Harriet Taylor Mill’s Perspectives on Women’s Participation in the Workforce

“The better half of (all my work) is yours.”
— John Stuart Mill

Harriet Taylor Mill’s second husband, John Stuart Mill, always credited his wife’s ‘unrivaled wisdom’ of philosophy and institutional arguments, which proved the presence of strong ideological frameworks through which she developed her perspectives on women’s suffrage. A valuable contributor to the early feminist struggle in the mid-1800s, she wrote against the naturalistic and stereotypical justifications given for the subordination of women. In The Enfranchisement of Women (1851), Taylor Mill debated republican ideas about freedom and the political, economic, and social participation of women in the social order. She asked questions about: firstly, the internalization of the so-called ‘custom’; secondly, why women have limited career options; thirdly, why a woman should contribute materially to her family; and lastly, on what grounds women are barred from participating in the labor force. As a result, she proved to be a progressive thinker whose observations would be recognized decades later.

Sigmund Freud’s dictum, “Anatomy is destiny,” has been seen as the ultimate truth when it comes to a woman’s social role. According to this view, a woman’s labor is centered around reproduction, with society providing them different rights and obligations, expecting different behavioral patterns. The physical difference between the sexes leads to the formation of physical, social, and traditional ‘customs’. Negating these arguments, Taylor Mill argued that fulfilling the moral duty of improving the lives of oppressed women required them to gain power through the franchise.

Harriet Taylor Mill wrote a series of articles in the Westminster Review, an organ of Theosophical radicals, and challenged radical thinkers like Anne Knight, who argued that the Maternity Argument was necessary for women’s political participation. Taylor Mill refuted this by introducing the idea of the detrimental ‘proper sphere,’ which she said was unattainable without the complete liberty of choice. Her argument was that women would never voluntarily choose to devote their lives to one ‘animal function’ (reproduction), as society expected.

Unlike her husband, her writings focused on tolerance and conformity to promote radical independence of thought. Her main argument was that women could only understand and fulfill their potential if they were provided with civil and professional employment opportunities. This could be achieved through useful education that promoted the growth of their thoughts and conscience. This view of Taylor’s has also been substantiated by Penelope Deutscher in her essay, “When Feminism Is ‘High’ and Ignorance Is ‘Low’: Harriet Taylor Mill on the Progress of the Species.” Deutscher pointed out that John Stuart Mill, in his work The Subjugation of Women, was slightly different from his wife. While he propagated for women’s equality, he preferred to place women within the domestic sphere. However, following this perception would subdue their ability to contribute as resourceful members of society.

Taylor Mill further bolstered her argument by demonstrating that women had proven their ability to excel in the highest of social functions throughout history. From being just and vigorous administrators and advisors to kings to diplomats, governors of provinces, and regents, women had shown their efficiency and importance. She skillfully dealt with opposing arguments in a straightforward manner, successfully showing their baselessness, as they were easily refuted by common sense.

Equality in labor for both sexes would not only be beneficial for society but would also improve work efficiency and outcomes. If a woman contributed materially to her family alongside her husband, their total income would exceed his previous earnings. Therefore, it is not practical to shield women from the ‘bad influences’ of the world, as the only harmful influence was the institution that validated this thinking. Taylor Mill argued that the underlying motive for this inequality was that men, in their desire for survival, wanted women’s labor to remain subordinated to them. This power dynamic deepened the divide between the sexes, similar to what Mary Wollstonecraft had pointed out regarding the relationship between men and women, which resembled that of a king and his soldier, or in other words, slavery.

If women were educated equally in science, art, poetry, and politics, they could engage in progressive conversations with their husbands—perhaps even to their liking. In this equality, no one would degrade the other. Taylor Mill stressed the immediate need for women’s participation in the workforce to avoid the internalization of notions of destiny and custom, as seen in the Asiatic region, where women were content with their prescribed roles.

Taylor Mill believed that women would be successful contributors to society if they had secondary domestic help to enable them to focus on their advancement and establishment outside the house. However, this claim was criticized because her upper-class background allowed her to afford domestic help, which lower-class women could not. Sara Horrell and Jane Humphries, in their essay “Women’s Labour Force Participation and the Transition to the Male-Breadwinner Family,” argued that women’s participation in the workforce was related to conventional economic and demographic variables, and was further affected by institutional and ideological obstacles against working women.

In The Complete Works of Harriet Taylor Mill, edited by Jo Ellen Jacobs, her unpublished essays on ethics, social philosophy, and the defense of women’s rights shed light on her radical philosophical stance. All these perspectives and logical arguments established Harriet Taylor Mill as a pioneering philosopher who fought for the success of literary and independent women who should not depend on husbands, fathers, brothers, or sons. The question of the enfranchisement of women was central to her belief that women should live with equal pride while contributing to the progress of their community, just as their male counterparts did.

Bibliography

• Deutscher, Penelope. “When Feminism Is ‘High’ and Ignorance Is ‘Low’: Harriet Taylor Mill on the Progress of the Species.” Hypatia, vol. 21, no. 3, 2006, pp. 136–50. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3810955.
• Ferguson, Susan. “The Radical Ideas of Mary Wollstonecraft.” Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue Canadienne de Science Politique, vol. 32, no. 3, 1999, pp. 427–50. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3232731.
• Himmelfarb, Gertrude. The American Historical Review, vol. 77, no. 3, 1972, pp. 736–37. Chicago University Press. 1970.
• Horrell, Sara, and Jane Humphries. “Women’s Labour Force Participation and the Transition to the Male-Breadwinner Family, 1790-1865.” The Economic History Review, vol. 48, no. 1, 1995, pp. 89–117.
• Hampton, L. (2022) Harriet Taylor Mill. In R.Y. Chappell, D. Meissner, and W. MacAskill (eds.), An Introduction to Utilitarianism. https://www.utilitarianism.net/utilitarian-thinker/harriet-taylor-mill
• The Complete Works of Harriet Taylor Mill, Jo Ellen Jacobs (ed.), Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998.