Scan barcode
alanzalot's review against another edition
4.0
Remarkably relevant over 100 years after first publication.
itsautumntime's review against another edition
5.0
One of the best books I have ever read.
Some favorite quotes:
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.
I consider it presumption in anyone to pretend to decide what women are or are not, can or cannot be, by natural constitution. They have always hitherto been kept, as far as regards spontaneous development, in so unnatural a state, that their nature cannot but have been greatly distorted and disguised; and no one can safely pronounce that if women’s nature were left to choose its direction as freely as men’s, and if no artificial bent were attempted to be given to it except that required by the conditions of human society, and given to both sexes alike, there would be any material difference, or perhaps any difference at all, in the character and capacities which would unfold themselves.
So true is that unnatural generally means only uncustomary, and that everything which is usual appears natural.
There are no means of finding what either one person or many can do, but by trying - and no means by which anyone else can discover for them what it is for their happiness to do or leave undone.
But the true virtue of human beings is fitness to live together as equals; claiming nothing for themselves but what they freely concede to every one 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.
Who doubts that there may be great goodness, and great happiness, and great affection under the absolute government of a good man? Meanwhile, laws and institutions require to be adapted, not to good men, but to bad.
...the adoption of this system of inequality never was the result of deliberation, or forethought, or any social ideas, or any notion whatever of what conduced the benefit of humanity or good order of society.
It is not true that in all voluntary association between two people, one of them must be absolute master: still less that the law must determine which of them it shall be. The most frequent case of voluntary association, next to marriage, is partnership in business: and it is not found or thought necessary to enact that in every partnership, one partner shall have entire control over the concern, and the others shall be bound to obey his orders. No one would enter into partnership on terms which would subject him to the responsibilities of a principal, with only the powers and privileges of a clerk or agent.
men would be much more unselfish and self-sacrificing than at present, because they would no longer be taught to worship their own will as such a grand thing that it is actually the law for another rational being. There is nothing which men so easily learn as this self-worship: all privileged persons, and all privileged classes, have had it.
And in the case of public offices, if the political system of the country is such as to exclude unfit men, it will equally exclude unfit women: while if it is not, there is no additional evil in the fact that the unfit persons whom it admits may be either women or men.
Any society which is not improving is deteriorating: and the more so, the closer and more familiar it is.
What marriage may be in the case of two persons of cultivated faculties, identical in opinions and purpose, between whom there exists that best kind of equality, similarity of powers and capacities with reciprocal superiority in them — so that each can enjoy the luxury of looking up to the other, and can have alternately the pleasure of leading and of being led in the path of development — I will not attempt to describe. To those who can conceive it, there is no need; to those who cannot, it would appear the dream of an enthusiast. But I maintain, with the profoundest conviction, that this, and this only, is the ideal marriage …
Some favorite quotes:
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.
I consider it presumption in anyone to pretend to decide what women are or are not, can or cannot be, by natural constitution. They have always hitherto been kept, as far as regards spontaneous development, in so unnatural a state, that their nature cannot but have been greatly distorted and disguised; and no one can safely pronounce that if women’s nature were left to choose its direction as freely as men’s, and if no artificial bent were attempted to be given to it except that required by the conditions of human society, and given to both sexes alike, there would be any material difference, or perhaps any difference at all, in the character and capacities which would unfold themselves.
So true is that unnatural generally means only uncustomary, and that everything which is usual appears natural.
There are no means of finding what either one person or many can do, but by trying - and no means by which anyone else can discover for them what it is for their happiness to do or leave undone.
But the true virtue of human beings is fitness to live together as equals; claiming nothing for themselves but what they freely concede to every one 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.
Who doubts that there may be great goodness, and great happiness, and great affection under the absolute government of a good man? Meanwhile, laws and institutions require to be adapted, not to good men, but to bad.
...the adoption of this system of inequality never was the result of deliberation, or forethought, or any social ideas, or any notion whatever of what conduced the benefit of humanity or good order of society.
It is not true that in all voluntary association between two people, one of them must be absolute master: still less that the law must determine which of them it shall be. The most frequent case of voluntary association, next to marriage, is partnership in business: and it is not found or thought necessary to enact that in every partnership, one partner shall have entire control over the concern, and the others shall be bound to obey his orders. No one would enter into partnership on terms which would subject him to the responsibilities of a principal, with only the powers and privileges of a clerk or agent.
men would be much more unselfish and self-sacrificing than at present, because they would no longer be taught to worship their own will as such a grand thing that it is actually the law for another rational being. There is nothing which men so easily learn as this self-worship: all privileged persons, and all privileged classes, have had it.
And in the case of public offices, if the political system of the country is such as to exclude unfit men, it will equally exclude unfit women: while if it is not, there is no additional evil in the fact that the unfit persons whom it admits may be either women or men.
Any society which is not improving is deteriorating: and the more so, the closer and more familiar it is.
