Since the earliest times, men have linked two facts - women's importance to them and their lesser physical strength - and sought to subjugate them. Over time, men have turned this essentially physical difference into a legal right that has gained societal approval.
This peculiar slavery was legalized in the form of an informal social contract under which women received protection by giving up their rights. No matter how they lived with men, by Mill's time women were no longer perceived as equals but as dependents. However, their position was still tainted by brutal primitive forms of enslavement.
This was part of an interconnected process, especially as labor became increasingly intellectual rather than physical. As Mill emphasizes, power based on physical force became an anachronism. However, the principle seems to have become entrenched in our psychology, and those who had power were unwilling to give it up.
↑ The contradictory nature of the theory and practice of slavery
This is why, despite the declared desire of British society for the principles of equal justice, the position of women has hardly changed. Moreover, it even worsened in comparison with the Middle Ages, when women had more property rights. Nevertheless, the status of women continued to evolve and conflict with civilization, as was the case in ancient Greece, where internal slavery among the Greeks conflicted with their ideals of freedom.
In Ancient Greece, slavery created a deep contradiction in the minds of the Greeks because they took pride in their freedom and valued the ideals of freedom and civil rights. They viewed themselves as free people, especially in polis such as Athens, where democracy and equality among citizens were essential principles. However, this coexisted with slavery, which was an integral part of the economic and social structure of society. This internal slavery, where some Greeks owned others as property, was in direct conflict with their ideals.
This duality between freedom and oppression of slaves created moral and philosophical disagreements that the Greeks attempted to explain away by justifying slavery as inevitable or natural, even though it contradicted their own ideas of freedom.
↑ Slavery and the status of women are the same thing
Most Britons condemned the slave trade, except for those who benefited directly from it, and many were glad to live in a country not ruled by absolute monarchs or military dictators. However, British men were not keen to recognize that the subordination of women should be considered on a par with other forms of oppression. The male desire to dominate, especially over those closest to him, remained deeply rooted. Women, in their socially dependent position, could not hope to gain more power or rights. Mill notes that it is the family that is likely to be the last bastion of inequality.
The family structure has historically perpetuated inequality and the subjugation of women because it perpetuated traditional gender roles in which men became primary and women became dependent. In the patriarchal system, the husband acted not only as the head of the family, but also as the main economic and social protector.
Women in such a system had to rely on their husbands for survival and protection, which limited their autonomy. This maintained male power and deprived women of opportunities to participate in public life, pursue careers or make important decisions. As a result, this arrangement perpetuated the perception of women as a “weak field” whose role was reduced to the home and family, thus reinforcing their dependency.
The family structure, where the man was the main source of income, made women economically dependent, making them less able to challenge their position or fight for equal rights. Women's traditional role as caretakers of children and keepers of the home discouraged their participation in politics, science and other spheres. Society reinforced this unequal dynamic by expecting women to sacrifice their ambitions for the family. A family structure that perpetuated gender roles maintained a system in which women remained subordinate and social inequalities persisted for centuries.
↑ Misconceptions about women's mental capacity
One of the reasons for the difficulty of change was an established concept about the nature of women. It was believed that girls were not interested in abstract ideas and therefore needed less education. Once they became adults, their main goal was to find a decent man, and their purpose was to run a household, which was considered natural. Mill asks the question: did any domination seem natural to those in power? He argues that what we call instinct or nature is only what we observe in ourselves but cannot explain rationally.
Even the great thinker Aristotle believed that humans are divided into those with a free nature and those whose nature is servile. In the Middle Ages, the domination of the nobility over the peasants was also perceived as something natural, everyone had his own place in life. However, as Mill emphasizes, “unnatural” often simply means “unaccustomed.”
As the subjugation of women became habitual, new rights for them were perceived as something unnatural. Foreigners were often surprised that the English monarch was a woman, but for the English it was the order of the day, because that was the custom. Moreover, Mill observes that what we call the “nature” of women was actually artificially created by a system that suppressed some and encouraged others.
↑ Conclusion
For a long time, social and cultural structures have supported gender inequality based on the idea that it is natural and inevitable. Stereotypes about the nature of women, enshrined in patriarchal systems, became cultural norms that were perceived as 'natural'.
This belief, in turn, hindered the development of more equitable rights and opportunities for women. As exemplified in British society and Mill's philosophy, even in democratic and free countries, the domination of one sex over the other was considered acceptable because it was deeply embedded in family and social structures.
Nevertheless, history shows that this inequality has been criticized and revised over time. Realizing that “natural” does not always mean right or inevitable gives hope that the future will be more equitable, where rights and opportunities are not determined by gender or social stereotypes, but are based on equality and respect for everyone.
Read also an article about what John Stuart Mill proposed to address gender inequality.
Wilfredo Huppert
Wilfredo Huppert is a war journalist with 25 years of experience. He has spent most of his life in military journalism, wars and military-political conflicts, treason investigations and much more.