Abortion Rights and Mill's "Subjection of Women"

"All that was most striking and profound in what was written by me belongs to my wife." John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)

In 1869, the British philosopher John Stuart Mill published an influential pro-feminist essay called The Subjection of Women. It remains highly relevant today, especially with the recent threat to abortion rights in the United States. [Image: Mill, 1873, by Frederic Watts]

Mill did not address the issue of abortion in The Subjection of Women. But he would almost surely have favored what today is called "reproductive freedom." In an earlier work, On Liberty (1859), he had declared the principle of bodily sovereignty: "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." Twentieth century feminists translated that into "Our Bodies, Ourselves."

It is significant that Mill acknowledged the influence on his ideas of his wife, Harriet Taylor Mill, and also his stepdaughter, Helen Taylor. He was not lecturing women, but learning from them, and his message was directed at men more than women. [Images: Harriet Taylor Mill, unknown painter, National Portrait Gallery, and photo of Helen Taylor with Mill. Harriet died in 1858.]

In 1867 Mill presented a petition to Parliament calling for women's suffrage. He did so at the request of two women, Dr. Elizabeth Garrett Anderson and Emily Davies. The first draft of the petition was written by his stepdaughter, Helen. It failed but got the issue into the political discussion at the highest level.  

What was Mill's message in The Subjection of Women? It was the then outrageous claim that women were very likely the equals of men in most spheres of life, and superior in some. And the world would be a happier place if women had equal rights to men. 

Mill rejected the traditional view that it was women's nature to be limited to the role of wives, mothers, and housekeepers, obedient to their male superiors. In fact, he denied that anyone could justify such limitations on the grounds of something as nebulous as women's natural constitution. What society considered "natural" was only what was "customary;" that is, what they were accustomed to.

Women had always been kept in an "unnatural state" of subjection to men, preventing their free development. Their "nature" had been "distorted and disguised." No one could predict what women's nature would be if they were "left to choose its direction as freely as men's." What society calls the nature of women is an "eminently artificial thing -- the result of forced repression in some directions, unnatural stimulation in others." 

If "artificial" restrictions on female development were removed, it might be found that there would be no "material difference" in their "character and capacities" compared to men. The only way to find out would be to remove the restrictions, to let women choose their own way, and see what happens. 

Such an "experiment" was not a mere intellectual exercise. It would materially affect the future of humanity. The subjection of women suppressed the talents of one-half of the human race. Who could tell what women, freed of traditional restraints, might do to improve the world? No one could find out what anyone was capable of except by letting them try.

The existing relationship between men and women was one of power. Men had it, women were subject to it. Fathers, brothers, uncles, husbands -- all had the power to control the women in their lives. 

Mill likened marriage to the master-slave relationship. Chattel slavery had been abolished, but the law left married women in bondage to their husbands. He admitted that wives were generally treated better than slaves, but argued that their legal position was, if anything, worse than that of a slave. Wives had virtually no protection for their property, their aspirations, or their bodies. The law treated them as children, or worse, imbeciles. [Image: Suffragette Poster, c. 1910]

Defenders of the status quo objected that good men did not abuse their power over women. Mill conceded the point but insisted that laws and institutions needed to be designed for men who were not good.

Women had no power and no legal protection from abusive husbands. The law in effect, left "the victim still in the power of the executioner." It was "contrary to reason and experience" to expect that women in such a position would be safe from "brutality."

Mill did not spell out what he meant by brutality, but it is not hard to imagine the possibilities, given our current experience of spousal abuse, both physical and psychological. 

Mill's arguments in The Subjection of Women are rooted in utilitarianism, a philosophy he had learned as a child from its founder, Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and his own father, James Mill. 

Bentham had famously argued that human laws and institutions should be judged according to the principle of utility. They should be favored or rejected according to the extent to which they promoted "the greatest happiness of the greatest number."  

Mill rejected parts of Bentham's philosophy and made it more human. Bentham had tried to develop a calculus of happiness ("the felicific calculus"), to determine mathematically what would contribute to the greatest happiness. It did not work, but it did lead one of Bentham's disciples, Charles Babbage, to develop the principle of the computer.

Mill centered happiness in the mind of the individual. It was not possible for anyone to decide what was best for others. There was "no means by which anyone else can discover for them what it is for their happiness to do or leave undone."

