Michael: The most dangerous ideas are often the ones we mistake for common sense. For centuries, the idea that men were naturally superior to women was just... a fact. But what if that 'fact' was the single greatest, unproven assumption in human history? Kevin: Huh. When you put it like that, it sounds less like a fact and more like a massive, collective bluff. It feels like something a stuffy old philosopher would spend a whole book dissecting. Michael: You are not wrong. Today we’re diving into The Subjection of Women by John Stuart Mill. And while he might have the reputation of a quintessential Victorian intellectual, this book was anything but stuffy. Kevin: Oh, I bet. I can just imagine the polite society tea parties erupting in chaos. Michael: Absolutely. It caused a public outrage in 1869. What's truly fascinating, though, is that he didn't cook up these explosive ideas alone. He credited his wife, Harriet Taylor Mill—a brilliant philosopher in her own right—as his intellectual partner. This book was the product of two decades of their shared conversations and radical thinking. Kevin: I love that. So it wasn't just one man's theory; it was a collaboration. Okay, so where does someone even start with an argument this huge? How do you begin to dismantle something that everyone just accepts as 'natural'? Michael: That’s the genius of his approach. He doesn't try to prove them wrong, initially. He simply asks them to prove they are right. He flips the entire burden of proof.

Kevin: What do you mean he flips the burden of proof? Isn't it on the person making the wild claim—in this case, him—to provide the evidence? Michael: That's what you'd think. Mill points out this incredible double standard. He says, in almost any other debate, the burden of proof lies with the affirmative. If I claim I saw a ten-headed dragon, you’d expect me to provide some serious evidence. But on the issue of women's equality, the roles are reversed. Advocates for equality are expected to disprove every single negative argument and provide irrefutable proof, while those defending the status quo just get to lean back and say, "Well, it's always been this way." Kevin: Right, they get to appeal to tradition. "It's natural." The ultimate conversation-ender. Michael: Exactly. And Mill’s response is brilliant. He says, what you call 'natural' is almost always just what is 'customary.' He draws this powerful parallel to other systems of power that were also once defended as perfectly natural. Think about absolute monarchy. For centuries, people believed that some were born to rule and others born to serve. Kevin: The divine right of kings. It was God's will, completely natural. Michael: Precisely. Or think about slavery. Philosophers like Aristotle argued that some people were 'slaves by nature.' These ideas were held as self-evident truths for millennia. Mill’s point is that the subjugation of women is the last relic of this ancient "law of the strongest." It didn't arise from some thoughtful, deliberative process. It arose because, in the earliest days of humanity, physical strength was the deciding factor. Kevin: So it's a holdover from a more primitive time, a time when 'might makes right' was the literal law of the land. Michael: Yes. He says, "It arose simply from the fact that from the very earliest twilight of human society, every woman... was found in a state of bondage to some man." This physical reality was then codified into law, reinforced by education, and sanctified by religion until it seemed like an immutable fact of nature. Kevin: Okay, but hold on. People in the 19th century would have pushed back. They would have said, "Look around! Our society functions. We have experience on our side. This system works." How does he counter that? Michael: This is my favorite part of his argument. He dismantles the appeal to experience completely. He says that in order to claim that experience proves male dominance is the best system, you would need to have compared it to other systems. But we haven't. Kevin: Whoa. Michael: A system of perfect equality between the sexes has never been tried. Not once, in all of recorded history. So, he argues, we are not choosing between two tested models. We are choosing between a system that has been imposed by force and a system that has never been given a chance. The current arrangement is based on theory only—the theory that men know best. Kevin: That is some serious logical jujitsu. He’s basically saying, "You can't use experience as your defense, because your experience is limited to a single, untested data point." That’s a world-tilting argument. It reframes the entire debate. Michael: It does. It forces the defenders of the status quo to actually justify their position from first principles, rather than just pointing to tradition. And Mill argues this 'uncustomary' thinking is most visible, and most damaging, in the one place it was considered most sacred: the home.

