The Subjection of Women

The Subjection of Women Plot Summary

Introduction

The principle regulating existing social relations between sexes—the legal subordination of women to men—is fundamentally wrong and constitutes a major hindrance to human improvement. This subordination should be replaced by a principle of perfect equality, with no power or privilege on one side, nor disability on the other. Challenging this deeply entrenched system proves enormously difficult, not because the rational arguments against it are insufficient, but because it is protected by deeply rooted feelings and centuries of custom. Indeed, those who attack universal opinions face extraordinary burdens of proof that wouldn't be required in other contexts. The historical foundation of male dominance over women didn't emerge from reasoned consideration about what arrangement might best serve humanity. Rather, it arose simply because physically stronger men could enforce it. Unlike other social hierarchies built on force that have been gradually reformed or eliminated, the subjection of women has persisted precisely because women have never gained sufficient physical power to challenge it collectively. This makes analyzing women's subjection particularly valuable as it represents perhaps the last major social institution still fundamentally based on force rather than consent, standing in stark contradiction to modern principles of justice, freedom, and human equality.

Chapter 1: The Historical Foundation of Women's Subjection

The subjection of women stands apart from other social arrangements as a relic of an earlier world. While most modern social institutions have been transformed through reason and progress, women's inequality persists as a solitary breach in what has become the fundamental law of modern societies. In almost every other domain, birth no longer determines one's station in life. People are no longer born slaves or serfs; social mobility is possible. Yet women alone remain subject to legal disabilities based solely on the accident of birth. Mill demonstrates how this arrangement cannot be justified by claiming it is "natural." Throughout history, dominant groups have invariably declared their power to be natural—from Aristotle believing some people were naturally born to be slaves, to white slaveowners in America insisting Black people were naturally suited for subjugation. The appeal to nature simply reflects custom and familiarity. What seems natural to one society appears bizarre to another, and what seems natural in one historical period becomes unthinkable in another. The subjection of women persists not because it aligns with natural law but because it aligns with traditional power structures. Moreover, this system has been maintained through a comprehensive process of psychological conditioning. Women are raised from earliest childhood to believe their ideal character is opposite to men's—not self-will and self-control, but submission and yielding to others' control. All moralities and sentimentalities teach women that their duty is to live for others and make complete abnegation of themselves. This systematic molding of women's character makes it impossible to know what their true nature might be under conditions of freedom. Men have not merely claimed physical dominion over women but have sought dominion over their minds as well. Unlike other forms of subjugation where masters relied primarily on fear, men have wanted women not just as slaves but as willing ones. The entire force of education has been turned to this purpose, creating in women the qualities men find pleasing. By making women's education primarily about being attractive to men and limiting their access to other forms of recognition or achievement, society has effectively circumscribed women's aspirations and ambitions. The fact that women rarely openly rebel against this system proves nothing about its justice or benefit. Those who have never experienced freedom rarely demand it outright. As with other subject classes throughout history, the first complaints are never about the subjection itself but about its excesses. Furthermore, each woman finds herself alone in her dependence, with minimal opportunity to combine with others against the more powerful party who controls her circumstances, livelihood, and often her children. Despite centuries of civilization and progress, the world still largely operates on the principle that women are to be denied rights accorded to men and assigned duties not expected of men. The injustice of this system becomes especially apparent when we consider that in areas where women have been permitted to demonstrate their abilities—such as in governance as queens and regents—they have often shown remarkable capability, suggesting their exclusion from other domains rests on prejudice rather than actual incapacity.

