John Stuart Mill was born today,
in 1806 so to celebrate this year, I shall focus on his biggest legacy –
feminism.
A brief commemoration was
eventually added to J.S. Mill’s grave in 1980 and simply depicted him as an
advocate of women’s rights[i], even
though his work and thought was very varied, ranging from philosophy (especially
as a political, ethical, social philosopher and logician) to his contributions
to scientific method, activism/social reform (including supporting the
abolition of slavery in America) and even becoming an MP for the Liberal Party.
Although aspects of much of this work supported and advanced feminism, his work
was broader than women’s issues and rights. Nevertheless, perhaps feminism is
J.S. Mill’s single largest contribution left to us, and so it is fitting to
highlight this today.
Three aspects of J.S. Mill’s
active support for women’s equality that stand out in my mind are:
1 education
2 domestic control and violence
3 women in political roles.
So I shall say a little about all
three and show how, unfortunately, all these three areas of life continue to be
key and in need of drastic improvements today.
One, education today remains very
gendered even though there is more knowledge about gender stereotyping and bias
than back in the 19th century when the Mills were raising awareness
of barriers holding women back. One of the many consequences of gendered discrimination
is that, as J.S. Mill correctly emphasizes, it prevents women from reaching
their full potential and having the same freedom as men to flourish and become independent,
responsible adults choosing their own path for themselves[ii].
I share J.S. Mill’s concern that girls’ education is imbued with a subtext of
social conditioning about what is suitable for women and men to do. I am always
astonished to discover the gendered differences of opportunities and options
given to girls at schools (whether mixed or single sex schools and including at
elite schools) compared to what is offered to boys. For instance, I’ve noticed
that philosophy and debating skills are not timetabled equally between comparable
boys’ and girls’ schools, even when they are merely single sex branches of the
same school! Philosophy is just an academic subject which provides rigorous
intellectual development so there is no excuse for not teaching it at the same
age and to the same standard for both. It still remains a male dominated field so
by giving many boys a head start in the subject it directly exacerbates gender
discrimination and stereotypes later on in their education within universities
and academia in general. Equally, I think it is also unacceptable to offer,
within the physical education curriculum, ballet or dance to girls but not to
boys, while removing sports such as cricket or football from girls’ curriculum
yet offering it to boys. What message is this conveying to young teenagers
about gender roles and what physical activities are available to them, whether
as hobbies, interests or as athletes and dancers, when they become adults? This
discrimination also impacts on girls’ physical development at a time when their
physique is still developing. This leads to inaccurate perceptions of their
respective physical strengths and weaknesses.
I agree with J.S. Mill that, given that most girls receive a gendered upbringing, it is impossible to assess or make claims about what is or isn’t in “women’s nature” “until the cultural, legal, social and economic playing fields” are “levelled”[iii]. There is no doubt in my mind that the basic gender principal should be in line with J.S. Mill’s belief that there is “no innate difference along gender lines” [iv].
I agree with J.S. Mill that, given that most girls receive a gendered upbringing, it is impossible to assess or make claims about what is or isn’t in “women’s nature” “until the cultural, legal, social and economic playing fields” are “levelled”[iii]. There is no doubt in my mind that the basic gender principal should be in line with J.S. Mill’s belief that there is “no innate difference along gender lines” [iv].
Recently, there has been a push
towards reverting norms and values back to some outdated notion of binary, fixed
gendered concepts of men’s and women’s natures. However, it has already been
seen for centuries that such an approach is at odds with human rights and
identities. It means that the whole of society loses out which is why
mainstream feminism has rejected the assumption of binary gender roles for most
of the 20th century and intersectional feminism continues to do so. Binary, biologically gendered societal notions have and continue to attempt to eradicate intersex, people who are non-binary (be they agender, polygender) and trans. However, I think it is often recently forgotten that binary gender roles also oppress cis men and women who
become stuck in narrow social roles of what it means to be a male or female
which inhibits them from developing themselves to their full potential, including
emotionally, psychologically, physically, economically and socially. This, I suggest,
makes a cis defence of binary gender concepts untenable, implausible and
harmful to human flourishing and human rights. Current counter-arguments are not that different from those in the 19th century. J.S. Mill received
criticism from less enlightened men, such as J.F. Stephen, who argued back as
though it would be absurd for girls to learn “to play at cricket, to row and be
drilled like boys” while boys’ education would include the ability to “sew, to
keep house, and to cook”[v]. But
why look upon these sports and life skills in such a gendered way when they are
merely activities with no inherent gender and are useful or fun skills for any
adult to acquire? It also denies the existence of men who are just as equally
capable at sewing and cooking as they are at playing cricket and enjoy all
these activities to the same degree. Such men do exist and not necessarily because
they wish to be gender non-conforming. The ability to mend clothes and feed yourself
can come in handy for men too, especially if living alone! However, these are
also essential skills for men to be familiar with if they are to pull their
weight once married and sharing household jobs. DIY jobs are all very well but
they are more sporadic and give a sense of achievement. Washing dishes, doing
the laundry, hoovering and cooking standard meals for the family are daily,
repetitive chores which do not give the same sense of fulfilment, achievement
or permanence. Nonetheless, both sets of skills are part
of developing self-sufficiency to the full – so good for those who develop
themselves beyond the confines of gender expectations! It is just as important
for women to learn to do DIY as it is for men to learn to cook and sew.
