free hit counter code The Subjection of Women - GoBooks - Download Free Book
Ads Banner
Hot Best Seller

The Subjection of Women

Availability: Ready to download

..".John Mill disagrees with the argument that women are naturally less good at some things than men, and should therefore be discouraged or forbidden from doing them. Mill Thought that men simply don't know what women are capable of, because we have never let them try - nobody can not make a statement without evidence. We can't stop women from trying things because they m ..".John Mill disagrees with the argument that women are naturally less good at some things than men, and should therefore be discouraged or forbidden from doing them. Mill Thought that men simply don't know what women are capable of, because we have never let them try - nobody can not make a statement without evidence. We can't stop women from trying things because they might not be able to do them. An argument based on speculative physiology is just that, speculation..."


Compare
Ads Banner

..".John Mill disagrees with the argument that women are naturally less good at some things than men, and should therefore be discouraged or forbidden from doing them. Mill Thought that men simply don't know what women are capable of, because we have never let them try - nobody can not make a statement without evidence. We can't stop women from trying things because they m ..".John Mill disagrees with the argument that women are naturally less good at some things than men, and should therefore be discouraged or forbidden from doing them. Mill Thought that men simply don't know what women are capable of, because we have never let them try - nobody can not make a statement without evidence. We can't stop women from trying things because they might not be able to do them. An argument based on speculative physiology is just that, speculation..."

30 review for The Subjection of Women

  1. 4 out of 5

    Petra-masx

    I skimmed through The Subjection of Women but when I got to the passage on women's inferiority being that they don't produce original thought or works, I decided not to read the rest. If it's written from that paternalistic point of view, I can see that I would need to practice deep-breathing and that only delays the inevitable reaction. To sum up the book, Mill thought women were equal but... But the standards he used did not take into account this was not a level playing field. Ultimately he t I skimmed through The Subjection of Women but when I got to the passage on women's inferiority being that they don't produce original thought or works, I decided not to read the rest. If it's written from that paternalistic point of view, I can see that I would need to practice deep-breathing and that only delays the inevitable reaction. To sum up the book, Mill thought women were equal but... But the standards he used did not take into account this was not a level playing field. Ultimately he thinks that women are equal but they are better off in the kitchen. Note. If you are skimming this then skip to the last-but-one paragraph. That is a greater commentary on the subjection of women and the times than I could write. Imagine if John Stuart Mill had looked at the artistic and scientific life as it really was. Let's say we confine this to the upper classes, a tiny proportion of the UK. The boys had all been to school for a classical education. The women had generally been educated at home by a governess and taught to play piano, draw, sew, manage a household and recite poetry as their main subjects. Women were considered physically, socially and intellectually men's inferiors. They had many hurdles to jump should they want a career. Even novelists like the unmarried Jane Austen For women any kind of career was almost always a choice between marriage and vocation. Not being married meant they had to have been rich in their own right, would deny themselves children (and mostly likely the act that produces them), and condemned themselves to being the spinster aunt socially. For men, no choice was necessary. They had very few responsibilities at home if they chose to delegate them to the household manager, the wife. Even if the women were of the bent to enquire into science, they didn't have the education and even if they had husbands who were happy for them to travel to London and stay at their clubs (what clubs) and go to the various societies devoted to science it wasn't possible. Those societies didn't admit women. With art the men had access to live-drawing. Naked models. This is a major part of any art education (view spoiler)[I went to art college, it still is (hide spoiler)] and women were absolutely denied this. Most artists and scientists then and now did not produce any great original works. Just a few here and there, even with all that education, time, peer-support and practice, only a few did anything original. Mostly original work is of tiny steps and not a great earth-shattering discovery. Then as now. But in any case, it wasn't true. From time immemorial there have been women artists and scientists of such stature that texts, from Pliny to the present write about them. But how many more were there denied public recognition, their achievements being credited to the men they worked with? The Wikipedia entry isn't very good, Caroline Herschell for instance (I read a book about her) isn't fully credited with her achievements or fight for acceptance. But nonetheless it is worth checking out. So I didn't read this essay. If a man is going to write how women are unfairly treated as inferior from birth onwards, and then say that well they are inferior in this, this and this, I discount it. Mills' wasn't so much a forward thinker, an early feminist as one who was a protagonist of PC thought. Intellectually he knew that subjugation of females was wrong, but emotionally he still couldn't quite give up the idea of male supremacy. 1.Wikipedia/science 2.Wikipedia/arts One of the saddest things I've ever seen written: "You know I am black and if it was known that a Negro woman patented the invention, white ladies would not buy the wringer. I was afraid to be known because of my color in having it introduced into the market, that is the only reason." Ellen Eglin Ellen invented a wringer, the first labour-saving device for washing clothes that would be generally available. She sold it to a white man for $18. If Mills refused to recognise women's achievements as original, how much harder for Black people, Black women. How much of their history was subsumed beneath the weight of racism and sexism? I doubt we will ever know.

