The Subjection of Women

By John Stuart Mill

From CHAPTER 1

The object of this Essay is to explain as clearly as I am able grounds of an opinion which I
have held from the very earliest period when I had formed any opinions at all on social
political matters, and which, instead of being weakened or modified, has been constantly
growing stronger by the progress reflection and the experience of life. That the principle
which regulates the existing social relations between the two sexes — the legal subordination
of one sex to the other — is wrong itself, and now one of the chief hindrances to human
improvement; and that it ought to be replaced by a principle of perfect equality, admitting no
power or privilege on the one side, nor disability on the other.

Some will object, that a comparison cannot fairly be made between the government of the
male sex and the forms of unjust power which I have adduced in illustration of it, since these
are arbitrary, and the effect of mere usurpation, while it on the contrary is natural. But was
there ever any domination which did not appear natural to those who possessed it? There was
a time when the division of mankind into two classes, a small one of masters and a numerous
one of slaves, appeared, even to the most cultivated minds, to be natural, and the only natural,
condition of the human race. No less an intellect, and one which contributed no less to the
progress of human thought, than Aristotle, held this opinion without doubt or misgiving; and
rested it on the same premises on which the same assertion in regard to the dominion of men
over women is usually based, namely that there are different natures among mankind, free
natures, and slave natures; that the Greeks were of a free nature, the barbarian races of
Thracians and Asiatics of a slave nature. But why need I go back to Aristotle? Did not the
slave-owners of the Southern United States maintain the same doctrine, with all the
fanaticism with which men ding to the theories that justify their passions and legitimate their
personal interests? Did they not call heaven and earth to witness that the dominion of the
white man over the black is natural, that the black race is by nature incapable of freedom, and
marked out for slavery? some even going so far as to say that the freedom of manual
labourers is an unnatural order of things anywhere. Again, the theorists of absolute monarchy
have always affirmed it to be the only natural form of government; issuing from the
patriarchal, which was the primitive and spontaneous form of society, framed on the model of
the paternal, which is anterior to society itself, and, as they contend, the most natural
authority of all. Nay, for that matter, the law of force itself, to those who could not plead any
other has always seemed the most natural of all grounds for the exercise of authority.
Conquering races hold it to be Nature's own dictate that the conquered should obey the
conquerors, or as they euphoniously paraphrase it, that the feebler and more unwarlike races
should submit to the braver and manlier. The smallest acquaintance with human life in the
middle ages, shows how supremely natural the dominion of the feudal nobility overmen of
low condition appeared to the nobility themselves, and how unnatural the conception seemed,
of a person of the inferior class claiming equality with them, or exercising authority over

www.mbsee.info| www.umm.biz
them. It hardly seemed less so to the class held in subjection. The emancipated serfs and
burgesses, even in their most vigorous struggles, never made any pretension to a share of
authority; they only demanded more or less of limitation to the power of tyrannising over
them. So true is it that unnatural generally means only uncustomary, and that everything
which is usual appears natural. The subjection of women to men being a universal custom,
any departure from it quite naturally appears unnatural. But how entirely, even in this case,
the feeling is dependent on custom, appears by ample experience. Nothing so much
astonishes the people of distant parts of the world, when they first learn anything about
England, as to be told that it is under a queen; the thing seems to them so unnatural as to be
almost incredible. To Englishmen this does not seem in the least degree unnatural, because
they are used to it; but they do feel it unnatural that women should be soldiers or Members of
Parliament. In the feudal ages, on the contrary, war and politics were not thought unnatural to
women, because not unusual; it seemed natural that women of the privileged classes should
be of manly character, inferior in nothing but bodily strength to their husbands and fathers.
The independence of women seemed rather less unnatural to the Greeks than to other
ancients, on account of the fabulous Amazons (whom they believed to be historical), and the
partial example afforded by the Spartan women; who, though no less subordinate by law than
in other Greek states, were more free in fact, and being trained to bodily exercises in the same
manner with men, gave ample proof that they were not naturally disqualified for them. There
can be little doubt that Spartan experience suggested to Plato, among many other of his
doctrines, that of the social and political equality of the two sexes.

