The Subjection of Women: Chapter 2 Summary & Analysis

At the time Mill is writing, marriage is the central purpose of life for almost all women (except those who are considered too unattractive to marry). Until quite late in European history, women had no say whatsoever when it came to the question of who they married; while at the wedding they technically had to consent to the union, no one cared if this consent was forced. Once married, husbands held absolute power over their wives, who in turn had no rights of their own. People claim that in women are in a better position in contemporary society, but the reality is that women remain effectively enslaved to their husbands. Mill argues that in some ways, women are even worse off than slaves, because they cannot own their own property. 

In certain cases, the upper classes work out exceptions that allow women to inherit and own property, but these are difficult to uphold. Even noblemen can do little to ensure that inheritance is passed to his daughter rather than his son-in-law. Furthermore, while in general women are treated somewhat better than slaves, in a way their social predicament is worse because it has no beginning and end. Unlike a workday, a woman’s role as a wife is continuous. Furthermore, under the current system, women do not have real authority over their own children. Even if a woman’s husband dies, she cannot legally be considered her children’s guardian. 

Similarly, women have little legal power to leave their husbands and can be forced to return if they attempt to flee. Until recently, legal divorce was so expensive that only the wealthy elite could afford it. Yet Mill argues that because husbands have so much power over their wives, it is reasonable to assert that a woman should be allowed to separate from her husband if he treats her badly. He notes that under certain slavery laws, enslaved people could force their masters to sell them, but a similar possibility does not exist for married women.

Mill insists that his argument here is not an exaggeration but rather an accurate account of women’s legal status. In reality, many women are treated better than simply looking at the law would imply. Defenders of the current system use this fact to defend it, but this misses the point. The existence of tyranny within the family is a major social problem just like political tyranny. Furthermore, it is an ironic and unfortunate reality that oppressed people (including the enslaved) often exhibit strong loyalty to those who mistreat them.

The expectation is that institutions like slavery and marriage should be judged according to the best examples of how they can be, but this is faulty logic. There is no doubt that some husbands are truly good and kind, but it is worth remembering that when a man gets married, there is no process in place to check that he will treat his wife fairly. Moreover, the brutality that many men do inflict on their wives is basically ignored by the law, which does not protect women against their husbands (despite recent meager attempts to rectify this). While there are arguably few truly evil husbands, moderate forms of mistreatment are very common.

The fact that every adult man is given such absolute power over his wife without having to prove that he is worthy of this power is deeply concerning. While the family can—in its most ideal state—encourage its members to act with tenderness and love, it is more often a space of selfishness and excessive control. The problem is not limited to husbands, as there are various ways in which wives can actually commit abuses of power, all while being deprived of their own rights. Indeed, the fact that some women are able to exercise power over and via their husbands does not make up for the lack of power they hold when it comes to themselves.

Some people might object that, just as a society needs a government, each family needs a “ruler” to make decisions. Mill argues that this is not true, as in other systems of voluntary association—such as a business partnership—power is divided equally, with no one person having ultimate control. Of course, it is more efficient if certain decisions are made by one member of a duo without deliberation or compromise. But there is no reason why this decision-maker always has to be the same person. Instead, power can be evenly divided between the two people according to their strengths and weaknesses. However, there should never be a dynamic where one person submits to the absolute power of the other. 

Some might argue that in the existing system, husbands tend to be more yielding than wives. Mill can imagine this being said a few generations ago when it was common to mock women, whereas in the present, people more often claim that women are superior to men. This might be true when it comes to selflessness within the family, but is not worth much dwelling on, because it is likely the result of women being raised to believe they should sacrifice themselves for the sake of others. If men and women had equal rights, there would be no need for such excessive self-sacrifice among women. 

Mill imagines that there are surely some women out there who don’t seek compromise but instead want to have sole and total control, just as there are men who feel this way. These people should remain alone, as it would be unjust for any person to have to live with them. 

Up until this point, society has been so thoroughly shaped by the law of force that people have come to think of their equals as their enemies. In such a deeply hierarchical world, morality revolves around submitting to power. In the ancient world, there was an understanding that equality was essential to justice, but only free men were considered equal to one another; women, slaves, and other minoritized groups remained subjugated. Now, society is once again shifting toward a system of justice grounded on equality. However, the family remains a site of “despotism” where, if structured differently, it should teach the value of freedom.

Parents should teach by example, loving each other as equals in order to give their children a proper moral education. In reality, many married couples already live this way (Mill notes that he suspects that most of the upper classes do). The law should thus be changed so that it reflects how people should and do actually behave. Currently, men who are least equipped to responsibly handle power are most likely to abuse it, simply because such abuse is legally available to them. Mill observes that among “the most naturally brutal and morally uneducated part of the lower classes,” the subjugation of women within the law encourages men to feel a particularly strong hatred toward their own wives. 

Some may object that religion encourages submission; indeed, there are several Christian teachings that instruct women to obey their husbands. However, these teachings reflect the world that existed at the time of the Bible rather than the true message of Christianity. When it comes to property, it should be obvious that marriage must not interfere with a woman’s right to own their own property. Mill imagines that some sentimental people might be shocked by the idea that married couples should keep their financial interests separate, yet he stands by this point. When laws grant women their own property rights (as is true in parts of the U.S. at the time Mill is writing), it will prevent men from marrying women in order to effectively steal from them.

When women earn money for their families in addition to raising children and managing the household, it is usually an unjust arrangement, allowing husbands to become lazy and waste time drinking. The ability to earn money is an essential part of a woman’s dignity, but this must be paired with changes in marriage law that give women equal rights, including the right to separate from their husbands if they wish. Women should be allowed to choose the extent to which they devote themselves entirely to raising children and managing the household for as much time as that takes. There shouldn’t be laws regulating this; instead, people should be able to choose according to their own wishes.