  2. 4 out of 5

    Ahmad Sharabiani

    The Subjection of Women, John Stuart Mil The Subjection of Women is an essay by English philosopher, political economist and civil servant John Stuart Mill published in 1869, with ideas he developed jointly with his wife Harriet Taylor Mill. Mill submitted the finished manuscript of their collaborative work On Liberty (1859) soon after her untimely death in late 1858, and then continued work on The Subjection of Women until its completion in 1861. At the time of its publication, the essay's argum The Subjection of Women, John Stuart Mil The Subjection of Women is an essay by English philosopher, political economist and civil servant John Stuart Mill published in 1869, with ideas he developed jointly with his wife Harriet Taylor Mill. Mill submitted the finished manuscript of their collaborative work On Liberty (1859) soon after her untimely death in late 1858, and then continued work on The Subjection of Women until its completion in 1861. At the time of its publication, the essay's argument for equality between the sexes was an affront to European conventional norms regarding the status of men and women. تاریخ نخستین خوانش: روز بیست و یکم ماه ژوئن سال 2001 میلادی عنوانها: انقیاد زنان؛ در آزادی؛ رساله در باره آزادی؛ تاملاتی در حکومت انتخابی؛ کنیزک کردن زنان؛ فرودستی زنان؛ حکومت انتخابی؛ نویسنده: جان استوارت میل؛ تاریخ نخستین خوانش: روز بیست و یکم ماه ژوئن سال 2001 میلادی عنوان: در آزادی؛ نویسنده: جان استوارت میل؛ مترجم: محمود صناعی؛ تهران، کتابهای جیبی، 1340؛ در 267 ص؛ چاپ دیگر: 1345؛ عنوان: تاملاتی در حکومت انتخابی؛ نویسنده: جان استوارت میل؛ مترجم: علی رامین؛ تهران، نشر نی، 1369، در 294 ص؛ با عنوان: حکومت انتخابی؛ 1389، در 372 ص؛ شابک: 9789643129743؛ چاپ سوم 1394؛ چاپ چهارم 1396؛ عنوان: کنیزک کردن زنان؛ نویسنده: جان استوارت میل؛ مترجم: خسرو ریگی؛ تهران، بانو، 1377، در 165 ص؛ عنوان: انقیاد زنان؛ نویسنده: جان استوارت میل؛ مترجم: علاءالدین طباطبائی؛ تهران، شهر کتاب، هرمس، 1379؛ در نوزده ئ 160 ص؛ شابک: 9647100272؛ چاپ دوم 1385؛ چاپ سوم 1390؛ چاپ چهارم 1393، شابک: 9789647100272؛ موضوع: در باره زنان از نویسندگان انگلیسی - سده 19 م عنوان: فرودستی زنان؛ نویسنده: جان استوارت میل؛ مترجم: نادر نوری زاده؛ ویراستار» شعله راجی کرمانی؛ تهران، قصیده سرا، 1397، در 214 ص؛ شابک: 9786008054023؛ انقیاد زنان، رساله ای ست که «جان استوارت میل» در سال 1869 میلادی منتشر کرده است. در آن زمان، زنانِ انگلستان، هنوز از بسیاری از حقوق محروم بودند، از جمله: «حق رأی». از همین رو، هنگامیکه «میل» از حقوق زنان دفاع میکرد، کم نبودند کسانیکه سخنان او را به ریشخند میگرفتند؛ اما او از صمیم قلب باور داشت که وضعیت زنان در آن روزها به هیچ وجه با جهان مدرن سازگار نیست، و زنان باید از حقوق برابر با مردان، برخوردار شوند. «میل» در سراسر این رساله میکوشد ثابت کند، که رفتار و سلوک و موقعیت فعلی زنان، زاییده ی طبیعت آنان نیست، بلکه زاییده ی انتظاراتی است که جامعه از آنان دارد. رساله ی «میل» به باور بسیاری از صاحب نظران، یکی از بهترین آثاری است که تاکنون در دفاع از حقوق زنان نگاشته شده است. ا. شربیانی

  3. 4 out of 5

    Wealhtheow

    I need to reread this someday. But for now, a quote: "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....in the case of women, a hot-house and stove cultivation has always been carried on of some of the capabilities of their nature, for the benefit and pleasure of their masters. Then, because certain products of the general vital force sprout luxuriantly and reach a great development in I need to reread this someday. But for now, a quote: "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....in the case of women, a hot-house and stove cultivation has always been carried on of some of the capabilities of their nature, for the benefit and pleasure of their masters. Then, because certain products of the general vital force sprout luxuriantly and reach a great development in this heated atmosphere and under this active nurture and watering, while other shoots from the same root, which are left outside in the wintry air, with ice purposely heaped all round them, have a stunted growth, and some are burnt off with fire and disappear; men, with that inability to recognize their own work which distinguishes the unanalytic mind, indolently believe that the tree grows of itself in the way they have made it grow, and that it would die if one half of it were not kept in a vapour bath and the other half in the snow." Full text can be found here: http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/mill/...