But, it will be said, the rule of men over women differs from all these others in not being a
rule a rule of force: it is accepted voluntarily; women make no complaint, and are consenting
parties to it. In the first place, a great number of women do not accept it. Ever since there
have been women able to make their sentiments known by their writings (the only mode of
publicity which society permits to them), an increasing number of them have recorded
protests against their present social condition: and recently many thousands of them, headed
by the most eminent women known to the public, have petitioned Parliament for their
admission to the Parliamentary Suffrage The claim of women to be educated as solidly, and
in the same branches of knowledge, as men, is urged with growing intensity, and with a great
prospect of success; while the demand for their admission into professions and occupations
hitherto closed against them, becomes every year more urgent. Though there are not in this
country, as there are in the United States, periodical conventions and an organised party to
agitate for the Rights of Women, there is a numerous and active society organised and
managed by women, for the more limited object of obtaining the political franchise. Nor is it
only in our own country and in America that women are beginning to protest, more or less
collectively, against the disabilities under which they labour. France, and Italy, and
Switzerland, and Russia now afford examples of the same thing. How many more women
there are who silently cherish similar aspirations, no one can possibly know; but there are
abundant tokens how many would cherish them, were they not so strenuously taught to
repress them as contrary to the proprieties of their sex. It must be remembered, also, that no
enslaved class ever asked for complete liberty at once. When Simon de Montfort called the
deputies of the commons to sit for the first time in Parliament, did any of them dream of
demanding that an assembly, elected by their constituents, should make and destroy
ministries, and dictate to the king in affairs of State? No such thought entered into the
imagination of the most ambitious of them. The nobility had already these pretensions; the
commons pretended to nothing but to be exempt from arbitrary taxation, and from the gross
individual oppression of the king's officers. It is a political law of nature that those who are
under any power of ancient origin, never begin by complaining of the power itself, but only

www.mbsee.info| www.umm.biz
of its oppressive exercise. There is never any want of women who complain of ill-usage by
their husbands. There would be infinitely more, if complaint were not the greatest of all
provocatives to a repetition and increase of the ill-usage. It is this which frustrates all
attempts to maintain the power but protect the woman against its abuses. In no other case
(except that of a child) is the person who has been proved judicially to have suffered an
injury, replaced under the physical power of the culprit who inflicted it. Accordingly wives,
even in the most extreme and protracted cases of bodily ill-usage, hardly ever dare avail
themselves of the laws made for their protection: and if, in a moment of irrepressible
indignation, or by the interference of neighbours, they are induced to do so, their whole effort
afterwards is to disclose as little as they can, and to beg off their tyrant from his merited
chastisement.

All causes, social and natural, combine to make it unlikely that women should be collectively
rebellious to the power of men. They are so far in a position different from all other subject
classes, that their masters require something more from them than actual service. Men do not
want solely the obedience of women, they want their sentiments. All men, except the most
brutish, desire to have, in the woman most nearly connected with them, not a forced slave but
a willing one, not a slave merely, but a favourite. They have therefore put everything in
practice to enslave their minds. The masters of all other slaves rely, for maintaining
obedience, on fear; either fear of themselves, or religious fears. The masters of women
wanted more than simple obedience, and they turned the whole force of education to effect
their purpose. All women are brought up from the very earliest years in the belief that their
ideal of character is the very opposite to that of men; not self will, and government by self-
control, but submission, and yielding to the control of other. All the moralities tell them that
it is the duty of women, and all the current sentimentalities that it is their nature, to live for
others; to make complete abnegation of themselves, and to have no life but in their affections.
And by their affections are meant the only ones they are allowed to have — those to the men
with whom they are connected, or to the children who constitute an additional and
indefeasible tie between them and a man. When we put together three things — first, the
natural attraction between opposite sexes; secondly, the wife's entire dependence on the
husband, every privilege or pleasure she has being either his gift, or depending entirely on his
will; and lastly, that the principal object of human pursuit, consideration, and all objects of
social ambition, can in general be sought or obtained by her only through him, it would be a
miracle if the object of being attractive to men had not become the polar star of feminine
education and formation of character. And, this great means of influence over the minds of
women having been acquired, an instinct of selfishness made men avail themselves of it to
the utmost as a means of holding women in subjection, by representing to them meekness,
submissiveness, and resignation of all individual will into the hands of a man, as an essential
part of sexual attractiveness. Can it be doubted that any of the other yokes which mankind
have succeeded in breaking, would have subsisted till now if the same means had existed, and
had been so sedulously used, to bow down their minds to it? If it had been made the object of
the life of every young plebeian to find personal favour in the eyes of some patrician, of
every young serf with some seigneur; if domestication with him, and a share of his personal
affections, had been held out as the prize which they all should look out for, the most gifted
and aspiring being able to reckon on the most desirable prizes; and if, when this prize had
been obtained, they had been shut out by a wall of brass from all interests not centring in him,
all feelings and desires but those which he shared or inculcated; would not serfs and
seigneurs, plebeians and patricians, have been as broadly distinguished at this day as men and
women are? and would not all but a thinker here and there, have believed the distinction to be
a fundamental and unalterable fact in human nature?

