those with whom leading and following can be alternate and reciprocal.
When Mill describes the ideal married life, he employs a language of friendship, envisaging the husband and wife “liv[ing] together as equals.” In this quote, Mill draws a remarkable picture of reciprocity, suggesting that the leadership in a family should change according to the situation. Nearly all of Mill’s peers who believed in liberal ideas agreed that men and women naturally had different roles, and that the husband should always take the lead in family life. Mill, on the other hand, believes that the best qualities in men and the best qualities in women are essentially the same, and therefore supports the shifting of leadership.
It would be a miracle if the object of being attractive to men had not become the polar star of feminine education and formation of character.
In this quote, Mill acutely dissects the effect of cultural norms on women’s character. Being appealing to men becomes the main goal of women’s development in all aspects. This situation is a result of women’s position of dependence on men. The wife depends entirely on her husband for everything she can have, including her rights and happiness. They are either given by him or only possible if he allows them. Moreover, while men are free to pursue their ambitions and goals in life as independents, women can only achieve these goals through their husbands. Therefore, pleasing men becomes almost the sole means to any end for women.
It is a political law of nature that those who are under any power of ancient origin, never begin by complaining of the power itself, but only of its oppressive exercise. There is never any want of women who complain of ill usage by their husbands.
In this quote, Mill explains the pattern of political rebellion. Instead of directly challenging the fundamental power dynamic, the oppressed tend to begin by challenging specific instances of its unjust usage. In the context of women, many women complain about mistreatment by their husbands, which means that they are actually aware of the unjust situation. This suggests that they are capable of eventually questioning the system of male domination that causes these mistreatments.
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 may be asserted without scruple, that no other class of dependents have had their character so entirely distorted from its natural proportions by their relation with their masters; for, if conquered and slave races have been, in some respects, more forcibly repressed, whatever in them has not been crushed down by an iron heel has generally been let alone, and if left with any liberty of development, it has developed itself according to its own laws.
In this quote, Mill argues against the current understanding of women’s nature. He suggests that the sculpting of women’s nature is fundamentally different from that of other oppressed groups. We can try to understand his rationale this way: for an oppressed class like slaves, they might have developed some characteristics that please the master to save them from cruel treatment, but these characteristics are not thought of as natural expressions, but rather reactions to a terrible situation. Once they are not surveilled by the masters, or are freed, they may be free to express who they truly are. Women’s nature, on the other hand, is less repressed but more distorted. What we currently understand as “women’s nature” is actually their reaction to a highly artificial situation, one that is in place from the time they are born. And while slaves, for the most part, are aware of the injustice of their condition, women are led to see their position as natural and therefore are unaware of its artificial aspect. They themselves are not in touch with their true nature.
I am far from pretending that wives are in general no better treated than slaves; but no slave is a slave to the same lengths, and in so full a sense of the word, as a wife is. Hardly any slave, except one immediately attached to the master’s person, is a slave at all hours and all minutes . . .
Mill makes the bold statement that in certain respects, women's bondage is more total than that of slaves. This is because generally, a slave has a set amount of work, and when it’s finished, or when they aren’t working, they have some free time and a family life that the master doesn’t often interfere with. However, the situation is different for a wife. There are no set boundaries between her time as a wife and her time as herself. In other words, wives don’t own their time, while slaves in principle should own some of their time.