Two, to bring ourselves
completely up to date, the present pandemic is showing just how shockingly prevalent
domestic control and violence committed by men towards women is when the two
are in each other’s company 24/7 during lockdown. It has highlighted that
domestic violence is even more prolific and dangerous than previously estimated
prior to COVID-19 (whereas the same widespread phenomenon of numerous acts of violence
and murder is not being committed by women against men during any period, at any
time). The statistics show a sharp increase in women dying as a direct result
of domestic violence during lockdown. Since people were confined to their homes
it clearly illustrates that women are in more danger in the home than outside
in the world. This is despite it being a time when society began to adopt a
paternalistic approach, emphasizing ‘keep safe’, ‘stay at home’. I think this
shows the continuing relevance of J.S. Mill’s thought (and indeed Harriet Taylor
Mill’s too) on domestic and heterosexual marital life. Arguments similar to his (contra the
anti-reformers in his era) need to be repeated – politics needs to end the deluge
of abuse, violence and murder of women by their “fathers, husbands and brothers”,
the very same men who are traditionally seen as their so-called “male protectors”[vi]. Although
this seems like a bygone phrase, aspects of male paternalism still pervade society, such as, perpetuating the idea of women needing a male relative or
partner to go with them or pick them up to ensure their safety when they go out
or return late at night together with a list of do’s and do not’s eg don’t walk
down unlit streets at night, don’t wear provocative clothes (whatever that means!). Furthermore, lockdown itself cannot be
solely blamed for the massive rise in domestic violence and murdered women. Patterns
of domestic abusive behaviour do not appear overnight purely as a result of a change
in lifestyle and circumstances – male domestic controlling, abusive and violent
behaviour merely becomes more apparent and dangerous to the female victim for a
variety of reasons and is purely down to the male abuser. Many other partners and
family members may experience the same challenges and strains but do not resort
to domestic violence in any or all of its forms (eg economic, coercive, emotional,
psychological, physical, sexual). So we cannot thank J.S. Mill and Harriet
Taylor Mill enough for their tireless work to try to end domestic control and
abuse of women! Without them, we may well be even further behind than we are
today.
Three, a key way to help address women’s
inequality, including in marriage, the home and work, J.S. Mill maintained, was
to acknowledge women’s capabilities in politics and leadership. Mill was
impressively advanced in his appreciation of the wonderful work some women
rulers had achieved in England/ the UK and abroad and even argued that women
are better suited to politics and leadership than men[vii],
something people still struggle to take on board today! Like Spinoza, he
noticed that preconceived stereotypes about women’s capabilities in political
life stem from social expectations and habit. J.S. Mill observed that what men
perceived to be natural for one’s gender varied between countries, for instance,
while the English saw nothing strange about having a female ruler because they
were used to seeing a queen on the throne, other nations could not accept the
notion of a queen[viii].
However, having never seen a female in the army or as an MP, the English tended
to reject the idea of women occupying these roles[ix].
Over 200 years later, and this gender bias has persisted and resulted in bullying
and security problems for women in politics. It has also meant that there is a lack
of women going into and remaining in politics, as can be seen by the important
work done by 50:50 Parliament which tries to encourage women into politics with
initiatives such as #AskHerToStand – a project I’m sure J.S. Mill, Harriet Taylor Mill and her daughter Helen Taylor,
would have supported.
[i]
Richard Reeves, John Stuart Mill:
Victorian Firebrand (London: Atlantic Books, 2008), 413.
[ii]
Reeves, 417–8; 427.
[iii]
Reeves, 417.
[iv]
Reeves, 417.
[v]
Reeves, 421.
[vi]
Reeves, 423.
[vii]
Reeves, 426.
[viii]
Reeves, 420.
[ix]
Reeves, 420.
