Talk:The Subjection of Women

two articles

Two articles on the same essay. I believe Subjection of women is a more in-depth analysis of the essay than The Subjection of Women but I haven't read the essay in question, so I can't be totally sure. The Subjection of Women is the correct title of the essay, so the merged article should be under that. Kerowyn 01:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge and rename request (Move)

While I agree a merge is more appropriate than a simple redirect, there is very little content in the The Subjection of Women' that isn't also in Subjection of women. To merge the articles but cutting and pasting the whole of the more in-depth Subjection of women into The Subjection of Women would destroy the edit history of both articles. I posted the article to Wikipedia:Requested moves for comment and advice. My intent is to create an article named The Subjection of Women that would contain the merged content of both articles while preserving the edit histories. A redirect would be left at Subjection of women. Please leave your comments below or in Talk:Subjection of women. Thatcher131 02:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

having read the essay for my philosophy class at Columbia university, I can say that the shorter version (with "the") does not contain anything of importance not included in the longer version (without "the"). it could easily be deleted, but that's just my 2 cents Dpb2104 06:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not have an opinion about the edit-history-preservation issue, but I do agree with both of you about the content. In fact, I think that it is very important that the longer and more in-depth article ("Subjection of Women") essentially become the only article, under the correct name ("The Subjection of Women"). The short article ("The Subjection...") not only has very little content, but is also quite misleading in its summary of the four chapters. Anyone who has studied the book, as I have, or who has even read the more in-depth article ("Subjection...") would be very surprised to read the completely inaccurate summary of Chapter One in the short article ("The Subjection..."). JRtx 02:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms

This section does not cite any sources. I'm sure that if it's criticized, it is so in print. Any references to these criticisms, or is this original research? Llamabr 16:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This prose is extremely subjective. Further contributions definitely need more thorough research into the text, more objective analysis, and greater historical perspective. Marissatrunf (talk) 07:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)MarissaTrunfio

authorship

The authorship section needs more work, although not necessarily more length. I rewrote the authorship sentence, which was something like: "JSM claims that his wife cowrote the essay" to "JSM credited his wife with coauthorship", and added the line that she is rarely credited. However, we need a cite for the statement that he credited Harriet, and if there are any published discussions about authorship (I'm sure there are), then we should cite to that discussion and flesh it out. I deleted the sentence that said "Some people focus more on this than others", since it's basically meaningless. --lquilter 14:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Quotation

""I deny that any one knows or can know, the nature of the two sexes, as long as they have only been seen in their present relation to one another. Until conditions of equality exist, no one can possibly assess the natural differences between women and men, distorted as they have been. What is natural to the two sexes can only be found out by allowing both to develop and use their faculties freely"

Where is this quote from? I own a hardcopy of the subjection and looked over the internet and I cannot find tis quotation. The first part is there, but the second I cannot locate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.68.224 (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Vagueness and possible bias

All wiki pages on gender topics are subject to appalling bias, which detracts from whatever scholarly value wikipedia has. Lets look at this sentence "In this, men are basically contradicting themselves because they say women cannot do an activity and want to stop them from doing it" Firstly, this is unnecessary paraphrase. Secondly, I suspect Mill was talking about people - not necessarily men - but his concern is more with the argument: "if women really can't do something, why forbid them"

It's also worth pointing out that he goes on to say "What they can do, but not so well as the men who are their competitors, competition suffices to exclude them from; since nobody asks for protective duties and bounties in favour of women" This is no longer the case. Protective duties and bounties in favour of women are precisely what are being asked for

By the way, is JS Mill incorrectly quoted here? Did he not say "interfere in behalf of nature" not "intervene on behalf"?86.173.143.177 (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality

The article, particularly in the sections § Arguments and § Conclusions, presents Mill's opinions as fact. As a result, the article doesn't follow the Wikipedia policy of presenting a neutral point of view. Whilst I realise that it can make tedious reading to preface every opinion with phrases such as "Mill argues that …", a skilful writer can vary the phrasing so that the meaning is both clear and accurate, without making boring reading. And surely we have at least one skilful editor with a little time on their hands? yoyo (talk) 02:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, Mill's opinions are essentially "sexism is bad" and "women and men are equally intelligent" and both of those are definitely facts. casualdejekyll 19:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)