www.mbsee.info| www.umm.biz
The preceding considerations are amply sufficient to show that custom, however universal it
may be, affords in this case no presumption, and ought not to create any prejudice, in favour
of the arrangements which place women in social and political subjection to men. But I may
go farther, and maintain that the course of history, and the tendencies of progressive human
society, afford not only no presumption in favour of this system of inequality of rights, but a
strong one against it; and that, so far as the whole course of human improvement up to the
time, the whole stream of modern tendencies, warrants any inference on the subject, it is, that
this relic of the past is discordant with the future, and must necessarily disappear.

For, what is the peculiar character of the modern world — the difference which chiefly
distinguishes modern institutions, modern social ideas, modern life itself, from those of times
long past? It is, that human beings are no longer born to their place in life, and chained down
by an inexorable bond to the would be infinitely more, if complaint were not the greatest of
all provocatives to a repetition and increase of the ill-usage. It is this which frustrates all
attempts to maintain the power but protect the woman against its abuses. In no other case
(except that of a child) is the person who has been proved judicially to have suffered an
injury, replaced under the physical power of the culprit who inflicted it. Accordingly wives,
even in the most extreme and protracted cases of bodily ill-usage, hardly ever dare avail
themselves of the laws made for their protection: and if, in a moment of irrepressible
indignation, or by the interference of neighbours, they are induced to do so, their whole effort
afterwards is to disclose as little as they can, and to beg off their tyrant from his merited
chastisement. All causes, social and natural, combine to make it unlikely that women should
be collectively rebellious to the power of men. They are so far in a position different from all
other subject classes, that their masters require something more from them than actual service
Men do not want solely the obedience of women, they want their sentiments. All men, except
the most brutish, desire to have, in the woman most nearly connected with them, not a forced
slave but a willing one, not a slave merely, but a favourite. They have therefore put
everything in practice to enslave their minds. The masters of all other slaves rely, for
maintaining obedience, on fear; either fear of themselves, or religious fears. The masters of
women wanted more than simple obedience, and they turned the whole force of education to
effect their purpose. All women are brought up from the very earliest years in the belief that
their ideal of character is the very opposite to that of men; not self-will, and government by
self-control, but submission, and yielding to the control of others. All the moralities tell them
that it is the duty of women, and all the current sentimentalities that it is their nature, to live
for others; to make complete abnegation of themselves, and to have no life but in their
affections. And by their affections are meant the only ones they are allowed to have — those
to the men with whom they are connected, or to the children who constitute an additional and
indefeasible tie between them and a man. When we put together three things — first, the
natural attraction between opposite sexes; secondly, the wife's entire dependence on the
husband, every privilege or pleasure she has being either his gift, or depending entirely on his
will; and lastly, that the principal object of human pursuit, consideration, and all objects of
social ambition, can in general be sought or obtained by her only through him, it would be a
miracle if the object of being attractive to men had not become the polar star of feminine
education and formation of character. And, this great means of influence over the minds of
women having been acquired, an instinct of selfishness made men avail themselves of it to
the utmost as a means of holding women in subjection, by representing to them meekness,
submissiveness, and resignation of all individual will into the hands of a man, as an essential
part of sexual attractiveness. Can it be doubted that any of the other yokes which mankind
have succeeded in breaking, would have subsisted till now if the same means had existed, and
had been so sedulously used, to bow down their minds to it? If it had been made the object of

