Scan barcode
emeraldgarnet's review against another edition
2.0
A classic example of the 'fair for its day trope'. John Stuart Mill makes some excellent points but falls down in other places. Particular points that rubbed me the wrong way were things like women ought not to work if they are married, women being better rulers due to their 'more rapid insight into character', and women's 'intuition'. The real shame is that today so many are making similar arguments as John Stuart Mill but because they never read him they think they are being original.
akash_ghani's review against another edition
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
fast-paced
5.0
A brilliant piece of work for advocating the equality of women based on merit rather than gender orientated. The author skillfully dissects society and conditions in which women are oppressed and barred from advancing in society.
itsautumntime9'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 …
banandrew's review against another edition
3.0
The title, "On the Subjection of Women", doesn't really leave you wondering what this book is about. John Stuart Mill is writing in 1869, notably just after the American Civil War, about the rights and necessary equality of women, both in society at large and within family units. Despite a few overlooked details, it's both incredibly prescient and well-argued for its time.
Mill starts out by describing what he considers systematic oppression of women, comparing their situation to that of (former, but only recently at the time) legal slaves and describing it as entirely systematic:
He goes on to try to look at the picture holistically, addressing a lot of arguments that (unfortunately) still sound familiar: women's natural place is at home, women aren't good at [business/politics/art], etc. Mill seems to be rare in recognizing (or is one of the only men acknowledging at the time) how expecting women to live as housewives and raising them so their entire education is in training to become housewives might lead to those conclusions ("What is now called the nature of women is an eminently artificial thing", p. 22).
Even in 1869, rhetoric about jobs was aplenty---Mill spends a good portion of time making utilitarian arguments that doubling the potential workforce could allow for more skilled workers, that allowing women to do skilled jobs doesn't mean that capitalist forces to filter for qualified individuals will suddenly start failing, etc.
Mill still makes arguments from stereotypes of what women and men are respectively "good at", sometimes with caveats but other times just there. He does point out early on (p. 24) that sociology has hardly developed, especially with regards to understanding women, but his arguments later on (throughout chapter 3) still seem to appeal to cultural-norm-based reasoning (at one point claiming that men are of course better at focusing on long, difficult tasks, but that women can handle a variety of distractions better).
In claiming the end of oppression due to race, Mill is a little too optimistic about the current state of humanity:
and even has very telling language about people with alternate religious views ("even religious disabilities do not close any career to the disqualified person in case of conversion.", p. 20). But overall these end up being small issues compared to what the essay accomplishes.
Towards the end, Mill makes the argument that educated and free women will result in better marriages---spouses will both be more educated, will have more joint interests and better discourse, and that this will lead to a happier society overall. (Wikipedia notes that Mill had a very intellectual wife whom he often wrote with.) "While women are brought up as they are, a man and woman will but rarely find in one another real agreement of tastes and wishes as to daily life." (p. 100)
Mill ends with this gem in describing the status quo:
(Aside: ironically, while finishing the last part of the book today, I received an emailed newsletter from an extremely conservative homeschool organization decrying the US ban on women in combat roles being lifted as unbiblical and unchivalrous.)
Mill starts out by describing what he considers systematic oppression of women, comparing their situation to that of (former, but only recently at the time) legal slaves and describing it as entirely systematic:
"All women are brought up from the very earliest years in the belief that their ideal of character is the very opposite to that of men; not self-will, and government by self-control, but submission, and yielding to the control of others. All the moralities tell them that it is the duty of women, and all the current sentimentalities that it is their nature, to live for others; to make complete abnegation of themselves, and to have no life but in their affections." (p. 16)
He goes on to try to look at the picture holistically, addressing a lot of arguments that (unfortunately) still sound familiar: women's natural place is at home, women aren't good at [business/politics/art], etc. Mill seems to be rare in recognizing (or is one of the only men acknowledging at the time) how expecting women to live as housewives and raising them so their entire education is in training to become housewives might lead to those conclusions ("What is now called the nature of women is an eminently artificial thing", p. 22).
Even in 1869, rhetoric about jobs was aplenty---Mill spends a good portion of time making utilitarian arguments that doubling the potential workforce could allow for more skilled workers, that allowing women to do skilled jobs doesn't mean that capitalist forces to filter for qualified individuals will suddenly start failing, etc.
Mill still makes arguments from stereotypes of what women and men are respectively "good at", sometimes with caveats but other times just there. He does point out early on (p. 24) that sociology has hardly developed, especially with regards to understanding women, but his arguments later on (throughout chapter 3) still seem to appeal to cultural-norm-based reasoning (at one point claiming that men are of course better at focusing on long, difficult tasks, but that women can handle a variety of distractions better).