  4. 4 out of 5

    Ryan Hirst

    I have never needed another person's arguments to know that there is no justification for inequality between the sexes. The capacities of the mind are independent of gender. I have always known. The arguments are self-evident; they reiterate an elementary fact. So, I began to read Mill's "Subjection of Women," out of curiosity, not any social or philosophical quest. By the end of the first page, I was weeping. Have I heard another person speak this way? Is it this scarce, then? Have you have met a I have never needed another person's arguments to know that there is no justification for inequality between the sexes. The capacities of the mind are independent of gender. I have always known. The arguments are self-evident; they reiterate an elementary fact. So, I began to read Mill's "Subjection of Women," out of curiosity, not any social or philosophical quest. By the end of the first page, I was weeping. Have I heard another person speak this way? Is it this scarce, then? Have you have met a book which put its hands into you, and spoke your mind and heart back to you, tipped in gold? This is such a book for me.

  5. 4 out of 5

    Aaron Gertler

    Read this as soon as you can. You can finish in an hour or two, and every sentence is a jewel. It's nearly impossible to imagine this being written better in the year 1861 by any other person alive at the time. (Mill's wife was also a major contributor, and it's deeply sad that she didn't survive to see it published.) The language isn't so archaic as to detract from readability, and the arguments are constructed with a care and precision I once associated only with the best philosophers of our e Read this as soon as you can. You can finish in an hour or two, and every sentence is a jewel. It's nearly impossible to imagine this being written better in the year 1861 by any other person alive at the time. (Mill's wife was also a major contributor, and it's deeply sad that she didn't survive to see it published.) The language isn't so archaic as to detract from readability, and the arguments are constructed with a care and precision I once associated only with the best philosophers of our era; "Subjection" is leagues beyond Mill's "Utilitarianism" in that regard. I find something worth quoting on every other page, and much of it still rings true today (indeed, you can see faint echoes of Mill in the best analyses of the James Damore memo). Every time Mill begins to make some statement that might ring false to modern sensibilities, he catches himself and apologizes for his own lack of data, then steps back from the precipice. This feature, combined with his deep appreciation for the contexts within which people and groups live out their lives, makes him the ultimate rationalist social justice warrior. On my best days, I hope to see the issues of our society as clearly as Mill saw the issues of his own.

  6. 4 out of 5

    Mohammed

    I read this for a new literary class about gender roles,power struggles through theories,literature. It is not an easy read but it is written so impressively rhetorically, very intelligently. He expressed with great logic everything that is wrong with the male gender's power over women in his times. His arguments are very modern,bold but he was also realistic about the male powers not letting go their control of the other gender in his times. The arguments are still used today and people use prett I read this for a new literary class about gender roles,power struggles through theories,literature. It is not an easy read but it is written so impressively rhetorically, very intelligently. He expressed with great logic everything that is wrong with the male gender's power over women in his times. His arguments are very modern,bold but he was also realistic about the male powers not letting go their control of the other gender in his times. The arguments are still used today and people use pretty words to talk about basic human rights that he demanded in 1850s. A man ahead of his times and its a shame the gender equality issues hasnt improved very much, become much more equal in 150 years. I will read his other philosopher works about inequality later when i don't read books on time for classes.

  7. 5 out of 5

    Veronica

    If you need another reason to like John Stuart Mill. . .

  8. 4 out of 5

    Marts (Thinker)

    Mill's 'Subjection of Women' is an essay favouring equality of the sexes, written in 1869 in coordination with his wife Harriet Taylor, the essay presents arguments opposing the social and legal inequalities of that time... In some cultures, such still exists...

  9. 4 out of 5

    Valerie

    Charlotte Bronte commented that Mill was insufficiently concerned with the emotional aspects of life, though others pointed out that the parts she found most paternalistic often came not from Mill himself, but from his wife. Mill and others tended to take for granted that the sphere of life designated as 'masculine' in the 19th century was the better and more valuable part of life. They raised important questions about the marginalization of 'minority' groups (women counted in this, though numeri Charlotte Bronte commented that Mill was insufficiently concerned with the emotional aspects of life, though others pointed out that the parts she found most paternalistic often came not from Mill himself, but from his wife. Mill and others tended to take for granted that the sphere of life designated as 'masculine' in the 19th century was the better and more valuable part of life. They raised important questions about the marginalization of 'minority' groups (women counted in this, though numerically a plurality), but they didn't really question what ought to be valued. So, for example, they rarely even considered the men who wanted to be stay-at-home dads, but were prevented from doing so. And by now, we've become such a dichotomized society that we try to turn our 'business' lives into sterile, childless, monospecific boxes, and relegate ALL of the messy and complex aspects of life to the suburbs--or out of sight altogether. What, after all, IS the purpose of our busyness, if not to support and improve the quality of our lives?