Chapter 2: Marriage as Legal Subjugation

Marriage, in its traditional legal form, represents perhaps the most direct manifestation of women's subjection. While modern society has modified or eliminated most other institutions based on force rather than mutual agreement, marriage remains an anomaly. The law has gradually eliminated the ability of parents to marry daughters against their will, but once married, a woman still enters what amounts to a state of legal servitude. She vows lifelong obedience at the altar and remains legally bound to that promise throughout her life. Under common law, a married woman cannot legally own property—anything she acquires immediately becomes her husband's. She cannot make legal contracts, engage in business, or control her own earnings. Even when wealthy families attempt to protect daughters through legal settlements, these arrangements typically only prevent the husband from squandering the property; they don't give the woman true control over it. The inequality is starkly one-sided: the law considers husband and wife "one person," but only to transfer her rights to him, never the reverse. Beyond financial subjection, marriage also entails personal subjection. Unlike even the condition of slaves who typically had some time to themselves and some personal boundaries, a wife has no legal right to refuse her husband's demands, even the most intimate ones. She has no recognized right to her own body. Regarding children, though she may have borne and raised them, they legally belong to the father who has sole authority over them. Until relatively recent legal reforms, a mother had no rights to custody or even visitation if her husband chose to separate her from her children. While many individual marriages may be happy partnerships in practice, the law provides no protection for women who find themselves with cruel or tyrannical husbands. A woman cannot leave without abandoning everything—her home, possessions, and often her children. If she earns money, her husband can legally claim it. Only recently have limited legal separations become available, and only in cases of extreme cruelty or desertion. Unlike virtually any other contract, marriage offers no escape clause for the subordinate party, regardless of how severely the dominant party violates the spirit of the agreement. This legal structure creates the conditions for tremendous suffering. The most brutal husbands often come from social classes where there are few external checks on their behavior and where masculine identity is deeply tied to dominance. For every case of extreme abuse that becomes public, countless others remain hidden behind closed doors. The law effectively delivers one human being into the absolute power of another, with the naive hope that this power will be used benevolently—a hope contradicted by everything we know about human nature and the corrupting influence of unchecked authority. What mitigates this system in practice is not the law but the individual character of many men, the growth of moral sentiments, and women's indirect influence. However, these mitigations don't justify the fundamental injustice. As Mill pointedly observes, no other modern relationship is structured with one party having absolute authority and the other bound to obedience. Even business partnerships distribute authority according to expertise rather than gender. The persistence of this antiquated power structure in marriage reveals how deeply society still clings to the principle of male dominance despite its incompatibility with modern notions of justice and equality.

Chapter 3: Challenging Arguments Against Women's Equality

A common defense of women's subjection is that it represents a natural order rather than an arbitrary human arrangement. This argument fails on multiple levels. First, it ignores how dominant groups throughout history have invariably claimed their dominance to be "natural"—slaveholders considered slavery natural, aristocrats saw their privileges as natural, and despots have viewed monarchy as the natural form of government. The appeal to nature typically masks what is merely customary or convenient for the powerful. Furthermore, those who defend the status quo often rely on circular reasoning. They point to the observed differences between men and women in existing society as evidence of innate, immutable characteristics, failing to recognize how thoroughly social conditioning shapes these differences. When virtually every aspect of a woman's upbringing—her education, expectations, opportunities, and rewards—differs from a man's, we cannot logically attribute the resulting differences in character or achievement to nature rather than nurture. The argument that women consent to their subordination likewise carries little weight. Consent under conditions of severely restricted choice is hardly meaningful. When society offers women few means of subsistence outside marriage, and marriage requires legal subordination, their acceptance represents necessity rather than free choice. Moreover, Mill observes that many women are increasingly refusing to accept these conditions, as evidenced by the growing movements for women's education, property rights, and suffrage. Defenders of the status quo also frequently appeal to religion to justify women's subordination. Mill addresses this by noting that religious teachings on social arrangements always reflect the historical context in which they emerged. The same biblical passages used to defend women's subjection were once used to justify slavery. Progressive religious thinkers have always distinguished between eternal moral principles and the specific social applications that reflected the limitations of earlier times. Christianity's core principle of equal moral worth for all souls provides grounds for equality rather than subjection. Perhaps the most insidious argument against equality is the claim that women are "different but equal"—naturally suited to domestic duties while men handle public affairs. This seemingly moderate position actually enforces the same restrictive outcomes as more openly hierarchical views. By insisting that women's "natural" place is exclusively in the home, it still denies them choice, education, and opportunities in the wider world. Mill rejects this false dichotomy, arguing that individual aptitudes and preferences, not gender, should determine one's path in life. Mill also dismantles the utilitarian argument that the current arrangement produces the greatest happiness. He provides extensive evidence of the suffering caused by women's subjection—from the obvious cases of abuse to the more subtle but pervasive unhappiness of capable women denied meaningful outlets for their talents. Moreover, he argues that society as a whole suffers from this waste of human potential and from the harmful influence that unearned power has on men's character. The relationship between men and women forms a foundation for all social relations, and when that foundation rests on power rather than justice, it corrupts society's moral development.