Kevin: The home. The Victorian ideal of the family as a sanctuary from the harsh world. I have a feeling Mill is about to blow that up. Michael: He doesn't just blow it up; he nukes it from orbit. This is where his argument gets truly explosive for his time. He argues that the 19th-century marriage contract was the last remaining form of legal despotism in the modern world. He flat-out compares the legal status of a wife to that of a slave. Kevin: Wow. Calling marriage slavery... that must have been the line that caused the outrage. Was he exaggerating for effect, or was it legally that bad? Michael: He was not exaggerating. Let's walk through what happened to a woman, legally, the moment she said "I do." First, she vowed lifelong obedience to her husband. This wasn't just a symbolic promise; it was legally enforceable. Kevin: Enforceable how? Michael: He had extensive rights over her person. She couldn't leave him. And then there was property. Any property she owned, or any wages she earned, instantly became his. Kevin: Wait, so if she inherited a house from her parents, it was legally his? Instantly? Michael: Instantly and entirely his. He could sell it without her consent and keep the money. Mill quotes the legal principle of the time: "The two are called 'one person in law,' for the purpose of inferring that whatever is hers is his, but the parallel inference is never drawn that whatever is his is hers." Kevin: That is just... staggering. It's a hostile takeover disguised as a wedding. This sounds like something from a dystopian novel, not the foundation of modern society. Michael: It gets worse. She had no legal rights over her own children. The husband was the sole legal guardian. She could only act as his delegated agent. If she left him, she couldn't take her children or a single piece of her own property with her. Mill’s summary is chilling: "the wife is the actual bond servant of her husband: no less so, as far as legal obligation goes, than slaves commonly so called." Kevin: But surely not every husband was a tyrant, right? There must have been loving, respectful relationships. Michael: Of course. And Mill acknowledges that. He says many men don't exercise the full extent of the tyrannical power the law gives them. But his point is profound: the goodness of individual men does not justify a bad law. A system that allows for absolute power is inherently corrupting, even if that power isn't always abused. Kevin: The potential for abuse is the problem itself. Michael: Exactly. And this leads to his most radical claim about the family. He says that because it's founded on this power imbalance, the family is not a school of virtue, but a "school of despotism." It's where a boy learns his first and most lasting lesson in privilege. Kevin: How so? Michael: Mill asks us to "Think what it is to a boy, to grow up to manhood in the belief that without any merit or any exertion of his own... he is by right the superior of all and every one of an entire half of the human race." This, Mill argues, cultivates selfishness, arrogance, and a worship of his own will. It perverts his character. Meanwhile, a girl learns the opposite lesson: that her duty is self-abnegation, that she must live for others, and that her highest calling is to have no life but in her affections for her family. Kevin: So the family unit, instead of creating good citizens, is actually an engine for perpetuating this exact power imbalance. It trains both the master and the servant for their roles. Michael: Precisely. And Mill concludes that "The moral regeneration of mankind will only really commence, when the most fundamental of the social relations is placed under the rule of equal justice." Kevin: Okay, so the system is unjust. It's brutal. It's corrupting. But what's the alternative? What's the practical payoff for changing everything?

Michael: This is where Mill pivots from a critique of injustice to a vision of progress. He makes a powerful utilitarian case for equality. It’s not just about doing the right thing; it’s about doing the smart thing for the advancement of all humanity. Kevin: This is the 'diversity is good for business' argument, but from 150 years ago! Michael: It is, but with much deeper philosophical roots. His first, most straightforward point is about pure talent. If you arbitrarily exclude half the population from contributing to science, government, art, and philosophy, you are operating with half the available brainpower. He argues that freeing women would literally "double the mass of mental faculties available for the higher service of humanity." Kevin: It’s a simple numbers game. You’re doubling your talent pool. Michael: Right. And he directly confronts the common objection of his time: that women are not suited for these roles, that they are intellectually or temperamentally inferior. He points to history. He says, look at the record of queens and female regents. He mentions Queen Elizabeth I, for example. When women have, by accident of birth, been placed in positions of supreme power, have they proven themselves incapable? Kevin: Not at all. Elizabeth I is considered one of England's greatest monarchs. Michael: Mill argues that experience, where it exists, actually contradicts the theory of female incompetence. He says, "What they have done, that at least, if nothing else, it is proved that they can do." He also challenges the biological arguments of his day, like claims about brain size, pointing out they were scientifically flimsy and often contradictory. Kevin: So he's saying, let's open the doors and find out what women can do through fair competition, rather than assuming we already know. Michael: Exactly. Let them try. But his argument goes even deeper than just unlocking talent. He believes equality would fundamentally improve the character of both men and women, and by extension, the quality of marriage itself. Kevin: How would it improve men's character? Michael: By removing the unearned privilege that makes them arrogant and entitled. Living with an equal, he argues, is the primary school of justice. A man would learn true sympathy, respect, and the ability to see another person's perspective, not as a subordinate, but as a partner. It would foster genuine moral development. Kevin: And for women? Michael: For women, it would mean they are no longer educated for a life of dependence and emotional manipulation. They could develop their faculties to their fullest, for their own benefit and for society's. This leads to his final, and perhaps most personal, point about the benefit of equality: the profound improvement of marriage. Kevin: From a master-servant relationship to... what? Michael: To a true partnership. A friendship between equals. He argues that the ideal of married life is a union of thoughts and inclinations. But how can you have that when there's a vast difference in education, experience, and legal standing? When one person is trained to be worldly and the other to be domestic? He believed that only a marriage between two complete, equal individuals could offer the deepest and most rewarding form of human companionship. Kevin: So the ultimate benefit isn't just economic or political. It's personal. It’s about achieving a more profound level of human connection. Michael: That's the ultimate vision. It’s a society where everyone benefits because the fundamental human relationship is no longer a power struggle, but a partnership.

Michael: When you boil it all down, Mill's argument is so powerful because it’s timeless. He's saying that any relationship, any social structure, that is not based on a principle of equality ultimately corrupts everyone involved. It obviously limits the person who is subjugated, but it also fundamentally warps the character of the person who holds the power. Kevin: It's a poison that affects both sides of the equation. And it makes you wonder what 'natural' assumptions we hold today that will look just as absurd and unjust in 150 years. Michael: Exactly. What unquestioned 'common sense' in our own lives, in our workplaces, in our relationships, is holding us back? Mill’s work is a powerful reminder that what feels normal is not always right, and that true progress requires us to question our most deeply held customs. Kevin: That's a heavy question to end on. It's a challenge, really. And it's one we'd love for our listeners to think about. What's a modern 'subjection' that we've just accepted as normal? We'd love to hear your thoughts on this. Join the conversation on our social channels. Michael: This is Aibrary, signing off.