  10. 5 out of 5

    Claire

    An interesting essay about the place of women in society- which is very progressive and liberal given the context of its writing. As such it’s best read keeping this context in mind. The style is somewhat dated and the structure was a bit repetitive. On the whole an interesting read.

  11. 4 out of 5

    Malola

    Good dissertion... It was a really intersting essay. He makes good points, but I guess too "wordy" at times and a bit redundant. It is "funny", though, that says he appreciates women's works yet didn't acknowledge his wife as co-author. Particularly because he even mentions how much she helped with the book, that sometimes women are not given authorship for their works and that he even says that has happened in his case. Oh, well... *shrugs*

  12. 5 out of 5

    Perry Whitford

    Was John Stuart Mill the only Victorian male who had any sense? I exaggerate, there must have been one or two others, who knows, maybe even as many as five. Chauvinism, xenophobia and hypocrisy were the order of the day back then; whereas now, in our enlightened times, with Trump, Brexit and the West's continued meddling in Middle Eastern affairs we are all...well, let's face it, we're not so very different. We too could do with a John Stuart Mill to try and slap some sense into us. I was always d Was John Stuart Mill the only Victorian male who had any sense? I exaggerate, there must have been one or two others, who knows, maybe even as many as five. Chauvinism, xenophobia and hypocrisy were the order of the day back then; whereas now, in our enlightened times, with Trump, Brexit and the West's continued meddling in Middle Eastern affairs we are all...well, let's face it, we're not so very different. We too could do with a John Stuart Mill to try and slap some sense into us. I was always drawn to his philosophy of utility, a system of looking at the world so elementary that even an indolent, below average humanities student like me could grasp the concept. In The Subjection of Women, Mill argued for the immediate equality of the female sex in both law and opportunity on two typically sensible utilitarian grounds: 1) 'having the most universal and pervading of all human relations regulated by justice instead of injustice.' 2) 'doubling the mass of mental faculties available for the higher service of humanity.' Who could disagree with the moral benefit of the first point and the practical benefit of the second? No-one, so they simply tried to ignore him, even when he was voted into parliament and started to actively campaign for the reform of the marriage laws and universal female suffrage. Let's begin with those 19th marriage laws. As Mills saw it 'the principle which regulates the existing social relations between the two sexes—the legal subordination of one sex to the other—is wrong in itself, and now one of the chief hindrances to human improvement'. Under the marriage law women were effectively 'the personal body-servant of a despot.' He compared it to slavery, concluding that the status of women under the law was merely a 'milder form of dependence.' Any naysayers tempted to laugh that out of court might have changed their minds if they followed his argument without prejudice. Wives had to surrender all of their property to their husbands when they tied the knot. They even had to surrender their children to him, to the extent that they could even be prevented from seeing them after his death if the will commanded. That's a horrible and heartbreaking situation which would have made a great subject for a Victorian 'sensation' novel, though I haven't come across one with that plot yet. An equally horrid reality of those marriage laws as they were, one which has been the subject of plenty of such novels, is domestic abuse. As Mill points out, even slaves often had protection if beaten by their masters. ('In no other case (except that of a child) is the person who has been proved judicially to have suffered an injury, replaced under the physical power of the culprit who inflicted it.') As for the abilities of women, Mill had the same view as Mary Wolstencraft a century before, that the true nature of their talents had yet to be discovered because of lack of education and opportunity. The 'mobility' of the female mind which he alludes to is recognised today in business as superior multi-tasking, the airy myth of female intuition is given its meaningful definition by Mill as 'a rapid and correct insight into present fact.' As for women's supposed moral superiority, Mills could see the irony in how it was 'considered quite natural and suitable, that the better should obey the worse.' Overall he was forced to accept that women were 'a subject of which most men know absolutely nothing.'

  13. 5 out of 5

    Kevin Kelsey

    Written in 1861 and first published in 1869, though an arduous read, this was way ahead of it’s time. Although incredibly forward thinking, it is still a product of the 19th century, and it shows occasionally. The author gets a lot of criticism for the few times that he does a disservice to the current women of his time, in an attempt to do a service to the potential women of the future. If you follow his train of thought long enough, he always has valid reasoning for his argument. Mainly, that w Written in 1861 and first published in 1869, though an arduous read, this was way ahead of it’s time. Although incredibly forward thinking, it is still a product of the 19th century, and it shows occasionally. The author gets a lot of criticism for the few times that he does a disservice to the current women of his time, in an attempt to do a service to the potential women of the future. If you follow his train of thought long enough, he always has valid reasoning for his argument. Mainly, that women of his time haven’t been given an opportunity to be educated, and have had their place in society shaped by a society that hasn’t given them a chance to exercise their will, and are therefore, in their current state, not yet the equals of men in some regards. It was the truth of the time, and ultimately, it always becomes a hopeful statement toward the potential of women that may exist in the future, if society would change the rules that have been imposed on them. The whole point of the book is to affect change. He’s very clear that women absolutely can and should be fully equal to men, and argues his point with great wit. I think that some misunderstand this, or simply don’t have the patience or vocabulary to read through his admittedly difficult writing, to understand what he is ultimately saying. After all, a seemingly disparaging statement made toward the current women of 1861 might not be completely followed up and shown in actuality to be a representation of the repressive circumstances in which women have been shaped, until several pages later. His paragraphs are that long. It’s hard to follow. Mill's writing is terribly long winded. His sentences sometimes drawing on for hundreds of words, and paragraphs that are often 3-4 pages long. He could’ve used a good editor. I imagine that an abridged version of this text might carry twice the punch than it does in its current form.

