Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:59:42.531Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why Patronize Feminists? A Reply to Stove on Mill

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2009

Bob Brecher
Bob Brecher
Affiliation:
University of Brighton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Discussion
Information
Philosophy , Volume 68 , Issue 265 , July 1993 , pp. 397 - 400
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 ‘The Subjection of John Stuart Mill’, Philosophy 68, 1993, pp. 5–13Google Scholar. All references in the text are to this article.

2 (London: Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer, 1874).

3 Gyn/Ecology (London: The Women's Press, 1979)Google Scholar; Pure Lust (London: The Women's Press, 1984).Google Scholar

4 For The Record: The Making and Meaning of Feminist Knowledge (London: The Women's Press, 1985).Google Scholar

5 The Dialectic of Sex (London: The Women's Press, 1979, n.e.).Google Scholar

6 The Mermaid and the Minotaur: Sexual Arrangements and Human Malaise (New York: Colophon, 1977), 21–22Google Scholar. Jaggar, Alison, Feminist Politics and Human Nature (Brighton: Harvester Press, 1983)Google Scholar, Segal, Lynne, Is the Future Female? (London: Virago, 1987)Google Scholar (esp. ch. 1) and Coward, Ros, The Whole Truth (London: Faber and Faber, 1989)Google Scholar (esp. ch. 6) all argue that questions of naturalness are incoherent. Plumwood, Val, ‘Women, Humanity and Nature’, in Socialism, Feminism and Philosophy, Sayers, S. and Osborne, P. (eds), (Routledge: London, 1990), pp. 211–234Google Scholar, is a useful source for debate on this. Greer, Germaine, by contrast, seems in Sex and Destiny (New York: Harper & Row, 1984)Google Scholar to come very close to arguing that it is natural: Griffin, Susan, Women and Nature: the Roaring Inside Her (London: The Women's Press, 1984)Google Scholar is perhaps the standard explicit statement of this position.

7 Warnock, Mary's introduction to the Fontana (London, 1962)Google Scholar edition of Utilitarianism is the standard source for an unorthodox—but no less plausible for that—view of what Mill thought the relation was between ‘desired’ and ‘desirable’ (25–27).