Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.76 AVERAGE
3.76 AVERAGE
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.
emotional
informative
reflective
medium-paced
informative
inspiring
slow-paced
Interesting look at the beginnings of feminism but dated by its time. Also not very easily understood.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Islamophobia
reflective
medium-paced
some genuinely good thinking, some less so.
A wonderful analytical look at why women should be given more rights and opportunities in society. He looks at the comparison to slaves and wives, how an educated wife is better for the husband, and how society should not limit itself to only one half of the population. Good arguments are made and good logic applied to arguments. From other reviews I read the main issue is the arts and writing section. However, I enjoyed this section because he makes a point that women have just entered the arts world (published in 1869) and men did not have success in the first century of their arts practice. Women would not have success in the arts world because they just entered it. He stated that in the following centuries society would see improvement from women in arts because they have just started.
hopeful
informative
reflective
medium-paced
Remarkably relevant over 100 years after first publication.
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 …
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
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!