  14. 5 out of 5

    caroline

    much better than what i was expecting. i don't recommend reading it on your lunch hour unless you want to spend your entire afternoon at work hating on the patriarchy.

  15. 5 out of 5

    Ross

    An active and energetic mind, if denied liberty, will seek for power: refused the command of itself, it will assert its personality by attempting to control others. To allow to any human beings no existence of their own but what depends on others, is giving far too high a premium on bending others to their purposes. Where liberty cannot be hoped for, and power can, power becomes the grand object of human desire; those to whom others will not leave the undisturbed management of their own affairs, An active and energetic mind, if denied liberty, will seek for power: refused the command of itself, it will assert its personality by attempting to control others. To allow to any human beings no existence of their own but what depends on others, is giving far too high a premium on bending others to their purposes. Where liberty cannot be hoped for, and power can, power becomes the grand object of human desire; those to whom others will not leave the undisturbed management of their own affairs, will compensate themselves, if they can, by meddling for their own purposes with the affairs of others.

  16. 4 out of 5

    Musa

    This feels like your boomer uncle going through a redemption arc and adopting "liberal" values. Translation: the feminism of Mill is quite paternalistic by today's standards, but the undeniable historical importance it holds — and the doors it opened for future feminist writers — is applaudable. This feels like your boomer uncle going through a redemption arc and adopting "liberal" values. Translation: the feminism of Mill is quite paternalistic by today's standards, but the undeniable historical importance it holds — and the doors it opened for future feminist writers — is applaudable.

  17. 4 out of 5

    Alice

    I HAVE to give it three stars because John Stuart Mill is so earnest about his 1869 support of women but GOOD LORD IT IS NOT WELL-WRITTEN. It took me 2 years to get through 101 pages. He has these occasional AMAZING insights, but they’re buried inside so many tortuous and torturous sentences it’s almost impossible to find them. If you can find quotes from Subjection of Women, read those. You don’t need to read the whole book. You just really really don’t.

  18. 5 out of 5

    Illiterate

    It’s hard to disagree, unless you like tyranny.

  19. 5 out of 5

    ✩⋆ Victoria ⋆✩

    DNF - it raises good points but it was just super repetitive

  20. 5 out of 5

    8314

    Read this because Dostoyevsky displayed a good amount of discontent towards John Stuart Mill in his letters, despite the fact that I see myself as "graduated" from feminism ages ago. Pretty typical for Dostoyevsky: the guy didn't like British liberalism anyhow and he would sass it whenever he's given a chance, for example, in all of his novels. Actually, in this case, I'm more inclined to agree with Mill. There's an episode in Dostoyevsky's letters that kind of irritated me: when his wife, Anna, Read this because Dostoyevsky displayed a good amount of discontent towards John Stuart Mill in his letters, despite the fact that I see myself as "graduated" from feminism ages ago. Pretty typical for Dostoyevsky: the guy didn't like British liberalism anyhow and he would sass it whenever he's given a chance, for example, in all of his novels. Actually, in this case, I'm more inclined to agree with Mill. There's an episode in Dostoyevsky's letters that kind of irritated me: when his wife, Anna, wrote to him saying that she wanted to be a doctor because she was inspired by a magazine of that time, Dostoyevsky simply responded by one sentence "don't read it anymore". In comparison, Mill had a better understanding towards the reality. He is disillusioned enough to see the dark side of humanity in general, and he had a good grasp on the different mind-set of men and women. Actually I found it to be even more profound than Simone de Beauvoir's celebrated work the Second Sex. At first glance one would be impressed by de Beauvoir's erudite arguments (which gave me quite a good frustration when I read it), but a second thought would suggest it's too bad to be true. Mill's argument has a sense of reality, if that makes any sense. P.S. The Chinese translator combined Mill's work and A Vindication of the Rights of Woman together. This comparison made Mary Wollstonecraft look petty. P.P.S. The phenomena Mill fought against could still be found in modern day China.