www.mbsee.info| www.umm.biz
the life of every young plebeian to find personal favour in the eyes of some patrician, of
every young serf with some seigneur; if domestication with him, and a share of his personal
affections, had been held out as the prize which they all should look out for, the most gifted
and aspiring being able to reckon on the most desirable prizes; and if, when this prize had
been obtained, they had been shut out by a wall of brass from all interests not centring in him,
all feelings and desires but those which he shared or inculcated; would not serfs and
seigneurs, plebeians and patricians, have been as broadly distinguished at this day as men and
women are? and would not all but a thinker here and there, have believed the distinction to be
a fundamental and unalterable fact in human nature? The preceding considerations are amply
sufficient to show that custom, however universal it may be, affords in this case no
presumption, and ought not to create any prejudice, in favour of the arrangements which
place women in social and political subjection to men. But I may go farther, and maintain that
the course of history, and the tendencies of progressive human society, afford not only no
presumption in favour of this system of inequality of rights, but a strong one against it; and
that, so far as the whole course of human improvement up to the time, the whole stream of
modern tendencies, warrants any inference on the subject, it is, that this relic of the past is
discordant with the future, and must necessarily disappear. For, what is the peculiar character
of the modern world — the difference which chiefly distinguishes modern institutions,
modern social ideas, modern life itself, from those of times long past? It is, that human beings
are no longer born to their place in life, and chained down by an inexorable bond to the place
they are born to, but are free to employ their faculties, and such favourable chances as offer,
to achieve the lot which may appear to them most desirable.

The social subordination of women thus stands out an isolated fact in modern social
institutions; a solitary breach of what has become their fundamental law; a single relic of an
old world of thought and practice exploded in everything else, but retained in the one thing of
most universal interest; as if a gigantic dolmen, or a vast temple of Jupiter Olympius,
occupied the site of St. Paul's and received daily worship, while the surrounding Christian
churches were only resorted to on fasts and festivals. This entire discrepancy between one
social fact and all those which accompany it, and the radical opposition between its nature
and the progressive movement which is the boast of the modern world, and which has
successively swept away everything else of an analogous character, surely affords, to a
conscientious observer of human tendencies, serious matter for reflection. It raises a prima
facie presumption on the unfavourable side, far outweighing any which custom and usage
could in such circumstances create on the favourable; and should at least suffice to make this,
like the choice between republicanism and royalty, a balanced question.

The least that can be demanded is, that the question should not be considered as prejudged by
existing fact and existing opinion, but open to discussion on its merits, as a question of justice
and expediency: the decision on this, as on any of the other social arrangements of mankind,
depending on what an enlightened estimate of tendencies and consequences may show to be
most advantageous to humanity in general, without distinction of sex. And the discussion
must be a real discussion, descending to foundations, and not resting satisfied with vague and
general assertions. It will not do, for instance to assert in general terms, that the experience of
mankind has pronounced in favour of the existing system. Experience cannot possibly have
decided between two courses, so long as there has only been experience of one. If it be said
that the doctrine of the equality of the sexes rests only on theory, it must be remembered that
the contrary doctrine also has only theory to rest upon. All that is proved in its favour by

www.mbsee.info| www.umm.biz
direct experience, is that mankind have been able to exist under it, and to attain the degree of
improvement and prosperity which we now see; but whether that prosperity has been attained
sooner, or is now greater, than it would have been under the other system, experience does
not say. On the other hand, experience does say, that every step in improvement has been so
invariably accompanied by a step made in raising the social position of women, that
historians and philosophers have been led to adopt their elevation or debasement as on the
whole the surest test and most correct measure of the civilisation of a people or an age.
Through all the progressive period of human history, the condition of women has been
approaching nearer to equality with men. This does not of itself prove that the assimilation
must go on to complete equality; but it assuredly affords some presumption that such is the
case.

