Women
Mill argues that it is impossible to know the nature of women based on their current behavior. He thinks that what is considered women’s nature in the present has been heavily shaped by the norms of society. As a result, women’s current desires and interests do not accurately represent their fundamental nature. Mill rejects the idea that women by nature do not oppose their own subjugation. He acknowledges that most women do not under present conditions, but he believes that many would if given the opportunity. He points out that women complain about their husbands, which suggests that, if they were educated differently, women might begin to see and criticize the larger male-dominated system. But in Mill’s present, their education has conditioned them to see themselves as dependents forbidden to challenge the authority of men.
Queen of England
Mill uses the example of the Queen of England to show why so many deem the emancipation of women unnatural. In other countries, the idea of a woman being at the head of a royal family seems so strange as to be almost unbelievable. English people, however, do not find it odd insofar as they are familiar with it. They do, however, find it unnatural for women to be soldiers or parliament members, showing that the “unnatural” is often just what is not customary, and anything that accords with common seems natural. Because women are generally in the subordinate position, any deviation from this norm seems “unnatural” when it is really just a matter of custom.
Simon de Montfort
Simon de Montfort is an important figure of the 13th century, establishing the first English Parliament. Mill uses him as an example of a figure supporting and achieving gradual social progress. When Montfort first invited commoners’ representatives to Parliament, none of them considered that a Parliament chosen by voters should have the power to give orders to the king. Montfort, as with many oppressed persons and groups, did not seek or achieve total liberation all at once. Mill argues that his example of the gradualist approach to progress should be replicated in the case of women's political liberty.
Louis XVI
Louis XVI was the last king of France, ruling from 1774 to 1792, immediately prior to the French Revolution. Mill uses Louis XVI as an example of why a revolution aiming at gender equality is justified. He notes that the despotism of Louis XVI was not as severe as that of other monarchs, but was nonetheless severe enough to justify the French Revolution. Given that the oppression of a wife is far worse than that of citizens living under the despotism of Louis XVI, a revolution in women's rights is called for.
