THE SUBJECTION
OF
WOMEN
LONDON
LONGMANS, GREEN, READER, AND DYER
1869
LONDON:
SAVILL, EDWARDS AND CO., PRINTERS, CHANDOS STREET,
COVENT GARDEN.
[Pg 1]
CHAPTER I.
The object of this Essay is to explain asclearly as I am able, the grounds of anopinion which I have held from the very earliestperiod when I had formed any opinions at all onsocial or political matters, and which, instead ofbeing weakened or modified, has been constantlygrowing stronger by the progress of reflectionand the experience of life: That the principlewhich regulates the existing social relationsbetween the two sexes—the legal subordination ofone sex to the other—is wrong in itself, and nowone of the chief hindrances to human improvement;and that it ought to be replaced by aprinciple of perfect equality, admitting no poweror privilege on the one side, nor disability on theother.
The very words necessary to express the taskI have undertaken, show how arduous it is.But it would be a mistake to suppose that thedifficulty of the case must lie in the insufficiencyor obscurity of the grounds of reason on which [Pg 2]my conviction rests. The difficulty is that whichexists in all cases in which there is a mass offeeling to be contended against. So long asan opinion is strongly rooted in the feelings,it gains rather than loses in stability by havinga preponderating weight of argument againstit. For if it were accepted as a result ofargument, the refutation of the argument mightshake the solidity of the conviction; but when itrests solely on feeling, the worse it fares in argumentativecontest, the more persuaded its adherentsare that their feeling must have some deeperground, which the arguments do not reach;and while the feeling remains, it is always throwingup fresh intrenchments of argument to repairany breach made in the old. And there are somany causes tending to make the feelings connectedwith this subject the most intense andmost deeply-rooted of all those which gatherround and protect old institutions and customs,that we need not wonder to find them as yet lessundermined and loosened than any of the restby the progress of the great modern spiritual andsocial transition; nor suppose that the barbarismsto which men cling longest must be less barbarismsthan those which they earlier shake off.
In every respect the burthen is hard on thosewho attack an almost universal opinion. Theymust be very fortunate as well as unusually [Pg 3]capable if they obtain a hearing at all. Theyhave more difficulty in obtaining a trial, thanany other litigants have in getting a verdict. Ifthey do extort a hearing, they are subjected to aset of logical requirements totally different fromthose exacted from other people. In all othercases, the burthen of proof is supposed to lie withthe affirmative. If a person is charged with amurder, it rests with those who accuse him togive proof of his guilt, not with himself to provehis innocence. If there is a difference of opinionabout the reality of any alleged historical event,in which the feelings of men in general are notmuch interested, as the Siege of Troy forexample, those who maintain that the event tookplace are expected to produce their proofs, beforethose who take the other side can be required tosay anything; and at no time are these requiredto do more than show that the evidenceproduced by the others is of no value. Again, inpractical matters, the burthen of proof is supposedto be with those who are agains