Neither does it avail anything to say that the nature of the two sexes adapts them to their
present functions and position, and renders these appropriate to them. Standing on the ground
of common sense and the constitution of the human mind, I deny that anyone knows, or can
know, the nature of the two sexes, as long as they have only been seen in their present
relation to one another. If men had ever been found in society without women, or women
without men, or if there had been a society of men and women in which the women were not
under the control of the men, something might have been positively known about the mental
and moral differences which may be inherent in the nature of each. What is now called the
nature of women is an eminently artificial thing — the result of forced repression in some
directions, unnatural stimulation in others. It may be asserted without scruple, that no other
class of dependents have had their character so entirely distorted from its natural proportions
by their relation with their masters; for, if conquered and slave races have been, in some
respects, more forcibly repressed, whatever in them has not been crushed down by an iron
heel has generally been let alone, and if left with any liberty of development, it has developed
itself according to its own laws; but in the case of women, a hot-house and stove cultivation
has always been carried on of some of the capabilities of their nature, for the benefit and
pleasure of their masters Then, because certain products of the general vital force sprout
luxuriantly and reach a great development in this heated atmosphere and under this active
nurture and watering, while other shoots from the same root, which are left outside in the
wintry air, with ice purposely heaped all round them, have a stunted growth, and some are
burnt off with fire and disappear; men, with that inability to recognise their own work which
distinguishes the unanalytic mind, indolently believe that the tree grows of itself in the way
they have made it grow, and that it would die if one half of it were not kept in a vapour bath
and the other half in the snow.

Of all difficulties which impede the progress of thought, and the formation of well-grounded
opinions on life and social arrangements, the greatest is now the unspeakable ignorance and
inattention of mankind in respect to the influences which form human character. Whatever
any portion of the human species now are, or seem to be, such, it is supposed, they have a
natural tendency to be: even when the most elementary knowledge of the circumstances in
which they have been placed, clearly points out the causes that made them what they are.
Because a cottier deeply in arrears to his landlord is not industrious, there are people who
think that the Irish are naturally idle. Because constitutions can be overthrown when the
authorities appointed to execute them turn their arms against them, there are people who
think the French incapable of free government. Because the Greeks cheated the Turks, and
the Turks only plundered the Greeks, there are persons who think that the Turks are naturally
more sincere: and because women, as is often said, care nothing about politics except their
personalities, it is supposed that the general good is naturally less interesting to women than

www.mbsee.info| www.umm.biz
to men. History, which is now so much better understood than formerly, teaches another
lesson: if only by showing the extraordinary susceptibility of human nature to external
influences, and the extreme variableness of those of its manifestations which are supposed to
be most universal and uniform. But in history, as in travelling, men usually see only what
they already had in their own minds; and few learn much from history, who do not bring
much with them to its study.

Hence, in regard to that most difficult question, what are the natural differences between the
two sexes — a subject on which it is impossible in the present state of society to obtain
complete and correct knowledge — while almost everybody dogmatises upon it, almost all
neglect and make light of the only means by which any partial insight can be obtained into it.
This is, an analytic study of the most important department of psychology, the laws of the
influence of circumstances on character. For, however great and apparently ineradicable the
moral and intellectual differences between men and women might be, the evidence of there
being natural differences could only be negative. Those only could be inferred to be natural
which could not possibly be artificial — the residuum, after deducting every characteristic of
either sex which can admit of being explained from education or external circumstances. The
profoundest knowledge of the laws of the formation of character is indispensable to entitle
anyone to affirm even that there is any difference, much more what the difference is, between
the two sexes considered as moral and rational beings; and since no one, as yet, has that
knowledge (for there is hardly any subject which, in proportion to its importance, has been so
little studied), no one is thus far entitled to any positive opinion on the subject. Conjectures
are all that can at present be made; conjectures more or less probable, according as more or
less authorised by such knowledge as we yet have of the laws of psychology, as applied to the
formation of character.

Even the preliminary knowledge, what the differences between the sexes now are, apart from
all question as to how they are made what they are, is still in the crudest and most' incomplete
state. Medical practitioners and physiologists have ascertained, to some extent, the
differences in bodily constitution; and this is an important element to the psychologist: but
hardly any medical practitioner is a psychologist. Respecting the mental characteristics of
women; their observations are of no more worth than those of common men. It is a subject on
which nothing final can be known, so long as those who alone can really know it, women
themselves, have given but little testimony, and that little, mostly suborned. It is easy to know
stupid women. Stupidity is much the same all the world over. A stupid person's notions and
feelings may confidently be inferred from those which prevail in the circle by which the
person is surrounded. Not so with those whose opinions and feelings are an emanation from
their own nature and faculties. It is only a man here and there who has any tolerable
knowledge of the character even of the women of his own family. I do not mean, of their
capabilities; these nobody knows, not even themselves, because most of them have never
been called out. I mean their actually existing thoughts and feelings. Many a man think she
perfectly understands women, because he has had amatory relations with several, perhaps
with many of them. If he is a good observer, and his experience extends to quality as well as
quantity, he may have learnt something of one narrow department of their nature — an
important department, no doubt. But of all the rest of it, few persons are generally more
ignorant, because there are few from whom it is so carefully hidden. The most favourable
case which a man can generally have for studying the character of a woman, is that of his
own wife: for the opportunities are greater, and the cases of complete sympathy not so
unspeakably rare. And in fact, this is the source from which any knowledge worth having on
the subject has, I believe, generally come. But most men have not had the opportunity of