Chapter 4: The Intellectual Capabilities of Women

The claim that women possess inferior mental capacities is frequently offered as justification for their subordinate status. However, this assertion rests on extraordinarily weak evidence. If we look at actual achievements rather than theoretical capabilities, we find that women have succeeded in virtually every field where they have been permitted to compete—from literature and the arts to governance. Even in fields where men have dominated, the barriers women face render any comparison of "natural" ability meaningless, as they lack equal access to education, encouragement, and opportunity. We must recognize that our knowledge of women's intellectual capabilities is severely limited by social conditions. Women have been systematically denied the education, time, and freedom necessary for high intellectual achievement. For most of history, even basic literacy was withheld from the majority of women. When education became more available, it remained narrower and shallower than men's education. Even educated women have faced enormous practical obstacles—family obligations, legal restrictions, professional exclusion, and social disapproval—that have prevented them from fully developing their capacities. Consider what is required for original contributions in philosophy, science, or art: years of specialized training, access to the accumulated knowledge of the field, freedom from distracting obligations, and integration into networks of fellow practitioners. Women have historically been denied all these prerequisites. The proper comparison is not between the average man and average woman under present conditions, but between what women have actually accomplished despite these barriers and what might be possible without them. The few women who have overcome these obstacles demonstrate remarkable capability. Mill points to the numerous female rulers who have shown exceptional governing ability, from Elizabeth I to Catherine the Great. In literature, women have excelled as novelists despite limited education. Even in scientific and philosophical pursuits, those few women who gained access to proper training—like Caroline Herschel in astronomy or Mary Somerville in mathematics—made significant contributions. These exceptions suggest not women's inherent limitations but the artificial constraints placed upon them. Another fallacy in judging women's intellectual abilities is the tendency to generalize from statistical tendencies to universal rules. Even if men and women show different patterns of strength and weakness on average (itself a contested claim given social conditioning), this would not justify categorical exclusion. The relevant question for access to education, professions, or political rights is not whether the average woman matches the average man in particular traits, but whether individual women possess the necessary capabilities for specific roles—which many clearly do. Mill addresses specific arguments about women's alleged intellectual deficiencies, such as claims about lesser originality or analytical ability. He shows how these perceived differences can be readily explained by differences in education, social expectations, and opportunity rather than innate capacity. Women's supposed greater interest in practical rather than theoretical matters, for example, simply reflects the different demands placed on them and rewards offered to them, not inherent mental qualities.

Chapter 5: Public Participation and Professional Rights

The exclusion of women from public life and professional occupations constitutes both an injustice to women and a significant loss to society. There is no evidence that women lack the capability for public service or professional work. Indeed, whenever women have been permitted to engage in these spheres—whether as monarchs, administrators, or professionals—many have demonstrated exceptional ability. This exclusion cannot be justified on grounds of competence; it rests solely on tradition and prejudice. The argument for women's participation in public affairs begins with the most fundamental democratic right: the suffrage. The right to vote is essential not merely as a matter of abstract justice but as a practical protection of one's interests. Those excluded from political representation find their concerns systematically neglected. Women have distinct perspectives and experiences that ought to inform public policy. Moreover, the arguments used to deny women the vote—alleged lack of independent judgment or political knowledge—were precisely the same arguments once used to deny voting rights to working-class men, arguments long since discredited. Beyond voting rights, women should be eligible for all public offices and civil functions. The criteria should be individual capability, not gender. The exclusion of women from these roles deprives society of valuable talent and insight. It also reinforces the erroneous belief that women's capacities are suited only for domestic matters, perpetuating a cycle of limited education and opportunity. Opening these positions to women would not only provide new career paths but would bring different perspectives to the management of public affairs. Similarly, the professions—medicine, law, education, business—should be open to women. The traditional exclusion of women from these fields has had harmful consequences, both by limiting women's economic independence and by depriving society of capable practitioners. In medicine, for instance, there are clear advantages to having women physicians available to treat female patients. In education, women have already proven their capabilities as teachers. Each profession would benefit from drawing talent from the entire population rather than just half of it. Opening economic opportunities to women addresses a fundamental injustice—the forced economic dependence that underlies women's subordination. Without the ability to earn an independent living, women have little real choice about marriage or family arrangements. Economic independence provides the practical foundation for other freedoms. Even for women who choose marriage and motherhood, having alternative options strengthens their position and provides security against mistreatment or abandonment. Mill recognizes practical concerns about combining professional work with family responsibilities but rejects the notion that this justifies categorical exclusion. These challenges should be addressed through social adaptations and individual choice, not blanket prohibitions. Some women might choose to focus exclusively on family, others on career, and many would find ways to balance both, particularly with supportive social arrangements. The essential principle is that each woman should have the freedom to determine her own path according to her abilities and preferences rather than having her life course predetermined by gender.