  21. 5 out of 5

    Paul

    The five stars I bestow on this book is pretty much due to Mill's primary thesis: de jure and de facto subjugation and indignity of women are seriously and supremely f**ked up! The book definitely feels dated. Its datedness is not only felt in Mill's dry English prose, which makes the reading experience pretty laborious. But it is also felt in Mill having to even make a case for the moral equality of women. One can sense a frustration in Mill in having to demonstrate how obviously boneheaded are The five stars I bestow on this book is pretty much due to Mill's primary thesis: de jure and de facto subjugation and indignity of women are seriously and supremely f**ked up! The book definitely feels dated. Its datedness is not only felt in Mill's dry English prose, which makes the reading experience pretty laborious. But it is also felt in Mill having to even make a case for the moral equality of women. One can sense a frustration in Mill in having to demonstrate how obviously boneheaded are the mainstream arguments circulating in his day for the continued regard of women as second-class citizens. But people do still clutch to these ideas, so in that sense, this particular Millian work is still tragicomically relevant. Not everything that Mill says in this thin book is pristine. Some points even come off as offensive. But in my view, these do not undermine the overall aim of this book, which is to motivate the emancipation of women from the vicious circumstances of patriarchy by recognizing their fundamental humanity as full-blooded, autonomous moral beings.

  22. 4 out of 5

    Sofija T

    This book is amazing. I knew why there is gender inequality, but I've always wondered HOW? How is it possible that not just men, but lots of women think inequality is ok? I found the answer in this book. I would recommend this book to everyone.

  23. 4 out of 5

    Katie

    I think I want to marry John Stuart Mill. Oh, he's dead? Bummer.

  24. 4 out of 5

    Flat

    Mill seemed more concerned with rearing intellectual women for the purpose of making them suitably stimulating spouses, but it was probably still revolutionary for its time.

  25. 5 out of 5

    Roshneel Brar

    The essay under review is work of the first male philosopher and makes it first male feminist work. Mill wrote this essay in collaboration with his wife in 1861.In this essay mill talks about the plight of the women of victorian era, how they were subjected to discrimination at every facet of life and were considered weaker sex not only in body but in mind,Hence he advocates for the Equal rights for women in government, occupation, and marriage.Even though this work was written in the 17th centu The essay under review is work of the first male philosopher and makes it first male feminist work. Mill wrote this essay in collaboration with his wife in 1861.In this essay mill talks about the plight of the women of victorian era, how they were subjected to discrimination at every facet of life and were considered weaker sex not only in body but in mind,Hence he advocates for the Equal rights for women in government, occupation, and marriage.Even though this work was written in the 17th century the argument are constructed so scientifically, supplemented with evidence available at that time makes it relevant ,readable and must for the library of a feminist. Mill’s basic nature of arguments is questioning the then prevalent orthodox and conservative way of thinking of people and the societal norms. He states that we cannot reject or know something unless or until we have tested it. He vociferously argue for the equally of rights for women and how the emancipation of women would bring happiness for everybody and explains the benefits of it from a utilitarian standpoint. He states that we call ourselves a developed nation with human progress but subjection of women is a paradox to such progress and with the subordination of one sex over other would not call for development or progress.He talks about the superiority of males over females and how the inequality between the two was never a result of deliberation or scientific research.From the threshold of human society the women was in some or the other kind bondage to men, this because of the value attached by men to her and the inferiority of the muscular strength. The law and system of polity regularised the existing human relation into a legal one and give it sanction of society. Mill correctly point out that we should only consider those customs legit which have genesis to soundness and he goes on to say that, what shame it is to progress and calls the subordination of women to be the surviving relic of ‘law of the strongest’ which is despised by the majority of the masses.He states that law gave men enough power that even in the case of maltreatment of women, she would not dare to escape from the clutches of the male masters. All the institutions were controlled by men for eg:- religion, government etc so they made commandments and rules in their interests and law to force women in martial servitude. Mill points out that a young women had two options either to get married(that was forced) or escape brings life in convent. Even the church asks for her consent which was usually ‘yes’ as she was forced to be there. He says that the life of women is worst then that of slave, as he is not attached to him for the entire day ,on the other side the male is sole owner he doesn’t want her allegiance but want her to become his favourite. What is her is his and, what is his is not her. Even in relation to children the husband had full control and his words were law.Law provides that if women leaves house she will loose the right to see her children and moreover husband has all the authority to bring her back home forcefully. He goes on to state that husband can do anything to her except murder. The law was such at that time if wife commits murder of her husband it was called ‘treason’ and she was burned to death. Mill replied to the common belief that ‘women are considered unfit for the public offices’, that preposterous nature is everywhere that there are going to be unfit man not only women.Free competition will automatically eliminate the unfit irrespective of the gender. Then he goes on the talk about the famous female figures in the past like ‘Deborah’ who is mentioned in the bible for her prophetic skills and military commands, ‘Joan of arc’ for the bravery she showed which is immortalised by thousands of literary works on her. then ‘queen Elizabeth I’ and ‘Queen Victoria’. These examples were used by him to bust the myth, that women can hold public offices. Mill underscore the significance of women to marriage and family duties and call the males to fight for the equality of women. Lastly mill states that the males are brought up to believe that they are superior in every ways to female opposites.He says that the superiority should be on the basis of handwork and struggle and not on the basis of gender and in the end he talks about the benefits of equality.