www.mbsee.info| www.umm.biz
studying in this way more than a single case: accordingly one can, to an almost laughable
degree, infer what a man's wife is like, from his opinions about women in general. To make
even this one case yield any result, the woman must be worth knowing, and the man not only
a competent judge, but of a character so sympathetic in itself, and so well adapted to hers,
that he can either read her mind by sympathetic intuition, or has nothing in himself which
makes her shy of disclosing it, Hardly anything, I believe, can be more rare than this
conjunction. It often happens that there is the most complete unity of feeling and community
of interests as to all external things, yet the one has as little admission into the internal life of
the other as if they were common acquaintance. Even with true affection, authority on the one
side and subordination on the other prevent perfect confidence. Though nothing may be
intentionally withheld, much is not shown. In the analogous relation of parent and child, the
corresponding phenomenon must have been in the observation of everyone. As between
father and son, how many are the cases in which the father, in spite of real affection on both
sides, obviously to all the world does not know, nor suspect, parts of the son's character
familiar to his companions and equals. The truth is, that the position of looking up to another
is extremely unpropitious to complete sincerity and openness with him. The fear of losing
ground in his opinion or in his feelings is so strong, that even in an upright character, there is
an unconscious tendency to show only the best side, or the side which, though not the best, is
that which he most likes to see: and it may be confidently said that thorough knowledge of
one another hardly ever exists, but between persons who, besides being intimates, are equals.
How much more true, then, must all this be, when the one is not only under the authority of
the other, but has it inculcated on her as a duty to reckon everything else subordinate to his
comfort and pleasure, and to let him neither see nor feel anything coming from her, except
what is agreeable to him. All these difficulties stand in the way of a man's obtaining any
thorough knowledge even of the one woman whom alone, in general, he has sufficient
opportunity of studying. When we further consider that to understand one woman is not
necessarily to understand any other woman; that even if he could study many women of one
rank, or of one country, he would not thereby understand women of other ranks or countries;
and even if he did, they are still only the women of a single period of history; we may safely
assert that the knowledge which men can acquire of women, even as they have been and are,
without reference to what they might be, is wretchedly imperfect and superficial, and always
will be so, until women themselves have told all that they have to tell.

And this time has not come; nor will it come otherwise than gradually. It is but of yesterday
that women have either been qualified by literary accomplishments or permitted by society,
to tell anything to the general public. As yet very few of them dare tell anything, which men,
on whom their literary success depends, are unwilling to hear. Let us remember in what
manner, up to a very recent time, the expression, even by a male author, of uncustomary
opinions, or what are deemed eccentric feelings, usually was, and in some degree still is,
received; and we may form some faint conception under what impediments a woman, who is
brought up to think custom and opinion her sovereign rule, attempts to express in books
anything drawn from the depths of her own nature. The greatest woman who has left writings
behind her sufficient to give her an eminent rank in the literature of her country, thought it
necessary to prefix as a motto to her boldest work, "Un homme peut braver l'opinion; une
femme doit s'y soumettre."1 The greater part of what women write about women is mere
sycophancy to men. In the case of unmarried women, much of it seems only intended to
increase their chance of a husband. Many, both married and unmarried, overstep the mark,
and inculcate a servility beyond what is desired or relished by any man, except the very
vulgarest. But this is not so often the case as, even at a quite late period, it still was. Literary
women I are becoming more free-spoken, and more willing to express their real sentiments.

www.mbsee.info| www.umm.biz
Unfortunately, in this country especially, they are themselves such artificial products, that
their sentiments are compounded of a small element of individual observation and
consciousness, and a very large one of acquired associations. This will be less and less the
case, but it will remain true to a great extent, as long as social institutions do not admit the
same free development of originality in women which is possible to men. When that time
comes, and not before, we shall see, and not merely hear, as much as it is necessary to know
of the nature of women, and the adaptation of other things to it.