Chapter 6: The Societal Benefits of Women's Emancipation

The emancipation of women would yield profound benefits not just for women themselves but for society as a whole. First, it would transform the institution of marriage from a relation of dominance and subordination to one of equal partnership. When both parties enter marriage with equal rights and standing, their relationship can be based on mutual respect and affection rather than power and obedience. This elevation of marriage would strengthen family bonds, creating healthier environments for child development and more fulfilling relationships for both partners. By doubling the sum of intellectual faculties available for higher service of humanity, women's emancipation would accelerate social and intellectual progress. Society currently wastes half its potential talent by denying women access to education and opportunities for public contribution. In fields requiring intelligence, creativity, and moral insight—from science and governance to education and the arts—humanity would benefit from the full participation of women. The competition between men and women would stimulate greater achievement from both, raising standards and expanding possibilities. The moral influence of women would also be transformed and expanded. Currently, women's moral influence, while significant, is often indirect and constrained by limited education and experience. When women gain broader knowledge and direct participation in social institutions, their moral perspectives—often shaped by different experiences than men's—would enrich public discourse and decision-making. This would likely strengthen social compassion while also introducing greater pragmatism and attention to human consequences in policy formation. On an individual level, the removal of artificial constraints would allow for fuller human development. Both men and women suffer from the distortions created by current gender arrangements. Men develop inflated senses of entitlement and authority, while women develop excessive deference and indirect methods of influence. With equality, both sexes could develop more balanced characters, combining strength with compassion, independence with cooperation. This psychological liberation would reduce the resentments and manipulations that often characterize gender relations under conditions of inequality. Society would also benefit from more balanced family life. Children raised by parents who model equality rather than dominance and submission would develop healthier attitudes toward authority, cooperation, and gender. They would learn to respect others based on character and ability rather than social position. This has implications far beyond family life, potentially transforming workplace dynamics, political discourse, and social interactions by replacing hierarchical mindsets with more collaborative ones. Finally, women's emancipation would align social institutions with fundamental principles of justice. Modern society has gradually moved away from arrangements based on birth status toward those based on individual merit and consent. Women's subjection remains a glaring exception to this progress. By eliminating this last major remnant of status-based rights and obligations, society would complete an essential transition to truly universal principles of justice and freedom—creating a more coherent moral foundation for addressing other social challenges.

Summary

Mill's examination of women's subjection presents a comprehensive challenge to one of society's most fundamental and unquestioned hierarchies. Through meticulous logical analysis, he demonstrates that women's subordination originated not in natural differences or social utility but in physical force—a basis long since rejected for other social arrangements. The persistence of this system reflects not its rationality but the depth of customary thinking and the self-interest of those with power. By subjecting women's status to the same critical scrutiny applied to other social institutions, Mill exposes the contradictions between modern principles of justice and the continued subjection of half of humanity. The significance of Mill's analysis extends far beyond the specific issue of women's rights. It reveals how social systems perpetuate themselves through circular reasoning, appeals to nature, and comprehensive conditioning of both the powerful and powerless. The transformation he envisions—replacing relations based on power with those based on justice and mutual respect—would fundamentally alter not just women's lives but the moral foundation of society itself. By insisting that freedom and self-determination are essential to human flourishing regardless of gender, Mill articulates a vision of human relations that remains revolutionary in its implications for family life, education, governance, and moral development.

About Author

Loading...

John Stuart Mill

John Stuart Mill, English philosopher, political economist, civil servant and Member of Parliament, was an influential liberal thinker of the 19th century. He was an exponent of utilitarianism, an ethical theory developed by Jeremy Bentham, although his conception of it was very different from Bentham's.

Read more

Related Books by John Stuart Mill

Loading...

Utilitarianism

John Stuart Mill

Explore a Timeless Ethics Classic

★★★½☆3.7