1. ‘The Goal of feminism is self fulfilment for woman.’ Discuss with reference to
Wollstonecraft and Mill.
Anurag Gangal
Professor and Head
Department of Political Science
University of Jammu, Jammu
Jammu and Kashmir, India
John Stuart Mill’s subjection of woman written in 1869 and Mary
Wollstonecraft’s a Vindication of Rights of Woman: with Strictures on Political and
Moral Subjects written in 1972 constitute the first wave of liberal feminism starting
obviously with the publication of Wollstonecraft’s book. Despite such exponential
works by Wollstonecraft and Mill for the rights and equality of woman, Mill was
writing more from the view point of Chivalrous masculine perception while
Wollstonecraft, despite calling for equality between the sexes in particular areas of life
such a morality etc., does not explicitly state that men and woman are equal. That is
why, specially the second and third wave of feminist are generally critical about the
general approach and deeper meanings of the fight for woman’s right and equality by
Mill and Wollstonecraft.
Main points of Wollstonecraft liberal feminism in her above mentioned
magnum opus include that woman cannot be forced to be “domestic” ; woman must be
allowed education ; men and woman must keep away from extra marital affairs ; there
must be equitable laws for both husband and wife for choosing their own partners for
marriage instead of being dictated by family and politics; woman must not be treated as
subordinate beings; woman must acquire reason and intellect through education and a
strong physical bodies through exercise.
As regards John Stuart Mill’s subjection of woman and his other writings
concerning utilitarian, he is regarded as an enormously influential theorist of modern
liberalism. He advocated woman’s suffrage, controlled equality of woman and equal
rights to woman not only at home but also in public spheres. His essay the subjection of
woman is widely read and respected as a great classic on liberal feminism. Mill is
therefore, respected for political courage and singularity of purpose empowering
woman at a time when all females were regarded subordinate vis-a-vis men in society in

2. quality. Jennifer Ring, a modern feminist academic, Mill’s subjection of woman has
ultimately disappointing work for modern feminist. Mill’s work for second and third
wave feminists is full of contradictions and uncalled for Masculine Chivalry. The
second and third wave of feminist object to Mill’s esoteric statement on common nature
of woman duly endorsed by his second wife Harriet Taylor in the following words:
When two persons have their thoughts and speculations completely in
common; when all subjects of intellectual or moral interest are discussed
between them in daily life, and probed to much greater depths than are usually
or conveniently sounded in writings intended for general readers; when they set
out from the same principles, and arrive at their conclusions by processes
pursued jointly, it is of little consequence in respect to the question of
originality, which of them holds the pen; the one who contributes least to the
composition may contribute most to the thought; the writings which result are
the joint product of both, and it must often be impossible to disentangle their
respective parts, and affirm that this belongs to one and that to the other (Mill,
1981:251).1
Shanley points out another critical observation on Wollstonecraft’s and Mill’s
solution for ending subjection of woman. Their suggestion was not so much on equal
opportunity to woman but on spousal equal friendship.2
Despite varied criticism of utilitarian liberal feminism of John Stuart
Mill and his wife Harriet Taylor, all writings of Mill especially in the later period of his
life are generally considered to have been thought about and written jointly with Harriet
Taylor although official author mostly is John Stuart himself. In this context one noted
author has an interesting statement to make;
The extraordinary relationship between Mill and Taylor shaped not only
their personal lives, but also the priorities of their thoughts and writings. They
met in 1830, when Harriet was married to John Taylor. Her intimate friendship
with Mill was a source of much criticism; the restrictiveness of Victorian
morality made their relationship suspect. Their disgust at the ostracism they
faced due to their close relationship may be recognized in the criticism of
cultural conformity in On Liberty. In the Subjection of Woman, Mill discusses
the situation of an intelligent woman confined by patriarchal institutions and
customs that deny her individuality (see also Eisenstein, 1981): 114). Through
his relationship with Taylor, Mill reached the strong conviction that women’s
1
Mill, J.S., autobiography, in the collected works of John Stuart Mill, Volume-1, autobiography and
literary essays (Ed.), John M. Robson and Jack Stillinger, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1981,
p.251.
2
Szapuova, Mariana, “Mill’s liberal feminism; its legacy and current criticism”, prolegomena, 5 (2), 2006,
pp.190-191.