  26. 4 out of 5

    Autumn Rybin

    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 disto 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 …

  27. 4 out of 5

    Moss 慈映夢図

    Insightful for its time. A little dated by today's standards. His broad principle is that the legal subordination of one sex to the other is morally wrong, regardless of which way around (though historically men have been the ones to dominate on such occasions). He understands that society won't progress if one gender is afforded privilege and another disability, and unlike the young activists of today, strongly implies that this encompasses both genders, ruling out revenge for perceived past wro Insightful for its time. A little dated by today's standards. His broad principle is that the legal subordination of one sex to the other is morally wrong, regardless of which way around (though historically men have been the ones to dominate on such occasions). He understands that society won't progress if one gender is afforded privilege and another disability, and unlike the young activists of today, strongly implies that this encompasses both genders, ruling out revenge for perceived past wrongdoings (something the identitarians could stand to learn from, but then what don't they stand to learn!) This was very unpopular thinking for the time so he gets a lot of credit for bringing this to the forefront, it can't have been well-received by the powers that were. Some of his statements however are either dated or were always limited in scope. For one, he suggests that the strength of your convictions based on feelings are paramount to reinforcing your position. It's true that passion and instinct can guide a person, but he makes no mention of the obvious limitation therein. When your passion is so strong that it overrules your rationale, you don't have a more powerful argument, you just cause hysteria. You justify the irrational on your own terms. He makes out like it's a consistently positive correlation, but that obviously isn't the case. This is troubling because this kind of over-reaching passion is what led to the Gender Pay Gap talking point and the moral outrage that followed, and even years after it was categorically debunked, the outrage it manufactured occasionally still manifests itself, despite the falsehood. So reinforcing your argument based on your passion is actually a doomed prospect if its then revealed that said argument is malicious and wrong. It's counter-productive to the cause it purports to fight for. A bigger omission pertains to the large-scale cooperation between the genders over the years. In Mill's world the genders have apparently always been in opposition! If that were true, no progress would ever have been made in any society. It's important to learn about past injustices without over-blowing them. In some passages he also generalises the mindset of all women, basically suggesting they are all subservient and that's the primary filter by which they understand the world. This is likely to piss a few women off, and rightly so. It was certainly more apt then than it is now judging on the standards of Victorian society, but I really doubt that all women everywhere lacked even the capability of individual spirit and will. I don't doubt there were accomplishments made by the input of women whose role therein was snuffed out by dominant men, but Mill is under the impression that women couldn't even internally understand the degree of their oppression. I just don't buy that. I hardly think that at the time Mary Shelley was penning Frankenstein she was thinking something to the effect of 'this story has so much potential, if only I weren't such a silly woman!' In Mill's world she'd have had to ask a man to define the term 'book' for her. I saw that some people stopped reading because of his attitude, which is understandable, nevertheless given his goal with the book I see why shedding light on historically verifiable examples of cooperation and individuality would have only hampered his argument. If we're giving Mill the benefit of the doubt - which I'm inclined to do, he seems sincere - they were merely something to be taken as read rather than a case of lying by omission. One certainty is that his core message will forever remain true - Dominance based on gender has no place in a progressive world. With that, the book does more good than harm, making it easier to overlook its faults and recommend.

  28. 4 out of 5

    Priya

    Here I am speaking up for animals and then I read this. "Survival of the fittest" all over again. My Dear Lord! John Stuart Mill handles it like only he can. So much sass! So much compassion. It's incredible that he had to argue so much from so many perspectives, for what now feels like an absurdity. Reading this is enlightening and frustrating. I hope one day people in the future think of consuming animals the same way. "The inequality of rights between men and women has no other source than the Here I am speaking up for animals and then I read this. "Survival of the fittest" all over again. My Dear Lord! John Stuart Mill handles it like only he can. So much sass! So much compassion. It's incredible that he had to argue so much from so many perspectives, for what now feels like an absurdity. Reading this is enlightening and frustrating. I hope one day people in the future think of consuming animals the same way. "The inequality of rights between men and women has no other source than the law of the strongest’ sound strange to ordinary ears. That this statement should sound like a paradox is in some respects creditable to the progress of civilisation and the improvement of mankind’s moral sentiments . We now live—i.e. one or two of the world’s most advanced nations now live—in a state in which the law of the strongest seems to be entirely abandoned as the regulating principle of the world’s affairs: nobody proclaims it, and in most contexts nobody is permitted to practise it. When anyone succeeds in doing so, he disguises it through the pretence that he has some general social interest on his side. This being the apparent state of things, people flatter themselves that the rule of mere force is ended; that the law of the strongest can’t be the reason for the existence of anything that has remained in full operation down to the present time. They think: ‘However any of our present institutions may have begun, no institution could have preserved into this period of advanced civilization except by a well-grounded feeling that it fits human nature and is conducive to the general good." ******************************************** My animal activism starts here--------- Make up your mind whether you want to live like a Lion or a Human "Being Animal" excuses used when exerting Power: It's Nature. It's Culture. It's Tradition. (You do you, I do what I want to do! Lions kill animals.) "Being Human" demands when being abused by Power: It's Civilization, It's Ethics/Morals. It's Justice. (How can you! You are a beast!) We are the perpetrators we are born to differentiate and categorize on the basis of every difference we think is important. Wealth/Colour/Sex/Race/Ethnicity/Talent/Animals/. Algorithms are trained at our data. They are learning to differentiate .They are learning our biases. And they are driving us deeper into the holes we have dug ourselves. We are so convinced that we never even see other's point of view. It's a culture of astronomical belief and hate. Watch the suffering , watch the documentaries. Listen to the screams. Think, Imagine,Choose. Talk about the suffering. Feel more. Consume less. Repeat till you die. Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.

