Summary 3
In Chapter 3, Mill discusses occupations for women outside of marriage. He begins by saying that women’s assumed inability beyond marriage comes from men’s reluctance to live with their equals, and their fear that women won’t choose marriage once they have other options. He rejects the idea that women are incapable of social functions. He also states that women are more than eligible to vote, as the eligibility to vote for an MP doesn’t require the eligibility to be an MP. Then, Mill makes the case that women have been excellent governors when they have had a chance to rule, giving the example of successful female rulers like Margaret of Austria. Mill goes on to say that in general, women tend to focus on the practical side of things. They possess the skill of perceiving situations intuitively. This talent, while not suitable for abstract reasoning, is great in supplementing men’s inclination towards abstract thought.
Mill objects to the theory that women have greater “nervous susceptibility” than men, and therefore are disqualified for employment. He first says that it’s simply not true, and that the appearance of such susceptibility might come from unused energy and poor upbringing. Then he admits that some women do have nervous temperaments, and tries to present this in a positive light: when combined with self-control, it could actually be beneficial. He adds that with proper education to correct women’s temperament, they can perform as well as men. Mill suggests that even if women’s minds are more “mobile” than those of men, and thus less intellectually capable, this shouldn’t disqualify them from deploying their talents.
Mill goes on to object to the alleged fact that women have smaller brains than men. At first, Mill rejects it as a fact, saying that it’s scientifically questionable, and further objects to the conclusion drawn from this alleged fact, which would logically entail that whales were smarter than men. Then, he admits that while men probably do have bigger brains than women, they have slower “cerebral circulation.” This explains why men’s thinking is steadier, while women’s is faster.
Lastly, Mill responds to the supposed fact that there’s no great female artist or writer. Mill sees the main issue of women’s art as a lack of originality. He points out that women have only recently begun to engage seriously in these fields and, therefore, have had less time to develop independent thought. Additionally, women’s time and energy for intellectual pursuits are severely limited. While there’s no female Homer or Aristotle, it can be explained by the fact that women have traditionally been amateurs in these fields, not professionals. They are educated in the arts but not encouraged to pursue them as a career.
In Chapter 4, Mill addresses the question that he imagines his opponents would most likely raise: What benefits would arise from granting women equal rights? The first benefit comes from greater justice in the most common human relationship. He further spells out how gender inequality fosters self-worship in men: imagine a boy growing up believing that just because he’s born male, he’s automatically better half of the human race, no matter how ignorant he might be. Worse, even if he’s able to recognize that some women are better than him, he believes that he’s entitled to command them. Mill argues that correcting these gender dynamics would improve men’s moral integrity.
If women had more freedom in occupations outside of marriage, society would double its “mass of mental faculties available for the higher service of humanity.” Where there is now one person qualified for a job, there would then be two qualified candidates. Mill also believes that liberating women will help women have a positive influence over men. Currently, women’s limited perspective compels their husbands to prioritize money and social status. He argues that women can contribute to society in a more constructive way once they are liberated and educated, rather than engaging it in a harmful way as they do now. With improved conditions for women in marriage, women are no longer legally subject to their husbands but are made equal partners. The current system of inequality makes it difficult to imagine a truly happy marriage, which requires an equal relationship in which both parties appreciate one another. For example, due to their very different upbringings, husband and wife might have very different tastes, and even if they can tolerate one another, mutual toleration shouldn’t be the goal of marriage. They might also have different and even opposite views on how to raise their children.
The most direct benefit of the liberation of women, Mill asserts, is the personal happiness of women themselves. Freedom, the most fundamental desire, is essential for happiness, and women have neither freedom nor happiness. They are barred from meaningful occupations, which Mill thinks results in a loss of the most inspiring kind of personal enjoyment, as they never get the chance to exert their rational ability. The life women currently lead is filled with “weariness” and “dissatisfaction.” It’s a life of boredom, a life of being half alive, a life of being a dependent. Mill concludes by saying that the emancipation of women will promote the greatest happiness for all and eventually promote human progress on the whole.
Analysis
In Chapter 3 and Chapter 4, we see that, for Mill, women are in a double bind: they aren’t free in marriage, but they are compelled to marry, due to limited options. In this section, we also observe Mill’s more traditional views on gender, evident in his infamous discussions of women’s “nervous temperament” and smaller brain size, which understandably have drawn a great deal of criticism. Philosopher Julia Annas calls Mill's claims that women are intuitive while men reason “the oldest cliché” in his essay. Mill also suggests that women could be of great help to men working on abstract topics, but in reducing their role to one of encouraging men to stay realistic, he misses the opportunity to advocate for women to produce their own theories. If one were to take seriously the notion that men are superior logical thinkers, one can’t truly expect women to create important intellectual work.
In addition to reiterating some traditional views on gender, Mill’s argument here runs the risk of becoming inconsistent. In previous chapters, Mill rejects the idea that one can know women’s true nature based on their current behavior, but in Chapters 3 and 4, Mill seems to take on a more empirical approach, basing his arguments on observations. After he’s already shown that it’s pointless to speculate about women’s true capabilities, as their personalities have been shaped by purposes that serve men, Mill here takes on the question “Why haven’t there been any famous women artists?” by looking at traits currently observable in women.
One way to argue in favor of Mill is to say that Mill’s traditional views on gender don’t necessarily weaken his overall argument—his central points don’t depend on his traditional views about gender, since he doesn’t use these supposed facts about women as supports for his argument. Some scholars such as Elizabeth Smith defend Mill’s decision to include these views by appealing to his political pragmatism. Mill wrote that his intention for this paper was to “keep this work among unpublished papers, improving it from time to time if I was able, and to publish it at the time when it should seem most likely to be useful.” Mill began writing “The Subjection of Women” in 1860 but didn’t publish it until 1869. When Mill, as an MP, proposed giving voting rights to women who met the same property requirements as men, he did so quite cautiously. In 1867, he suggested that only unmarried women should have voting rights. We can see that it’s possible that Mill played down his more radical views on gender as a political strategy.