3. suffrage was an essential step towards the moral improvement of humankind,
and that the relationship between husband and wife had to be grounded in legal
as well as real equality – that “marital slavery” should be replaced by “marital
friendship”. In 1851, two years after John Taylor’s death, Mill and Harriet
Taylor were married, subsequently working together on Mill’s Autobiography
and On Liberty. Harriet died only seven years after their marriage, and The
Subjection of Women was published after her death.3
As against prevailing criticism of liberal feminism of Wollstonecraft and Mill,
Wendy Donner defends the traditional feminist moral and rational basis of human
nature conceptions of value and self fulfilment. Although liberal feminist theories are
subject to intense discussion and criticism among modern feminists scholars,
Wollstonecraft and Mill’s conception of self fulfilment individualism, self development
are quiet radically egalitarian even in the modern context of these terms. The liberal
feminist conception value of humans involves essential self development and self
fulfilment.4
As regards Wollstonecraft’s feminism, the words feminist and feminism were
not coined until 1890s. Moreover, there was no feminist movement at that time. In this
context, in the introduction to her seminal work on Wollstonecraft, Barbara Taylor says;
Describing (Wollstonecraft’s philosophy) as feminist is problematic, and
I do it only after much consideration. The label is of course anachronistic.....
Treating Wollstonecraft’s thought as an anticipation of nineteenth and twentieth-
century feminist argument has meant sacrificing or distorting some of its key
elements. Leading examples of this... have been the widespread neglect of her
religious beliefs, and the misrepresentation of her as a bourgeois liberal, which
together have resulted in the displacement of a religiously inspired utopian
radicalism by a secular, class-partisan reformism as alien to Wollstonecraft’s
political project as her dream of a divinely promised age of universal happiness
is to our own. Even more important however has been the imposition on
Wollstonecraft of a heroic-individualist brand of politics utterly at odds with her
own ethically driven case for women’s emancipation. Wollstonecraft’s leading
ambition for women was that they should attain virtue, and it was to this end that
she sought their liberation.5
Wollstonecraft’s style of writing and approach for securing rights of woman was
based more on her approach to making request to the community of men for granting
3
Ibid, pp. 181-182.
4
Donner Wendy, “John Stuart Mill’s liberal feminism”, philosophical studies, 69, 1993,pp.155-166, See
especially p.155. See also http://jstor.org/pss/4320378
5
Taylor, Barbara, Marry Wollstonecraft and the feminist imagination, Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press, 2003, pp. 12, 55-57.

4. relatively more equal status to woman. As such, Wollstonecraft calls on men rather than
woman to initiate the social and political changes she outlines in her works and
writings. It appears that she believes that men must come to the aid of woman because
woman were uneducated at the time and therefore, could not help change their own
sufferings and bad situation.
I then would fain convince reasonable men of the importance of some of
my remarks; and prevail on them to weigh dispassionately the whole tenor of
my observations. – I appeal to their understandings; and, as a fellow-creature,
claim, in the name of my sex, some interest in their hearts. I entreat them to
assist to emancipate their companion, to make her a help meet for them! Would
men but generously snap our chains, and be content with rational fellowship
instead of slavish obedience, they would find us more observant daughters, more
affectionate sisters, more faithful wives, more reasonable mothers – in a word,
better citizens.6
Modern day feminists are also highly critical of Wollstonecraft’s views on the
question of Biological needs and sexual feelings of woman. Wollstonecraft is of the
view that women should not be constrained by or made slaves to their bodies or their
sexual feelings. Modern feminists do not agree with Wollstonecraft and suggest that she
intentionally avoids granting woman any sexual desire. A modern feminist writer Cora
Caplan says that this is negative and prescriptive assault on feminist sexuality and
violation of woman’s right. 7
Wollstonecraft’s argument for relative equality in favour of woman is
still a stand in contrast to her inherent respect for the superiority of Masculine Chivalry
and strength. That is why Wollstonecraft says;
Let it not be concluded, that I wish to invert the order of thing; I have
already granted, that, from the constitution of their bodies, men seem to be
designed by Providence to attain a greater degree of virtue. I speak collectively
of the whole sex; but I see not the shadow of a reason to conclude that their
virtues should differ in respect to their nature. In fact, how can they, if virtue has
only one eternal standard? I must therefore, if reason consequentially, as
strenuously maintain that they have the same simple direction, as that there is a
God.8
6
Wollstonecraft, Marry, the vindications; the rights of men and the rights of woman, Eds. D.
Mackdonald and Kathleen, Scherf, Toronto, Broadview literary text, 1997, p.88
7
Wollstonecraft, ibid, pp. 259-260. See also Cora Caplan, “wild nights; pleasure/ sexuality /feminism”,
Sea changes; Essays on culture and feminism, London, Verso, 1986, pp.35.
8
Wollstonecraft, ibid, pp 110.

5. Mill’s and Wollstonecraft both are first and foremost exponents of the rights of
woman and the so called liberal feminism in their own and different ways. Despite their
limitations, they must be regarded as initiators of a revolution for the cause of ending
sufferings and subjection of woman in an age when such attempts were regarded as a
social and political taboo.
Mill mostly writes from the standpoint of a man fighting to provide protection to
subjugated and subservient woman folk. This type of attitude cannot be regarded as a
major fault in the writings of Mill because he was writing in an era when fighting for
the rights and equality of woman was not in conformity with the prevailing social
norms. Therefore, Mill in his subjection of woman writes in a tenure in which a man is
extending with his strong arms for protecting woman from the social onslaughts of
diversified atrocities.
Such patronising attitude of John Stuart towards woman in his writing ultimately
becomes highly disappointing to any modern feminist woman in the view of such
second and third wave of feminist writers and activists, Mill’s writing contains glaring
contradictions. The inherent superiority of the Masculine gender attitudes in the writing
of Mill becomes highly questionable for modern feminists. These are indeed highly
objectionable inconsistencies as well as examples of shallowness of Mill’s political
convictions.
As against the aforesaid attitude of Mill and Wollstonecraft, modern feminists
belonging to the second and third wave of feminism are not ready to compromise
regarding any aspect of rights of woman, equality, identity and uniqueness of the
position and freedom of woman. Modern feminists do not want that it is the men folk
who should grant rights freedom equality identity and uniqueness to them. What they
want is every aspect of a human life which is contained in fuller self development of
modern feminism. Hence there is a wide gap between liberal feminism of Mill’s and
Wollstonecraft and the third wave of feminism.