554 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



I will not follow Mr. Mill through the whole of his argument, much 

 of which consists of matter not relevant to my present purpose, and 

 not agreeable to discuss, though many of his assertions provoke reply. 

 There is something I hardly know what to call it, indecent is too 

 strong a word, but I may say unpleasant in the direction of indecorum 

 in prolonged and minute discussions about the relations between 

 men and women, and the characteristics of women as such. I will 

 therefore pass over wdiat Mr. Mill says on this subject with a mere 

 general expression of dissent from nearly every word he says. The 

 following extracts show the nature of that part of his theory which 

 bears on the question of equality: 



" The equality of married persons before the law ... is the only means of ren- 

 dering the daily life of mankind in any high sense a school of moral cultivation. 

 Though the truth may not be felt or generally acknowledged for generations to 

 come, the only school of genuine moral sentiment is society between equals. 

 The moral education of mankind has hitherto emanated chiefly from the law of 

 force, and is adapted almost solely to the relations which force creates. In the 

 less advanced states of society, people hardly recognize any relation with their 

 equals. To be an equal is to be an enemy. Society, from its highest place to 

 its lowest, is one long chain, or rather ladder, where every individual is either 

 above or below his nearest neighbor, and wherever he does not command he 

 must obey. Existing moralities, accordingly, are mainly fitted to a relation of 

 command and obedience. Yet command and obedience are but unfortunate 

 necessities of human life ; society in equality is its normal state. Already in 

 modern life, and more and more as it progressively improves, command and 

 obedience become exceptional facts in life, equal association its general rule. 

 . . . "We have had the morality of submission and the morality of chivalry and 

 generosity; the time is now come for the morality of justice." 



In 'another part of the book this doctrine is stated more fully in a 

 passage of which it will be enough for my purpose to quote a very few 

 lines : 



"There are many persons for whom it is not enough that the inequality" (be- 

 tween the sexes) "has no just or legitimate defence; they require to be told what 

 express advantage would be obtained by abolishing it. To which let me first 

 answer, the advantage of having all the most universal and pervading of all 

 human relations regulated by justice instead of injustice. The vast amount of 

 this gain to human nature it is hardly possible by any explanation or illustration 

 to place in a stronger light than it is placed in by the bare statement to any one 

 who attaches a moral meaning to words." . 



These passages show what Mr. Mill's doctrine of equality is, and 

 how it forms the very root, the essence, so to speak, of his theory about 

 the subjection of women. I consider it unsound in every respect. I 

 think that it rests upon an unsound view of history, an unsound view 

 of morals, and a grotesquely distorted view of facts, and I believe that 

 its practical application would be as injurious as its theory is false. 



The theory may be shortly restated in the following propositions, 



