Biological vs. Social Understandings of Gender Theme Analysis

In The Subjection of Women, Mill argues that many of the characteristics people claim are a biologically essential part of being female may actually be generated by social conditions. He dismisses the ideas that “feminine” characteristics such as submissiveness, fragility, tenderness, and self-sacrifice have their roots in biology. Distinguishing between the biological and social differences that exist between men and women is a fraught topic within the entire history of the fight for gender equality, in part because it is difficult to know for certain what’s biological or “natural” given that every person is influenced by their social environment. Mill argues that until women are treated equally to men, there will be no way of knowing what (if any) characteristics are biologically female and what are simply a matter of social conditioning. He uses this idea to support his overall argument that women’s rights should be promoted in order to aid the advancement of human knowledge and civilization.

Mill examines a variety of claims about women’s supposedly “natural” state—which hold that women are less authoritative, intelligent, and rational than men—suggesting that it might be erroneous to believe that these traits are biologically based. Mill critiques scientific ideas that assert that there are strong biological distinctions between men and women, such as the belief that women have a naturally fragile disposition. This might seem like a biological characteristic, but it is in fact because upper-class English women are raised like “hot-house plants,” totally shielded from the outside world. Mill points out that “women brought up to work for their livelihood show none of these morbid characteristics […] Women who in their early years have shared in the healthful physical education and bodily freedom of their brothers, and who obtain a sufficiency of pure air and exercise in after-life, very rarely have any excessive susceptibility of nerves which can disqualify them from active pursuits.” If upper-class women were encouraged to spend more time outside and allowed to participate more in public life, employment, and sports, then it would likely become clear that women do not have naturally nervous dispositions at all. Because Mill holds that differences between men and women are generally not based in biology, he suggests that if social conditions were to change, these differences would disappear. He argues, “It is by no means established that the brain of a woman is smaller than that of a man.” (Contemporary scientific knowledge has proven Mill correct on this front.) Mill also explains that social factors create the illusion that a particular trait is natural, when in fact if social conditions changed, so would the trait. Overall, he ends up coming to the conclusion that—while it was not yet possible in his time period to know for sure—women are almost certainly no less intelligent than men. If they ever seem so, it is likely due to their restricted access to education and the public sphere.  

Mill also identifies a logical flaw in the way that supposedly biological female characteristics are used to justify social restrictions placed on women, pointing out that if these characteristics were really biological, then social restrictions wouldn’t be necessary. If women were not capable of performing an activity, Mill explains, then there would be no reason for banning them from it. The ban itself suggests that men have other reasons for wanting women to not engage in a particular activity and wish to create the illusion that women are not capable, when in fact they are simply not allowed. The example Mill gives of this phenomenon is when men claim that women can’t participate in the workforce, because “the natural vocation of a woman is that of a wife and mother.” However, the reality is that women are forced into the domestic sphere because their other options are severely limited, which implies it isn’t a “natural” role at all. Mill even goes so far to suggest that men have an underlying fear that if women were not compelled to marry and have children, too few of them would actively choose to do so, and human reproduction would be threatened.

Another key part of Mill’s argument about the difference between biological and social characteristics is his suggestion that everything that is common and familiar to humans feels natural, but that doesn’t mean it actually is natural. “The subjection of women to men being a universal custom, any departure from it quite naturally appears unnatural,” he writes. “But was there ever any domination which did not appear natural to those who possessed it?” It is only by taking active steps to change familiar social customs that humanity will ever be able to figure out what is natural and what isn’t. This is why it is essential that society shift from gender oppression to gender equality—until such a shift happens, little can be known about the difference between social and biological understandings of gender. And thus, false stereotypes about women will continue to abound.

Finally, Mill asserts that even if it is true that certain female characteristics are proven to be biological and not the result of social conditions, it wouldn’t matter much anyway. This is because, in modern English society, biology doesn’t play a major role in determining what life is like. He argues: “Both in a good and a bad sense, the English are farther from a state of nature than any other modern people. They are, more than any other people, a product of civilization and discipline.” This means that even where there are biological differences between men and women (such as men’s greater physical strength), it doesn’t matter, because these natural characteristics don’t have a major impact on modern life. Civilization has overcome the dictates of nature, which means that facts such as women’s comparative physical weakness should not prevent them from fully participating in public life and having equal rights to men.