Wednesday, 20 May 2020

J. S. Mill’s 214th Birthday Today!


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].

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.

J S Mill and the demise of the Women's Equality Party

The disappointing news this week is that the WEP, the Women's Equality Party, has dissolved, preferring to continue as activists. What w...