Summary
In this chapter, Mill discusses the law governing marriage. He begins with the legal status of women in marriage, arguing that historically women have been treated as men’s property in marriage. A woman’s father could sell or force his daughters into marriage. After marriage, the husband possessed significant power over his wife, including an unrestricted power to domestically abuse her, and even the power of life and death. A married woman can’t own property independently; even property she inherited or owned before marriage, automatically becomes her husband’s. The children she bears, Mill points out, are legally her husband’s children, and he has the right to send them away from her. Even after her husband dies, she is still not the legal guardian of her children. Mill suggests that in three ways, women’s situation is in fact worse than that of slaves: (1) women, under the surveillance of their husbands and society, are “slaves” every hour and minute of each day; (2) slaves, unlike women, have property rights to some extent; (3) most importantly, slaves can and are expected to refuse the master’s sexual advances, while a wife cannot. Mill notes that wives are by law their husbands’ children. The law doesn’t admit women’s personal autonomy, or any personal separation from the husband.
Mill stresses that while the sole purpose of women’s upbringing is marriage, the contract of marriage is far from appealing for them. He suggests that there is one more condition that completes the assimilation of the wife to the status of a slave – the difficulty for the wife of leaving her husband, even, in some cases, with evidence of abusive behavior. In some places, when a slave is severely mistreated, they can compel their master to sell them, according to the law. But in England, no matter how ill-treated the wife is, she can’t leave her husband. Mill points out that if all that’s left for women is servitude to some men, then at least they should have the free choice as to whom they serve. He calls for a legal change, making the case that laws would never be improved if there weren’t people who were better than the existing law.
Mill then takes a step back and clarifies that, in reality, not all husbands fully exercise their vast legal powers with their wives. However, the potential for abuse is inherent in the marriage system. He says that while most men treat their wives kindly, they are not required to do so. The current law regarding marriage is a form of domestic tyranny, rooted in the dominance of “one person.” He challenges the idea that when two people are married, they become one in law, with the husband being the one to represent the unity. Mill argues that in marriage, it’s unnecessary to always have one partner (the husband) possessing absolute authority. He compares marriage to a business partnership, making the case that marriage could also shift to a partnership based on equal rights. While he advocates for women’s property rights and argues that women should keep property gained before marriage, Mill thinks that women shouldn’t make money once they are married, since that would distract from caring for children and maintaining the family, which solely relies on them.
Mill goes on to discuss the larger harm of the subjugation of women in marriage. On a smaller scale, a truly happy marriage requires equality. It’s unattainable when one party in the relationship is by law inferior to the other. Moreover, the family is the fundamental site for society’s moral education. Presently, family is “a school of despotism,” in which the vice of despotism is nourished, with current family dynamics based on command and obedience. The family should be a school of virtue for children. With an equal relationship between parents in the family, the family would become a school of sympathy, of “living together in love.” As the family is the most fundamental unit for the moral education of mankind, this change is essential for the moral development of individuals and society.
In this chapter, Mill remarkably fleshes out the detrimental effects of women’s subjugation on men’s moral character. He starts by refuting the idea that women are more morally virtuous than men. This is an artificial account of female character, since women are taught that they are born to be self-sacrificing, which binds them to family life. He notes that a good woman would not be more self-sacrificing than the best man. Mill goes on to say that self-worship in mankind largely derives from the existing relationship between men and women. He writes “there is nothing that men so easily learn as self-worship.” With inequality contributing to the development of a harmful ego in men, the equal position of women is vital to the moral development of men.
Analysis
Mill’s view of marriage was very different from how most people in the Victorian era thought about family. While this chapter focuses on the legal problems women face in marriage, it’s also about the profound social and economic differences between the two sexes. While the law regarding marriage has changed significantly compared to Mill’s time, Mill’s discussion of marriage remains relevant, as our society today still pushes people to conform to problematic family models rooted in tradition.
In this chapter, Mill rejects the concept of “one person” in law. The idea of spousal unity comes from the Bible, which says that a man will leave his parents, join his wife, and together they will become one. Under the law, a married couple is seen as one person, and that person is the husband. We can see that many regulations in marriage that Mill protests against are in fact rooted in this concept. For example, since the couple is considered “one person,” the husband owns and controls anything the wife earns while they’re married, stripping the wife of property rights. And with man and wife being one body, nothing the man does to his wife counts as rape, since she is part of his own flesh.
Mill actively fought for women’s rights in marriage. When he was in Parliament, he supported the Married Women’s Property Bill. He argued against those who believed that harmony within marriage is only possible if the man has total control over the woman. In 1867, when debating about the Representation of the People Bill, Mill said women needed the right to vote so they could push for laws against domestic violence.
Some scholars, such as Susan Okin, have critiqued Mill for ignoring how the traditional division of labor in the household is also a division of power. Mill generally believed that once married, women should only take care of the home and children, while men should earn money for the family. While he promotes the right of women to keep property gained before marriage, he thinks that women shouldn’t share the family income. In this respect, Mill seems to conform to the traditional division of labor in the family, believing that legal changes are enough to reverse women’s subjugation.
