History

Equal legal rights and legislation has been a struggle commanded not only by women but also by straight thinking men who saw the oppression of women as a matter of great concern. John Stuart Mill and Emmeline Pankhursts are some of the early advocates of the rights of women. Together these reformers have gained more in struggle. Both Mill and Pankhurst developed their idea on equality from earlier experience. The latter in early childhood while the former in his marriage and relationship with father. Mill observed that the inequality between men and women was a historic object of the past, but has no place in the modern world (Mill, 2004). Similarly, Pankhurst sees the calling of being a reformist not being genetically acquired or trained in educational systems. It is more of impressions in formative years that determine the character and future conduct (Pankhurst, 1971). This is reason enough to perceive human beings as individuals and not under the veil of gender stereotypes.

Similarities between Mill and Pankhurst
Whereas Mills fight-for-equal-rights life was provoked by his relationship with his wife before death, Pankhursts ideologies and beliefs were developed from the scenarios he was either witnessing or hearing from her immediate surrounding. Mills strong views against gender inequality led to serious disagreements with his father. On the other hand Pankhurst father is caught saying that he wished her daughter (Pankhurst) was born a lad (Pankhurst, 1971). Even so, they both had the belief that equal legal rights for both sexes had an immediate greater good of fortification of the public and the development of individuals.

Success in their respective careers provided a platform high enough to pass their sentiments to many a people. Whereas Mill was a British philosopher and economist who rose to a higher level of administration, Emmeline Pankhurst was a political activist who led movements to ensure that interests of the female are equally represented in the constitution (Pankhurst, 1971). Nevertheless after retiring from his career, Mill joined politics and was elected to the House of Commons. He participated in amendments and support of many reform bills which backed the women rights for suffrage. Even though the bills often failed, the need for equal representation in the society was felt.
Consistency in principles is a trait that was evident in both mill and Pankhurst. Mills contest for a re-election in the House of Commons was a failure since he was not ready to compromise his principles. The aims of his electors were in contradiction to the principles he had developed since childhood. Similarly, several instances of arrest and oppression of Pankhurst did not stop her from fighting for the right of suffrage for women. Even as his father tended to favor a boy child as opposed to a girl, Pankhurst never regretted her sex (Pankhurst, 1971).

Differences in Approach
Pankhurst approach was offensive and confrontational. She argued that since the government concern was only property then she would organize movements to destroy private property (Pankhurst, 1971). This move received immediate response from both the media and the government. On the contrary Mills approach was that of a theorist. He passed most of his sentiments through intellectual writing. He believed that changing from old habits to new ones is a gradual process and needs time. Mills work cannot be underestimated because his ideologies later came to influence and psyche the various political activists, who, pushed for reforms until they were realized.

As much as Mill believed in equality between men and women he still had some biases. For instance in his argument about women liberation he assumes that women generally will choose domestic role if freed (Mill, 2004). In his view Mill must have still harbored the notion that men are superior to women. This contrasts with the life of Pankhurst who despite having a big family of five children she still had the heart and gut to involve in political activities. According to Pankhurst women are not inferior to men. They can undertake similar roles and interchange without deficiency.

The method used by Pankhurst was more urgent and desperate. She wanted to see change immediately as some of the reform bills had failed to yield results (Pankhurst, 1971). Her concern was about the most pressing needs in the society which were women suffrage and the education of the girl child. On the other hand Mill was having a wider approach of the same. He was concerned with domestic issues, but was not blind to what was happening in other countries. According to Mill the equality between men and women was essential for human progress (Mill, 2004). It was no different from slavery. His view was general and had a universal appeal.

Conclusion
The method and style of both Pankhurst and Mill were effective in the context in which they were applied. The reform bills for instance supported by Mill failed to award votes to women. On the other hand a more forceful and radical means adopted by Pankhurst yielded the much needed results. The radical approach too led to formation of leagues which still fight for woman rights all over the world. However, with advancement in democracy and civilization in most countries, Pankhurst method of destroying private property appears barbaric. The advocates of women rights have lawful means to achieve this end. It is indeed true that the root cause of inequality is self interest. Mills observation that both men and women ought to guard against self interest when in position of power is ideal. This idea is favored since it leads to improvement in morality among humankind.