What marriage may be in the case of two persons of cultivated faculties, identical in opinions and purpose, between whom there exists that best kind of equality, similarity of powers and capacities with reciprocal superiority in them — so that each can enjoy the luxury of looking up to the other, and can have alternately the pleasure of leading and of being led in the path of development — I will not attempt to describe. To those who can conceive it, there is no need; to those who cannot, it would appear the dream of an enthusiast. But I maintain, with the profoundest conviction, that this, and this only, is the ideal marriage …
athirah_idrus's review against another edition
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
4.5
I’ve always known John Stuart Mill as a political economist. When I found this book nestled amongst my sister’s extensive shelf, I was intrigued. I was curious what a prominent utilitarian would have to say on the subject of women (and their subjection, no less).
I guess extrapolating on the idea of utilitarianism, it does make sense that he was calling out the hypocrisy of the ‘developed economy’ to still subject women to rights that weren’t on par with men, and by law, women were still considered men’s property. By depriving the rights of women, we are depriving the humanity as a whole of what could be achieved if women were given the same rights and freedom as men.
This was surprising to me coming from a white male especially during a time when women were still worth no more than cattle (mind you, he published this book in 1869), he even went further to draw parallels between the rights given to women and slaves, where a male slave under certain conditions even had more freedom and rights compared to a woman of the time.
However, women belonging to a higher class or stature in society were given leniency where they were encouraged to pursue education. Mills was aptly calling out the double standards of the treatment of women belonging to different classes. If we considered it a symbol of civilization for highbred women to be educated, why were we depriving the rest simply because they were born under poorer circumstances?
Women of the time were only expected to marry to carry offspring, which would automatically belong to her husband. Mills argued that men and women should complement each other, and wouldn’t it make a merrier marriage should the couple be able to bounce ideas off one another, and give-and-take where necessary, instead of having a rigid structure where everything was in the hands of the man alone? I thought this was extremely refreshing, especially considering that some people of this day and age still struggling to let go of their ego and give mutual respect, irrespective of their gender.
Compelling though his argument was, it proved to be limited to just that – an argument. Mills did not go further than embellishing his theories, instead of providing evidence for his claims. Though of course he admitted he had no way of doing that other than basing his observations on what was obvious at the time (slaves vs women’s rights). He even admitted that his claims were only theories (though he’d been proven right and now we enjoy these privileges and many of the things he fought for, we now take as a given).
Mills went on to fight for the women’s suffrages in parliament as a politician.
Highly recommended!
laurie_36_'s review against another edition
informative
reflective
slow-paced
3.25
Very interesting to read, especially with having read bits of Wollstonecraft recently… quite enjoyable although unnecessarily wordy at times
oh some of the arguments are dogshit but some of what he comes up with is impressive, especially for the time of writing. With the context of him and his wife it’s very interesting to read mill
oh some of the arguments are dogshit but some of what he comes up with is impressive, especially for the time of writing. With the context of him and his wife it’s very interesting to read mill
hotskeletonwinter's review against another edition
4.0
I have to say that this man and his words here, were pretty advanced in equality for the time (1856). I would’ve liked to have seen more explored but this was worth the read. We needed more mxn like him then, and we need them now. Not to speak for us, but to speak alongside with us. Because, feminism is for everyone. Onward!
yogajohn's review against another edition
4.0
For the last year or so, I've been absolutely hooked on 19th century literature...and I fell in love with it completely by accident. I ignorantly had thought this century was historically banal, but boy was I wrong. First came Thoreau, then Emerson, Whitman, Mill, William James, Darwin, Marx, W.K. Clifford, and now Tolstoy....the list is getting longer:-) The suffragist movements in both England and the United States were essentially started by this book written by Mill in close collaboration with his wife and best friend, Harriet Taylor Mill and I would say it is a must read for every strong, educated, and independent woman out there (Men - you should read it too). This excerpt is no doubt a reference to Mill's and Taylor's remarkable, eventually intimate, but altogether enviable relationship. Think about this ladies: the experience for essentially all women on this planet just a century and a half ago, in both the East and the West, was such that a meaningful life, by all modern definitions, was practically impossible. Women were relegated, by law, to service their husband's every desire - with no expectation of reciprocation. They were denied the opportunity for higher learning and employment in essentially all occupations of social distinction. Fast forward to 2012 - We're not out the the woods yet, but LOOK HOW FAR WE'VE COME! The question we need to ask our selves is: are we, both men and women, taking full advantage to promote this catastrophic shift in what Mill calls "the most fundamental of the social relationships," OR are we satisfied to wallow in the barbaric social norms of the past? The ideas, both good and bad, of Mill and his 19th century cohort became the actions, both good and bad, of the 20th century. Think of the amazing power for good that ideas have when they are eloquently and passionately promoted. I'm sure this is a pattern we'll see with more frequency as human history continues to unfold. What ideas are YOU promoting today, that when animated will bring about a better world FOR ALL OF US tomorrow?
lar_iiious's review against another edition
3.0
In the essay “The Subjection of Women”, first published in 1869, philosopher and politician John Stuart Mill reflects upon the inferior position of women in society and marriage in particular.
