1. Mill and Marx both argue that women are oppressed in modern society. How are their understandings of this oppression similar/different?
Mill’s and Marx’s understanding of female oppression by the society is more different than similar. They both mention the fact that women are under the serfdom men in the society. But apart from this, their approaches on this issue differ.
According to Marx, in the present society, the bourgeois “sees in his wife a mere instrument of production” and that women are exploited by the bourgeoisie as a common resource because they seduce the wives and daughters of not only the proletarians but also of each other (Marx 259 – 260). He says that the bourgeoisie marriage is “a system of wives in common” (Marx 260) …show more content…
Thus, where on one hand for Marx, oppression of women has nothing to do with law, for Mill, on the other, it exists because of “the law of the strongest” (Mill 6) that enforces that women “shall never in all their lives be allowed to compete for certain things” (Mill 20). Not only this, but for Mill, unlike Marx, the oppression of women in society goes a lot further to include enslavement of the female mind and identity through education. Mill says that in society the oppression of women is so severe that submission behavior is taught as an ideal behavior. The idea that women are inferior to men is so deeply rooted that the men “do not want solely their obedience, they want their sentiments” and “desire to have in the woman… not a forced slave, but a willing one” (Mill 15). Moreover, Mill says that women depend entirely on men for all their needs and wants and thus, all these factors, “social and natural, combine to make it unlikely that women should be collectively rebellious to the power of men.” (Mill …show more content…
However, in The Second Treatise, where he mentions the separation of powers, the different powers and their functions are not clearly defined and segregated. He talks of there being a legislative that should make the law and an executive that carries out the laws. However, according to him, the federative that should be responsible for foreign policy can be a part of the executive and the body responsible for making impartial judgements can be a part of the
Mill’s and Marx’s understanding of female oppression by the society is more different than similar. They both mention the fact that women are under the serfdom men in the society. But apart from this, their approaches on this issue differ.
According to Marx, in the present society, the bourgeois “sees in his wife a mere instrument of production” and that women are exploited by the bourgeoisie as a common resource because they seduce the wives and daughters of not only the proletarians but also of each other (Marx 259 – 260). He says that the bourgeoisie marriage is “a system of wives in common” (Marx 260) …show more content…
Thus, where on one hand for Marx, oppression of women has nothing to do with law, for Mill, on the other, it exists because of “the law of the strongest” (Mill 6) that enforces that women “shall never in all their lives be allowed to compete for certain things” (Mill 20). Not only this, but for Mill, unlike Marx, the oppression of women in society goes a lot further to include enslavement of the female mind and identity through education. Mill says that in society the oppression of women is so severe that submission behavior is taught as an ideal behavior. The idea that women are inferior to men is so deeply rooted that the men “do not want solely their obedience, they want their sentiments” and “desire to have in the woman… not a forced slave, but a willing one” (Mill 15). Moreover, Mill says that women depend entirely on men for all their needs and wants and thus, all these factors, “social and natural, combine to make it unlikely that women should be collectively rebellious to the power of men.” (Mill …show more content…
However, in The Second Treatise, where he mentions the separation of powers, the different powers and their functions are not clearly defined and segregated. He talks of there being a legislative that should make the law and an executive that carries out the laws. However, according to him, the federative that should be responsible for foreign policy can be a part of the executive and the body responsible for making impartial judgements can be a part of the