John Stuart Mill's, The Subjection of Women

[Tamrin]

The Subjection of Women
John Stuart Mill
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Excerpt)

"The Subjection of Women" (1869) offers both detailed argumentation and passionate eloquence in opposition to the social and legal inequalities commonly imposed upon women by a patriarchal culture. Just as in "On Liberty", Mill defends the emancipation of women on utilitarian grounds.

Mill was convinced that the moral and intellectual advancement of humankind would result in greater happiness for everybody. The Higher pleasures of the intellect yielded far greater happiness than the lower pleasure of the senses. He conceived of human beings as moral and intellectually capable of being educated and civilized. Mill believed everyone should have the right to vote, with the only exceptions being barbarians and uneducated people.

Mill argues that the reason people should be able to vote is to defend their own rights and to learn to stand on their two feet, morally and intellectually. This argument is applied to both men and women. Mill often used his position as an MP to demand the vote for women, a controversial position for the time.

In Mill's time a woman was generally subject to the whims of her husband and/or father due to social norms which said women were both physically and mentally less able than men, and therefore needed to be "taken care of." Contributing to this view were social theories, i.e. survival of the fittest and biological determinism, based on a now considered incorrect understanding of the biological theory of evolution and also religious views supporting a hierarchical view of men and women within the family. The archetype of the ideal woman as mother, wife and homemaker was a powerful idea in 19th century society.

At the time of writing, Mill recognized that he was going against the common views of society and was aware that he would be forced to back up his claims persistently. Mill argued that inequality of women was a relic from the past, when might was right; but it had no place in the modern world. Mill saw this as a hindrance to human development, since effectively half the human race were unable to contribute to society outside of the home.

"... [T]he legal subordination of one sex to another — is wrong in itself, and now one of the chief hindrances to human improvement; and that it ought to be replaced by a system of perfect equality, admitting no power and privilege on the one side, nor disability on the other."

[Tamrin]

Masonry, however, is not only the most ancient, but the most moral institution that ever existed,
as every character, figure, and emblem depicted in the Lodge has a moral tendency,
and serves to inculcate the practice of virtue in all its genuine professors.

Masonry's sexual divide also has symbolic import:
I suggest the tendency it inculcates is contrary to the practice of virtue,
and serves to legitimise a huge exception to the lesson whereby:

It [the Level] also demonstrates that we are all sprung from the same stock,
are partakers of the same Nature and sharers of the same hope...

[Tamrin]

Found on a Lodge Bulletin Board:

1 — The increasing number of females in modern business life has given rise to a potent dilemma of etiquette...

2 — Namely, if in business one meets a woman one knows socially, does one kiss her or shake her hand?

3 — On the whole, giving women a peck on the cheek is considered unacceptably patronising and I favour greeting them exactly as one would a man — with a handshake.

4a — A Masonic One?
4b — Precisely. Rub it in that there's still one male institution they're never going to wangle their way into.

[neilwynesmorse]

His name is Mill, not Mills.

[Tamrin]

Thank you. Error corrected.