Mills

Assignment:

Discussion:

1. Mills’ essay argues his point that both sexes should be legal and socially equal, under the pretense that the innate inferiority of one sex on the sheer basis of their sex is erroneous. Mills argues that the equality of the sexes is an important issue because he believes it has become “one of the chief hinderances to human improvement”, or in other words, to be an outdated premise now at a deficit to the modern day.

2. Mill recognizes the current state of inequality among the sexes to be “a universal custom”. Meaning, he understands it occurs globally, or “In distant parts of the world.”. While I’m not entirely certain he accepts this occurrence as justifiable, Mills approaches the topic with a certain degree of cultural humility, writing, “the feeling is dependent on custom” and “appears by ample experience.”. However, Mills addresses this inequality in England with a certain degree of reproach, and quite articulately identifies the hypocrisy within the social system that he finds so sanctimoniously insincere. In England, Mills challenges the logic of a system run under a Queen, which so blatantly oppresses women. He also provides historical context, arguing that, compared to the feudal ages or even the ancient Grecian and Roman times, women are less free now, than they were prior. He writes that, “To Englishmen, this does not seem, in the least degree unnatural, because they are used to it; but they do feel it unnatural that women should be soldiers or members of parliament.”, articulating the type of ad hominem fallacy the people of England are engaging in by denying women rights under the reign of a queen.

3. Mill argues that the conception that women accept the inequality of the system is, contrary to what those within the system have theorized, “a rule of force”, and that is not “accepted voluntarily”. Rather, he argues that women have, ever since they been “able to their sentiment known by their writing (the only mode of publicity which society permits to them), an increasing number [that] have recorded protests against their present social conditions.” Essentially, mill is arguing that, as soon as women were given a voice (regardless of how small) within the system of oppression and inequality, they have been making it know that they dissent the current inequality among the sexes. Rather, it is the ability of the society of England and Parliament, to simply ignore this voice; which is a voice that can be ignored easily, because it is awarded within a system that instills the rights of women as small gifts to them, and not as opportunities to contribute to the society. To take from Elizabeth Barrett-Browning’s interpretation, women’s voices are interpreted as having the same value as a needlepoint pillow, their writing is simply something to fill the time, and to look at- not interpret, hear, or value in any way. So, it is not that women “put up” with this inequality, rather that they are “taught to repress” the “aspirations” of freedom that Parliamentary Suffrage argues for. Additionally, Mill argues that the acceptance of freedom cannot be confused with the slow process of liberation, when fought by the oppressed against the system of oppression, writing, “It must be remembered, also, that no enslaved class ever asked for complete liberty at once.”. Essentially, Mill theorizes that the conception that women accept and even, like, being subordinates to men is simply the privileged deafening themselves to the dissent of women against the system, and the acceptance of the silence of those oppressed women who are not awarded a voice, or who are not enabled to assume it.

4. Mills utilizes the modern values of autonomy, self-awareness, and mobility to illuminate the difference between modern day, and historical contexts of inequity. Through this, he articulates that sexual inequality is ultimately misplaced, and is essentially, an outdated prospect that does not embody the present values of society. Writing, that biggest difference between modern day and the past is that “human beings are no longer born to their place in life, and chained down by an inexorable bond to the place they are born to, but are free to employ their faculties, and such favorable chances as offer, to achieve the lot which may appear to them most desirable.”. This specifically targets the values held by feudalism, which many people in England can associate with an improper political belief that limited progress and oppressed citizens. Additionally, in comparing the modern day to antiquity, Mills points out the innate servitude implied by the social role of women which is further upheld by the systematic oppression to them, much like that which occurred between plebeians and patricians, writing:
a. “If it had been made the object of the life of every young plebeian to find personal favor in the eyes of some patrician… if domestication with him, and a share of his personal affections, had been held out as the prize which they all should look out for… and if, when his prize had been obtained, they had been shut out by a wall of brass from all interests not centering him…. Would not… plebeians and patricians, have been as broadly distinguished at this day as men and women are?”
Thus, since these bonds of social servitude have since been deemed inexcusable, (to some extent), Mills believes the same instance between men and women has no place in Modern day society based around the harnessing of one’s own personal faculties for the betterment of society as a whole, and as the ultimate expression of the modern equivalent to nobility. Furthermore, Mills believes that history has taught us lessons that have formed the “progressive movement, which is the boast of the modern world”, but that ‘The social subordination of women thus stands out as an isolated fact in modern social institutions…”.