‘The Subjection of Women’: The denouncement of bioessentialism and its relevance today

How can an essay from the 18th century inform online discourse regarding women today? “The Subjection of Woman,” by Harriet Taylor Mill and John Stuart Mill, may hold the answer. 

John Stuart Mill was an English political economist and philosopher who was considered “the most influential English-speaking philosopher of the nineteenth century.” In the development of the ideas in this essay, Mill was greatly influenced by his wife: English philosopher and women’s rights advocate Harriet Taylor Mill, who made a significant contribution to the formation of the essay itself.

“The Subjection of Woman” is a 1891 critical essay that denounces bioessentialism, delegitimizing it as a justification for the patriarchy. Cambridge Dictionary defines bioessentialism as “the belief that people’s most important characteristics are controlled by biology and cannot change, particularly the belief that some groups of people are naturally less good than others because of this.” Especially when considering the resurgence of traditional gender roles in modern discourse, this denouncement of bioessentialism as support for the patriarchy becomes increasingly important. 

In recent social media spheres, phrases like “I’m just a girl” have been used as an excuse for incompetence, “girl dinner” has been used to describe a non-traditional, usually incomplete, meal, and “girl math” as a justification for overconsumption by women. These phrases could be considered as understanding these actions as intrinsic to femininity. These phrases have perpetuated the conception that being a “girl” is an excuse for being incompetent, undereating, and overconsuming. The popularity of these phrases can demonstrate how society continues to adhereto the idea that being a woman necessitates inherent behavioral traits. 

In his 1861 essay, Mill does not adopt the same attitude, instead arguing that women are conditioned into exhibiting traits, like passivity, with respect to what is believed to be appropriate for their gender. Mill explains how “women are brought up from the very earliest years in the belief that their ideal of character is the very opposite to that of men.” Mill observes how this conditioning is a result of the oppositional binaries of men and women, how women are taught to avoid “self-will, and government [sic] by self-control” since masculinity is characterized by these attributes. The opposite of this: “submission, and yielding to the control of others,” is expected of and taught to women instead. The essay addresses the purported idea that it is in a woman’s nature “to live for others; to make complete abnegation of themselves, and to have no life but in their affections.” He elaborates on how the only “affections” that women “are allowed to have” are in relation to “the men with whom they are connected or to the children who constitute an additional and indefeasible tie between them and a man.” In this elaboration, Mill illuminates the idea that children functionally tighten the bond between their parents, thus permitting this bond to further subjugate the mother. Women are socially conditioned into believing that their life is supposed to be in service to another’s, Mill argues, rather than passivity being an inherent, biologically-determined trait in women.

The “tradwife” aesthetic has dominated the online space for a few years, with influencers promoting aspects of the “tradwife” lifestyle, such as preparing homemade meals and cleaning the house for their husband and children. This lifestyle is sometimes perpetuated as an end-all be-all for women, with many arguing that this lifestyle is the only natural outcome for women. This lifestyle had seemed like the only way a woman’s life could be before women gained access to other avenues.​​This access was permitted through the allowed entry into higher education, and a broader spectrum of jobs became available to women. While many women may desire and choose the life of a homemaker, this is not the issue. The issue is the perpetuation that being a homemaker, a “tradwife,” is the only viable, natural outcome for women. With this argument gaining more traction, there have been arguments for women to abandon occupational pursuits or higher education in favor of being a homemaker. 

Mill addresses these arguments: “The general opinion of men is supposed to be that the natural vocation of a woman is that of a wife and mother.” He elaborates on this, explaining that men “think that the alleged natural vocation of women was of all things the most repugnant to their nature insomuch that if they are free to do anything else … there will not be enough of them who will be willing to accept the condition said to be natural to them.” Mill denounces the idea that a woman is naturally inclined to occupy these positions by pointing out how men express concern over women who deviate from a life as a wife and mother. Mill uses this assertion to demonstrate how these men recognize that women are not intrinsically drawn to this lifestyle of being a homemaker and that they, in fact, believe that when women are given an array of options, most will not choose the life of being a homemaker. 

Mill’s argument completely destabilizes the use of bioessentialism as a foundation for the implementation of restrictions against women. He further comments on how “those who attempt to force women into marriage by closing all other doors against them … their opinion must evidently be that men do not render the married condition so desirable to women.” In comparison to recent arguments that have pushed for women to “return” to their domestic roles and fulfill their “natural” desires, Mill’s claim asserts that this enthusiastic advocacy for women as homemakers does not result from the desire to actualize a woman’s inherent desires, but rather reflects the concern of men who believe women will stray away from this lifestyle. 

This fear could emerge from the recognition that the lack of a ”tradwife” – who takes absolute responsibility for the domestic space – suggests that women could instate themselves elsewhere, and that men would be left to handle the labor of the domestic space they had imagined they would be free of. Women instating themselves outside the domestic space also has the implication of not “needing” a man for financial security. With the rising discussions regarding the concern of declining birth rates and women constituting a significant number of college degree holders in comparison to men, men may feel as if they are no longer “necessary” to women. The push for a tradwife lifestyle as natural could palliate these concerns, as women are then put into a position where they become entirely dependent on men again for financial security and in exchange wholly attend to domestic concerns. Recently, this idea could be gaining a broader appeal as numbers of conservative and Republican voters rise in Gen Z men. The pronatalist movement has also been gaining traction as discussions around the declining birth rates become more widespread, resulting in discourse that urges women to abandon their professional pursuits in favor of a return to the domestic sphere where they could remedy these perceived ailments by giving birth to and raising children. However, this approach completely abandons an intersectional approach towards reproductive issues, exacerbating current systemic issues surrounding reproduction.

Although this essay was written more than a century ago, the arguments within it remain relevant today. The arguments the Mills make against the idea that gender determines particular qualities are still relevant as the media landscape continues to perpetuate these ideas through social media trends and discourse.