30 pages • 1 hour read
John Stuart MillA modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
During the reign of Queen Victoria (1837-1901), gender roles were rigidly defined. While many working-class women had no choice but to work outside the home, the ideal woman belonged to the domestic sphere, representing home and hearth. Women were also considered more naturally virtuous than men and thus the gatekeepers of morality, making the upbringing of children their responsibility. Middle- and upper-class women learned from a young age not only how to run a household but also that they should not aspire to anything else. In fact, “some doctors reported that too much study actually had a damaging effect on the ovaries, turning attractive young women into dried-up prunes” (Hughes, Kathryn. “Gender Roles in the 19th Century.” British Library, 15 May 2014). Therefore, preventing women from voting or entering certain professions was deemed necessary to protect women from the corruption of the public sphere and to maintain their moral superiority. Meanwhile, men were the heads of the household, and despite the idealization of domestic life, the people in that household were considered his property, wife and children included. A man’s obligation to his home mostly involved financial upkeep; otherwise, he was free to come and go as he pleased, leaving the rearing and disciplining of his children and all domestic responsibilities to his wife. However, should the husband and wife separate, she would lose all access and rights to her home and children, as they were deemed the property of the husband.
It was in this context that Mill made his case for Freeing the “Angel in the House.” However, he was not the first to advocate for women’s rights in England. In 1792, Mary Wollstonecraft wrote A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, anticipating many of Mill’s arguments by 80 years. Her main claim, which Mill echoes in his text, is that women are not naturally ignorant but instead denied education. Unfortunately, British women would have to wait almost 100 years to have the right to a university education.
After Mill’s The Subjection of Women, some progress was made, such as 1870 legislation that secured a married woman’s right to her earnings. Prior to this, a married woman’s earnings and property legally belonged to her husband. Women’s ability to retain their own money was an important milestone for women’s financial independence. Women’s suffrage was a longer, more complicated process, with women over the age of 30 who met certain property requirements receiving the right to vote in 1918. Expanding this right to all women over age 21 would not come until 1928, nine years after the 19th Amendment was ratified in the United States, granting American women over age 18 the right to vote.
John Stuart Mill was a liberal utilitarian, meaning he believed in “the greatest good for the greatest number”—i.e., that societal decisions should be based on what benefits the most people. For utilitarians, happiness is the highest moral good, and “the principal purposes of social and political institutions […] is to develop human potential to its highest level” (Gordon, Lynn, and David Louzecky. “John Stuart Mill & Harriet Taylor Mill on Equality in Marriage & Family.” Philosophy Now, 2023). Mill therefore challenged traditional institutions and social practices he felt impeded social progress, arguing for social reform and progressivism amid the conformity and conservatism of the Victorian era.
For Mill, the morality of a society is measured in the amount of freedom granted to its citizens. The Subjection of Women charges Victorian gender norms with denying such freedom to women, much as slavery denied freedom to Black people. Given that women represent half of the population, oppressing them de facto prevents society from achieving the ultimate moral good. It likewise limits societal progress by excluding women who would prove their intelligence and competence if given the chance. Thus, Mill argues that strictly adhering to traditional notions of gender inevitably causes societal stagnancy and furthers moral corruption.
By John Stuart Mill