In On Liberty, Mill argued that society has no right to limit individual freedom except to prevent harm to others (The Harm Principle). Would Mill have argued that abortion should be prohibited because of the harm to the fetus, or allowed because forcing a woman to carry a baby to term violates the principle of bodily sovereignty, and may harm the woman? 

Because he never directly addressed this issue, we can never know. But I'm confident he would have been on the side of pro-choice. 

Further reading: 

J.S. Mill, The Subjection of Women (1869) and On Liberty (1859). See also his Utilitarianism (1863), for a full discussion of his philosophical outlook. 

If you enjoyed this post and would like to become a follower of my blog, just click on the blue "FOLLOW" button on the right side of the first page. Below there you can also find my previous posts. Thanks!

  

Gretna Green: Scotland's Las Vegas?

Just across the Scottish border with England lies the village of Gretna Green (hereafter, GG). Despite its small size, it is notable for several reasons. 

The worst railway crash in British history occurred near the village in 1915, worse than the Tay Bridge Disaster of 1879. The Quintinshill Rail Disaster, involving several trains, led to the deaths of more than 220 people. More than 200 of them were Scottish soldiers on their way to Gallipoli, in Ottoman Turkey, which in itself was not a promising future.

In the same year, the environs of Gretna Green became the site of the largest cordite factory built in the UK during World War I. The Ministry of Munitions had it built in response to the "Shell Crisis" of 1915. The British Army, battling the Germans in France and Belgium, was running out of artillery shells. 

By the time the Gretna munitions complex was complete, it extended twelve miles along the border and employed more than 16,000 people, more than half of them women. At its peak it produced more cordite than all the other munitions factories in the UK combined.

But GG is best known today for another industry -- the wedding business. For more than a century it had a mixed reputation as a place where where young English folk could get married quickly, without a fuss -- for a fee. 

The making of GG's marriage industry (and the village itself) was Hardwicke's Marriage Act of 1754. The act was designed to prevent persons under 21 from marrying without their parents' consent. The persons in questions were mainly young girls from wealthy families.

The Marriage Act, however, applied only to England and Wales. In Scotland, which retained its own legal system after the Act of Union in 1707, the law continued to allow persons under 21 to marry without parental permission, from age 14 for males and 12 for females. 

Scottish law also allowed for "irregular marriages." If the declaration of marriage was made before two witnesses, almost anybody could officiate at the wedding. One did not need to be a licensed clergyman. 

Some canny Scots quickly realized the opportunity these differences presented. And young English folk desperate to marry as quickly as possible soon learned that their salvation lay on the high road to Scotland. (Image: Carriage Arriving at Gretna Green, c. 1800)

Situated directly across the border from England, here the small River Sark, GG was providentially placed to profit from the new marriage business. In the 1770s, the construction of a new toll road that passed by the village made it the most easily reachable in Scotland. 

Marriages in GG were often performed by local blacksmiths, who became known as "anvil priests." One of them presided at more than 5,000 weddings.  

GG's role as a magnet for runaway couples is mentioned in many works of literature and in films. In Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice, George Wickham convinces Lydia Bennet to elope with a promise of taking her to GG to marry. Instead he takes her to London, where Mr. Darcy finds her and returns her to her family.   

Changes in the law on both sides of the border eventually ended the  quickie marriage industry, though not the wedding business itself. In 1856, a new law in Scotland required a minimum of 21 days residence in the country before being married. That restriction was abolished in 1977. Nowadays, however, one must register intent to marry in GG at least 29 days before the ceremony.  Not so quick!

In 1929, another act raised the age of legal marriage in Scotland to 16 for both men and women. The parties can still marry without parental consent. In England and Wales, they can now marry at 16 with parental consent, and at 18 without it. The incentive that drove young English couples to the border no longer exists. Today, GG is a romantic, historic place to get hitched. 

GG was not the only Scottish border town where quickie marriages for English customers were performed, but it was unquestionably the most famous. Today that kind of fame is largely confined to Las Vegas, Nevada where anything goes and allegedly stays. Vegas also offers quickie divorces and other amenities.

Because of its history, GG remains a popular place for weddings, with several venues and hotels available. Services are always performed over the town's marriage icon, a blacksmith's anvil. 

Online ads for wedding packages urge you to stay, marry, and dine for anything from £500 to £5000 depending on the numbers attending and services offered. A smashing wee bargain for the matrimonially inclined. You take the high road and I'll take the low road. No, wait....