Mill
argues for perfect legal equality between the sexes. Given the
considerations he brings to bear, does this go far enough?
John
Stewart Mill, in his 1869 book 'The Subjection of Women' gives
reasons over four chapters as to why it would be a good thing for
women to have legal equality to men. With the time the book was
written, most people did not share his views and, despite him laying
out strong arguments for the view, Mill still seems to be being
careful not to offend too much in certain areas of his book. This is
possibly because he is aware how radical his ideas were at the time,
though it does seem to make him not go far enough with his arguments.
There is reason to suggest this is because Mill is trying to be
accepted by the majority for change to happen slowly rather than
coming on too strong and being ignored. As a result, his ideas
promote positive action, though not necessarily enough beneficial
action to evoke perfect equal rights.
In
the first chapter of The Subjection of Women, Mill outlines some very
strong and reasonable objections to the laws of the time that seem to
explain his point very clearly. He begins by suggesting that he has
always held the belief that women are equal to men if not the same.
The suggestion of this term: 'if not the same' puts a lot of emphasis
on the nature of what the rest of the book is about to argue, because
it gives women the most humanity for anyone reading to understand the
'bad' that women are subjected to. With this in consideration that
women are potentially no different to men, Mill goes on to
differentiate between the genders significantly with such claims
towards the end of the chapter that 'it was wrong to bring women up
with any acquirements but those of an odalisque', and 'if men are
determined that the law of marriage shall be a law of despotism, they
are quite right'. The last paragraph of the chapter seems to hold
contradictions to what Mill has been saying up to that chapter, to
the point that he sounds ironic. Here lies part of the issue that
Mill does not seem to go far enough, for if he truly believed that
women are equal to, if not the same as, men – why would there be
any reason to tiptoe around the possibility that women should be
subordinate to men within marriage as the last chapter suggests?
The
claims Mill makes in the last paragraph could have been used as an
ironic statement to point out how ridicules certain men sound when
they make similar claims, now that so far in the book Mill has
outlines valid reasons for women's equality. It could also be the
case, however, that he truly believes that the only reason women
should have be given equal rights is because the 'chain of their
mind' is already relaxed to the point that we cannot go back to the
preferred time when women were absolutely less educated. This,
though, seems like an odd belief to hold for someone who specifically
suggests that men and women could be 'the same'. It makes most sense,
then, in this respect to entertain the idea that Mill simply does not
want to come across too radical as to lose his readers, but simply to
plant the idea of perfect legal equality into people's minds for
changes to happen, but not as a direct cause of his book. This would
suggest that the book does not go far enough as Mill seems to be
slightly backing away from the responsibility of the changes he
clearly suggests should be made.
Mill
goes on, in chapter two, to create points that are even more
controversial that in chapter one. The chapter focuses on marriage
and the kind of thing that goes on within certain households with
'brutes' being an extreme case that will subject their wife to
violence and abuse. While Mill acknowledges that the vast majority of
men are not like this, his suggestion is that it should not be
happening at all. This is a powerful argument as with anyone who can
empathise with women would understand that abuse is morally wrong and
can then understand with the situation of the law at the time, the
women are powerless to fight against it. This is because it was
virtually impossible for women to get a divorce, and even if they
were able to, all of their possessions, even their children, would be
taken away from them – leaving the most common choice for the woman
to bear the abuse. This is a strong argument and bringing the wrongs
of domestic violence to light, Mill seems to be attempting to appeal
to people's sense of justice in order to stop this happening as much
as possible. Here in the book, feels closer in explaining the initial
belief of Mill suggests that women are equal to men, if not the same,
and why he feels it should be changed – and certainly his argument
sufficiently deals with the subject.