One of the key points the author makes is that women are forced into dependency on men and that marriage laws uphold this. He questions the prevalent belief of this inferiority and status of women being natural and argues for equality between the sexes and against privileges on either side. He explains the role of women came to be due to differences in physical strength between the sexes but that “the law of the strongest” is no longer the decisive factor in who gains power and who does not. By highlighting the exceptional role of the queen in England, he effectively draws attention to this inherent contradiction that a woman can have one of the most powerful positions of all but not choose most other professions or have the freedom and power that men have. At the same time, he supports his argument that what seems natural is simply what we are used to because this seems natural to people in England but not in other countries.
Of course, I cannot agree with everything Mill writes, partly because feminism has evolved a lot since the 19th century, partly because of other reasons but we are going to get to that later. Yet, considering the historical and societal context, some of Mill’s thoughts seem quite reasonable, ground-breaking even. For example, Mill acknowledges women’s nature and behavior to be artificially forged by societal norms and education. He even goes as far as to proclaim his belief “that equality of rights would lessen the exaggerated self-denial that is the present artificial ideal of feminine character, and that a good woman would not be more self-sacrificing than the best man: whereas men would be much more unselfish and self-sacrificing than they are at present because they would no longer be taught to worship their own will as such a grand thing that it is actually the law for another human being.” (Mill, 1869). Some men I know nowadays would not readily admit to that.
Yet, Mill was clearly a very privileged, white, Christian, male person and that is noticeable. Equality and free will does not encompass and fall upon all. Various times Mill refers to the inferiority of other religions in comparison to Christianity and the inferiority in character of people of lower class. He also argues that men could choose their profession and fate themselves, neglecting the various external and internal conditions which are not equal for all and the still profound influence of racism and classism. So, while Mill tries to establish very forward thinking and feminist ideas, he is rooted in classism and a Eurocentric and Christian tradition. The question is whether this is a reason to dislike this book or to cherish it even more. Yes, it is a book written by a very privileged white man with ideas probably influenced by his wife. In my opinion, though, it is important to recognize that feminism is not perfect and learn from that. Mill recognizes that women have to do most of the care work and therefore arrives at the conclusion they should not have to do wage labour. There are different conclusions that can be drawn from this. Yet, Mill’s key belief in the ideal of equality in marriage and society is still valid and too often unattained in relationships and society nowadays, so “The subjection of women” remains, perhaps surprisingly, relevant.
One of the key points the author makes is that women are forced into dependency on men and that marriage laws uphold this. He questions the prevalent belief of this inferiority and status of women being natural and argues for equality between the sexes and against privileges on either side. He explains the role of women came to be due to differences in physical strength between the sexes but that “the law of the strongest” is no longer the decisive factor in who gains power and who does not. By highlighting the exceptional role of the queen in England, he effectively draws attention to this inherent contradiction that a woman can have one of the most powerful positions of all but not choose most other professions or have the freedom and power that men have. At the same time, he supports his argument that what seems natural is simply what we are used to because this seems natural to people in England but not in other countries.
Of course, I cannot agree with everything Mill writes, partly because feminism has evolved a lot since the 19th century, partly because of other reasons but we are going to get to that later. Yet, considering the historical and societal context, some of Mill’s thoughts seem quite reasonable, ground-breaking even. For example, Mill acknowledges women’s nature and behavior to be artificially forged by societal norms and education. He even goes as far as to proclaim his belief “that equality of rights would lessen the exaggerated self-denial that is the present artificial ideal of feminine character, and that a good woman would not be more self-sacrificing than the best man: whereas men would be much more unselfish and self-sacrificing than they are at present because they would no longer be taught to worship their own will as such a grand thing that it is actually the law for another human being.” (Mill, 1869). Some men I know nowadays would not readily admit to that.
Yet, Mill was clearly a very privileged, white, Christian, male person and that is noticeable. Equality and free will does not encompass and fall upon all. Various times Mill refers to the inferiority of other religions in comparison to Christianity and the inferiority in character of people of lower class. He also argues that men could choose their profession and fate themselves, neglecting the various external and internal conditions which are not equal for all and the still profound influence of racism and classism. So, while Mill tries to establish very forward thinking and feminist ideas, he is rooted in classism and a Eurocentric and Christian tradition. The question is whether this is a reason to dislike this book or to cherish it even more. Yes, it is a book written by a very privileged white man with ideas probably influenced by his wife. In my opinion, though, it is important to recognize that feminism is not perfect and learn from that. Mill recognizes that women have to do most of the care work and therefore arrives at the conclusion they should not have to do wage labour. There are different conclusions that can be drawn from this. Yet, Mill’s key belief in the ideal of equality in marriage and society is still valid and too often unattained in relationships and society nowadays, so “The subjection of women” remains, perhaps surprisingly, relevant.
lackritzj's review against another edition
"The love of power and the love of liberty are in eternal antagonism."
Written in 1869 yet still one of the freshest, most cogently pieces on the need for women to be equal.
Written in 1869 yet still one of the freshest, most cogently pieces on the need for women to be equal.