In claiming the end of oppression due to race, Mill is a little too optimistic about the current state of humanity:
"At present, in the more improved countries, the disabilities of women are the only case… in which laws and institutions take persons at their birth, and ordain that they shall never in all their lives be allowed to compete for certain things." (p. 20)
and even has very telling language about people with alternate religious views ("even religious disabilities do not close any career to the disqualified person in case of conversion.", p. 20). But overall these end up being small issues compared to what the essay accomplishes.
Towards the end, Mill makes the argument that educated and free women will result in better marriages---spouses will both be more educated, will have more joint interests and better discourse, and that this will lead to a happier society overall. (Wikipedia notes that Mill had a very intellectual wife whom he often wrote with.) "While women are brought up as they are, a man and woman will but rarely find in one another real agreement of tastes and wishes as to daily life." (p. 100)
Mill ends with this gem in describing the status quo:
"The desire of power over others can only cease to be a depraving agency among mankind, when each of them individually is able to do without it: which can only be where respect for liberty in the personal concerns of each is an established principle."
(Aside: ironically, while finishing the last part of the book today, I received an emailed newsletter from an extremely conservative homeschool organization decrying the US ban on women in combat roles being lifted as unbiblical and unchivalrous.)
ivyloaf's review against another edition
4.0
I went into this hoping to like it, having read other of Mill's works, and was not disappointed. I appreciate his unapologetic insistence on complete change, and complete change now. I also appreciated the parts that read, to me, as very sarcastic. He didn't hold back! Now on to Wollstonecraft.
minervaxyz's review against another edition
informative
inspiring
slow-paced
3.0
wooooooo
¿really?¿1800s?
2023usa has current legislation that its LITERALLY less advanced and progressive than their hopes and ideals
truly pleasantly surprised
¿really?¿1800s?
2023usa has current legislation that its LITERALLY less advanced and progressive than their hopes and ideals
truly pleasantly surprised
szkalebina's review against another edition
4.0
JSM has a rather peculiar style of writing. His paragraphs are sometimes several pages long and it is hard to follow his train of thought. In the most popular review here, the author states that she "skimmed through" the essay - and as one could expect, it's a negative review. Ironically, the statements she used to criticise JSM are an exact copy of what JSM himself had concluded in his writing. Fun. It shows how important it is to actually read the thing before judging it by what is, in fact, its opposite.
It is entirely impossible to "skim through" this essay, so be sure to prepare yourself mentally for a bit of work. JSM could have used an editor, but I cannot deny him wit and progressive views. If you read carefully, you will understand that all he wanted was to give women a chance to develop their potential and to allow them to do whatever they want, simply because they are humans (wow, i know, right?) and because it is utterly unfair to judge them when their possibilities have been so limited for countless generations.
"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."
"A pertinacious adversary, pushed to extremities, may say, that husbands indeed are willing to be reasonable, and to make fair concessions to their partners without being compelled to it, but the wives are not: that if allowed any rights of their own, they will acknowledge no rights at all in anyone else, end never will yield in anything, unless they can be compelled, by the man's mere authority, to yield in everything. This would have been said by many persons some generations ago, when satires on women were in vogue, and men thought it a clever thing to insult women for being what men made them."
Let it sink: "Men thought it a clever thing to insult women for being what men made them". I cannot think of anything more on point, and unfortunately still applicable to this day, than this. Sexist men of the world, please learn to think logically, thank you.
It is entirely impossible to "skim through" this essay, so be sure to prepare yourself mentally for a bit of work. JSM could have used an editor, but I cannot deny him wit and progressive views. If you read carefully, you will understand that all he wanted was to give women a chance to develop their potential and to allow them to do whatever they want, simply because they are humans (wow, i know, right?) and because it is utterly unfair to judge them when their possibilities have been so limited for countless generations.
"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."
"A pertinacious adversary, pushed to extremities, may say, that husbands indeed are willing to be reasonable, and to make fair concessions to their partners without being compelled to it, but the wives are not: that if allowed any rights of their own, they will acknowledge no rights at all in anyone else, end never will yield in anything, unless they can be compelled, by the man's mere authority, to yield in everything. This would have been said by many persons some generations ago, when satires on women were in vogue, and men thought it a clever thing to insult women for being what men made them."
Let it sink: "Men thought it a clever thing to insult women for being what men made them". I cannot think of anything more on point, and unfortunately still applicable to this day, than this. Sexist men of the world, please learn to think logically, thank you.
rclyburn's review against another edition
Some outdated ideas, but always good to follow the logical flow of an argument.