One thing we may be certain of — that what is contrary to women's nature to do, they never
will be made to do by simply giving their nature free play. The anxiety of mankind to
interfere in behalf of nature, for fear lest nature should not succeed in effecting its purpose, is
an altogether unnecessary solicitude. What women by nature cannot do, it is quite
superfluous to forbid them from doing. What they can do, but not so well as the men who are
their competitors, competition suffices to exclude them from; since nobody asks for
protective duties and bounties in favour of women; it is only asked that the present bounties
and protective duties in favour of men should be recalled. If women have a greater natural
inclination for some things than for others, there is no need of laws or social inculcation to
make the majority of them do the former in preference to the latter. Whatever women's
services are most wanted for, the free play of competition will hold out the strongest
inducements to them to undertake. And, as the words imply, they are most wanted for the
things for which they are most fit; by the apportionment of which to them, the collective
faculties of the two sexes can be applied on the whole with the greatest sum of valuable
result.

The general opinion of men is supposed to be, that the natural vocation of a woman is that of
a wife and mother. I say, is supposed to be, because, judging from acts — from the whole of
the present constitution of society — one might infer that their opinion was the direct
contrary. They might be supposed to think that the alleged natural vocation of women was of
all things the most repugnant to their nature; insomuch that if they are free to do anything else
— if any other means of living or occupation of their time and faculties, is open, which has
any chance of appearing desirable to them — there will not be enough of them who will be
willing to accept the condition said to be natural to them. If this is the real opinion of men in
general, it would be well that it should be spoken out. I should like to hear somebody openly
enunciating the doctrine (it is already implied in much that is written on the subject) — It is
necessary to society that women should marry and produce children. They will not do so
unless they are compelled. Therefore it is necessary to compel them." The merits of the case
would then be clearly defined. It would be exactly that of the slave-holders of South Carolina
and Louisiana. "It is necessary that cotton and sugar should be grown. White men cannot
produce them. Negroes will not, for any wages which we choose to give. Ergo they must be
compelled." An illustration still closer to the point is that of impressment. Sailors must
absolutely be had to defend the country. It often happens that they will not voluntarily enlist.
Therefore there must be the power of forcing them. How often has this logic been used! and,
but for one flaw in it, without doubt it would have been successful up to this day. But it is
open to the retort — First pay the sailors the honest value of their labour. When you have
made it as well worth their while to serve you, as to work for other employers, you will have
no more difficulty than others have in obtaining their services. To this there is no logical
answer except "I will not": and as people are now not only ashamed, but are not desirous, to
rob the labourer of his hire, impressment is no longer advocated. Those who attempt to force
women into marriage by closing all other doors against them, lay themselves open to a
similar retort. If they mean what they say, their opinion must evidently be, that men do not

www.mbsee.info| www.umm.biz
render the married condition so desirable to women, as to induce them to accept it for its own
recommendations. It is not a sign of one's thinking the boon one offers very attractive, when
one allows only Hobson's choice, "that or none." And here, I believe, is the clue to the
feelings of those men, who have a real antipathy to the equal freedom of women. I believe
they are afraid, not lest women should be unwilling to marry, for I do not think that anyone in
reality has that apprehension; but lest they should insist that marriage should be on equal
conditions; lest all women of spirit and capacity should prefer doing almost anything else, not
in their own eyes degrading, rather than marry, when marrying is giving themselves a master,
and a master too of all their earthly possessions. And truly, if this consequence were
necessarily incident to marriage, I think that the apprehension would be very well founded. I
agree in thinking it probable that few women, capable of anything else, would, unless under
an irresistible entrainment, rendering them for the time insensible to anything but itself,
choose such a lot, when any other means were open to them of filling a conventionally
honourable place in life: and if men are determined that the law of marriage shall be a law of
despotism, they are quite right, in point of mere policy, in leaving to women only Hobson's
choice. But, in that case, all that has been done in the modern world to relax the chain on the
minds of women, has been a mistake. They never should have been allowed to receive a
literary education. Women who read, much more women who write, are, in the existing
constitution of things, a contradiction and a disturbing element: and it was wrong to bring
women up with any acquirements but those of an odalisque, or of a domestic servant.

www.mbsee.info| www.umm.biz