Being
careful not to compare women to slaves, Mill appeals further to
people's reason by suggesting that even slaves technically have legal
rights that women in a marriage do not, and therefore marriage seems
only to benefit the man and not the woman. This is to suggest that
slaves have the right to deny their master sex with them, while women
in a marriage at the time was considered to having always consented
to sex. This is a radical argument, because it was one of the first
times anyone had suggested that a wife could be raped by their
husband. The material here, then, seems to be very heavy, evoke a lot
controversial detail and bringing legal issues to light very
effectively, so with these arguments Mill is going far enough and
very much getting to the core of the issue. However, Mill seems to
demean his own argument in chapter two in a similar way that he does
in chapter one that throws the understanding of women as 'the same as
men' into question. Mill makes a claim that for women: 'their power
only lasts while the woman is young and attractive, often while her
charm is new, and not dimmed by familiarity...'. The issue with this
is the suggestion could be interpreted as a women's only power is her
looks – which do not stay with her. This falls into many
problematic ideas such as why a woman should marry young so that she
is not alone when older, etc.. The superficial outlook of women,
again, could be an attempt at keeping a portion of the audience on
his side, but again, he seems to be contradicting his initial
statement that women are equal to, if not the same, as men. This is
because it is assuming the knowledge that a man's power lies outside
of his looks (Mill claims within The Subjection of Women that there
is a problem with basing power on physical strength, suggesting that
is one thing that men do have over women in general, even thought it
should not be the reason for power,) and when suggesting that looks
are part of a woman's power you're drawing a contrast between men and
women, therefore not under the assumption that men and women are
equal, if not the same. Here it seems that Mill is holding himself
back from allowing the arguments in The Subjection of Women from
going far enough.
In
chapter three of The Subjection of Women takes a slightly lighter
tone and seems not to have as much of a fault as chapter two or one
with regards to contradicting himself. He tackles the idea of women
in working and suggests that they have to try harder than men,
because men don't have the pressure of always looking nice, they can
get away with 'being slobs'. The idea here is that women were held
back from a lot of jobs, and the ones they aren't held back from
require them to make more of an effort than men on being presentable.
This is a strong point as he suggests that within the idea that women
are equal to or the same as men, it seems counter-productive to have
them not able to apply for certain jobs when everyone is at a loss
from the potential of higher skill that can be brought to an area of
work. This works very well as the suggestion appeals to a larger area
in liberty that everyone benefits from total equality. By giving
everyone equal opportunity, the best people for a job are able to get
the job and therefore the quality of work in an area becomes improved
which applied to services and society to make things of a higher
standard. He also makes the suggestion that if certain men still
think women naturally cannot do certain areas of work then they have
nothing to worry about by giving them the opportunity to do it,
because they wont want to / wont get into it anyway. This chapter
seems to make it's statements strongly and outlines the problems for
women and society in general and therefore is a strong argument for
equality.
In
Mill's final chapter of the Subjection of women, he sums up his
reasons for making women equal as benefiting everyone, and more
importantly getting away from some of the 'bad' that society
currently has. Mill's suggestion of this clarifies his point that
there is reason for the changes to happen as he has so far outlined,
evoking the desire for change. One such reason Mill talks about is
the way children are brought up, and as if by being born a male
children learn from an early age that they are superior to females,
teaching them pride over humility. This is an important point as one
of the best ways to change the way people treat women in the future
is target how children see the world and teach them in such a way as
they understand what's right, being the equality between the sexes.
Again, however, Mill seems to make a point after this that possibly
need not be mentioned. He contrasts the example of how children
should be brought up between the upper and lower classes, that
children from upper classes see their mother as equal in power and do
not learn to be superior to women.
The
problem here is that there seems not to be a real reason to suggest
that the upper classes are exempt from some reasons that men in
society are superior to women. Contrasting differences between people
of classes will not help the idea that 'the sexes are potentially the
same' which entails that all people are potentially the same because
of the argument that one should not be born into higher rights than
another. So, to then suggest that one group of people deal with an
issue better than another does not help the general issue and weakens
Mill's argument. On top of this, it seems that there is still an
issue with superiority / inferiority between the genders, even in
upper classes after the children are grown up, otherwise there would
be no point to the argument against the lack of equality in the law.
This is because the law applies to all, upper classes and lower, so
the issue clearly still stands. This further holds Mill back from
going far enough with his arguments.
It
seems that Mill in his primary book on inequality between the sexes,
The Subjection of Women, makes many strong arguments that at the time
were very radical and controversial. Many of his points are evoking,
strong and he does not leave many questions unanswered. However,
there are a few comments he makes which seem to hold him back from
going far enough with his book, whether they are there for him to
take less responsibility for his words or whether he is still
generally naive about certain elements of his argument due to having
been of his time. While his contradictions do not necessarily counter
the strength of his arguments for equality, they do leave questions
about Mill himself as his intentions or actual beliefs about what he
is arguing and therefore holds him back from having an absolute
argument for equality between the sexes.
Refrences
- Mill, John Stuart (1869). The Subjection of Women (1869 first ed.). London: Longmans, Green, Reader & Dyer. Retrieved 10 December 2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment