Classics and the Western Canon discussion

The Subjection of Women IV

Mill sets out to answer these questions:
1. What good are we to expect from the changes proposed in our customs and institutions?
2. Would mankind be at all better off if women were free?
3. If not, who disturb their minds, and attempt to make a social revolution in the name of an abstract right?

With respect to 3, is Mill begging the question? Mill seems to realize emphasize this when he writes:

there are many persons for whom it is not enough that the inequality has no just or legitimate defence: they require to be told what express advantage would be obtained by abolishing it.

To which Mill responds

. . .let me first answer, the advantage of having the most universal and pervading of all human relations regulated by justice instead of injustice

I found it interesting that Mill includes a critique on the how boys are raised to feel superior to women, but leaves out how girls are raised.

The second benefit to be expected

would be that of doubling the mass of mental faculties available for the higher service of humanity.

Another benefit is to marriage itself by equal education:

Unlikeness may attract, but it is likeness which retains; and in proportion to the likeness is the suitability of the individuals to give each other a happy life.

Mill also lists a more utilitarian benefit, which we will be reading about next:

the most direct benefit of all, the unspeakable gain in private happiness to the liberated half of the species; the difference to them between a life of subjection to the will of others, and a life of rational freedom.

Does Mill do an adequate job of answering what good will come from the changes he proposes?

Nowadays Mill's arguments and conclusions are universally accepted (except perhaps in Afghanistan and similar dismal places). That makes it hard to address them critically as they would be when he wrote them. Maybe we need a "Reply on Behalf of the Fool," like Gaunilo's reply to St. Anselm's ontological proof of the existence of God. So here goes:

The Fool says: The subordination of wives is just because it is entered into voluntarily. Indeed women should be more careful of whom they marry than they often are; they should marry only those whom their fathers approve.

The Fool says: Perhaps society will benefit from the abilities of some women, but to the extent that happens, we will be deprived of their abilities in domestic life. Who then will raise our children?

The Fool says: Perhaps liberation will increase the happiness of some women, but it is pure speculation to say that it will have that effect for all, or even most. Many women will become less happy if they are encouraged to turn from domestic affairs (where most ordinary happiness is found) to the rough-and-tumble of public life. We should be extraordinarily cautious about making such a drastic change in our customs, especially when it is contrary to the universal and ancient wisdom of mankind.

So how will we reply to the Fool?

Roger wrote: "The Fool says: Perhaps society will benefit from the abilities of some women, but to the extent that happens, we will be deprived of their abilities in domestic life. Who then will raise our children?"

Mill suggests the opportunities and freedom of choice provided to women by making them equals just requires a sensible working out between the individuals involved:

When the support of the family depends, not on property, but on earnings, the common arrangement, by which the man earns the income and the wife superintends the domestic expenditure, seems to me in general the most suitable division of labour between the two persons. . .

. . .Like a man when he chooses a profession, so, when a woman marries, it may in general be understood that she makes choice of the management of a household, and the bringing up of a family, as the first call upon her exertions. . .

. . .But the utmost latitude ought to exist for the adaptation of general rules to individual suitabilities; and there ought to be nothing to prevent faculties exceptionally adapted to any other pursuit, from obeying their vocation not withstanding marriage: due provision being made for supplying otherwise any falling-short which might become inevitable, in her full performance of the ordinary functions of mistress of a family.

On the whole, I think Mill does a great job of taking a fairly complete set of the fool's questions seriously and responding to them. Does anyone else care to answer this or the other questions from the fool in Mill's voice?

David wrote: "Roger wrote: "The Fool says: Perhaps society will benefit from the abilities of some women, but to the extent that happens, we will be deprived of their abilities in domestic life. Who then will ra..."

I like the back and forth structure of your discussion.

Personally, I have found it almost impossible to comment on Mills re subjection of women.

As Roger alludes about the Taliban (and there are undoubtedly many others), to comment seems almost to compare democracy to authoritarianism in the political arrangement of societies. Or beast-of-burden/water floated transport to gasoline enabled transport.

Each phrase or sentence seems to carry all sorts of unknown or unacknowledged assumptions, e.g., "man earns the income." Or "due provision being made for supplying otherwise any falling-short which might become inevitable." Child-care? Domestic servants for home care? Or wars that altered the ratios of men and women, e.g., England by WWI &II?

David wrote: "The second benefit to be expected

would be that of doubling the mass of mental faculties available for the higher service of humanity. ..."

One of the nice benefits of Libby, now available via many libraries, is the ability to readily download and read/browse a book in the collection provided. I did that yesterday with Fiona Hill's There Is Nothing for You Here: Finding Opportunity in the Twenty-First Century. However one may or may not view her public testimony regarding Russia, I was struck by her passionate assessment/survey of the status of women today being able to make the kinds of contribution to our world that Mills foresaw as possible. It is fascinating to me to have entered the workplace over fifty years ago as an individual that sought certain challenges for herself, but who did not see the change that was coming and in which men and women are often embroiled today.

I'm sorry for joining in this discussion so late, but I've been sort of bothered by how Mill looks at the different cultures through a very 'anglocentric' and 'Christian' point of view. Even the way he looks at other European countries such as France was what I wouldn't typically expect from writers today.
Another fool's question:
He seems to regard Christianity as the religion of the progressive portion of mankind and sees it as the reason for the declining portions of Islamism, Brahiminism, etc. If that was true, why does Islam, Hindu and other religions that oppress women still exist in a prolific number of people around the world despite fierce and progressive protests singing "Baraye"? Also, I've read some pretty misogynistic excerpts from the Christian bible as well and although she's a Catholic nun from Mexico, Sor Ines de la Cruz's poem 'You Foolish Men" is a poem about sexual double standard that rings true in any religion, country or period.

Borum wrote: "I'm sorry for joining in this discussion so late, but I've been sort of bothered by how Mill looks at the different cultures through a very 'anglocentric' and 'Christian' point of view. Even the wa..."

Borum -- I relate to what you write -- again and again one stumbles on something that informs us on the British "mind set" that "allowed" them to colonize so much of the earth. The parallels to certain American "mind sets"?

Borum wrote: "I'm sorry for joining in this discussion so late, but I've been sort of bothered by how Mill looks at the different cultures through a very 'anglocentric' and 'Christian' point of view. Even the wa..."

https://poets.org/poem/you-foolish-men -- read it!?! (Written late 1600's -- I have been unaware of this writer, of this lament.)

Lily wrote: "Borum wrote: "I'm sorry for joining in this discussion so late, but I've been sort of bothered by how Mill looks at the different cultures through a very 'anglocentric' and 'Christian' point of vie..."

Isn't it incredible how it feels so NOW? A true 'Sister' from the 17th century..

Borum wrote: Isn't it incredible how it feels so NOW? A true 'Sister' from the 17th century.."

Clearly the issues are not new ones.