  29. 5 out of 5

    Dan

    Why do people like Better Eggs skim through the book then pretend they have a grasp of the material to criticize the book. The only reasonable explanation is the implantation of critical theory to harangue the author for his views. I'm nearly finished the book, yet I see persons engaging in personal attacks and mis-characterizations of one of the leading charges to suffrage in the first Chapter J. S. Mill is clearly demonstrating that women have it worse than slaves as they are forced to be a sl Why do people like Better Eggs skim through the book then pretend they have a grasp of the material to criticize the book. The only reasonable explanation is the implantation of critical theory to harangue the author for his views. I'm nearly finished the book, yet I see persons engaging in personal attacks and mis-characterizations of one of the leading charges to suffrage in the first Chapter J. S. Mill is clearly demonstrating that women have it worse than slaves as they are forced to be a slave at all point of the day along with other aspects of the marriage to a tyrant. Mill Is clearly advocating for divorce to an audience that believe they generally treat their wives so their should be no need for a wife to seek divorce and she should rely on the benevolence of the husband. When it is said that Mill believes that women should be seen as equal he is making an argument for equal treatment, yet some here appear to fault him for not conceiving that woman should be able to do what ever she feels. Historical ignorance must be griping these persons as they do not appear to understand drastic changes do not generally end well in history. Furthermore, by today's science Mill was proven partially wrong in his hypothesis that it would be impossible to demonstrate the difference between the sexes (as anyone with biological understanding can attest to) women are generally more people oriented while men are thing oriented; men have above average IQ or below average IQ while women tend to have average IQ (on average these are trends of populations). As societies become more egalitarian the sex differences tend to become more pronounced. Does this mean society should lock women into kitchens? Of course not. Just as society should not criticize a woman for choosing a careers, nor should she be shamed for committing herself to the raising of a family, a truly noble goal (that ensures there are more men and women). Maybe consider the phrase "equal but different" complementary nature that Mill might have been aiming for considering that is a catholic teaching and he was raised in a very catholic time. Also to the thought that arises that may content to Mill being a feminist; Mill would not be a feminist, as he believes women should not turn into men but rather flourish in their feminine nature and be free to due so. Although he clearly points out that women are as capable in many endeavors as men, why would anyone want to erase femininity to replace it with feminism. Why would you wish to replace lofty female goals and replace them with brutish male goals. Legally should man and woman be equal, of course. Should persons be treated based on their sex? If no then it should be entirely based upon objective merit.

  30. 4 out of 5

    Irene

    Although Mill's ultimate goal, the establishment of a “complete equality in all legal, political, social and domestic relations” between men and women has not yet been achieved, I think that his contribution in the struggle for women's liberation sowed the seeds for future battles. I especially like his approach to marriage, since in Victorian society the ideal model for women was based on Patmore's poem "The Angel in the House", written just 15 years earlier. In Joan M. Hoffman's words, the wom Although Mill's ultimate goal, the establishment of a “complete equality in all legal, political, social and domestic relations” between men and women has not yet been achieved, I think that his contribution in the struggle for women's liberation sowed the seeds for future battles. I especially like his approach to marriage, since in Victorian society the ideal model for women was based on Patmore's poem "The Angel in the House", written just 15 years earlier. In Joan M. Hoffman's words, the women who embodied the ideal Victorian feminine were devoted mothers as well as submissive wives; in fact, Mill describes the relationship between husband and wife in terms of slavery. I think it is quite revolutionary that a man publicly rejected the Cult of Domesticity in the 19th century, especially since at that time the two gendered spheres imposed by Locke's model were still patent. However, Mill asserted that a society cannot be “half patriarchal and half equalitarian, half slave and half free”; thereby, he broke with Locke’s patriarchal division between public and private, and insisted that both spheres were too interconnected to separate them. Moreover, by analyzing marriage as a master-servant relationship, he showed that the legal subordination of one sex to the other is based, mainly, on women’s lack of rights within the marriage, which led to their exclusion from political life. All in all, "The Subjection of Women" seems to me a kind of prelude to later works such as Virginia Woolf's "Professions for Women", in which she states that the "Angel in the House" had to be killed.

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.