ABSTRACT
Spencer’s feminist politics belong to his biography, not to his political theory. His thinking about women displayed neither consistency nor the detailed empirical basis that accompanied his other political discourse. In discussions about the other sex he was likely to vacillate and, paradoxically, issue extreme and biologically reductionist explanations of behaviour. is was in contrast to his usual nuanced prescriptions about the needs of liberal society. When warning of the dangers of aristocratic status and manners, or groaning with despair over the stupidity of electoral politics, or reiterating the idea that war was unnecessary and primitive, Spencer avoided contradiction and backsliding. Many of his political arguments were carefully articulated and closely supported with data. Further, they did not alter over the decades. When contemplating political inequities in his deliberate and passionless manner Spencer was seldom exhausted or fl urried; instead he was proudly confi dent that he was more advanced than his contemporaries. When, however, he thought of feminist politics he became irritable and inconstant. His only consideration seems to have been the need to keep in harmony with conventional liberal beliefs: he did not concern himself with whether his utterances on women had implications for his own philosophy. On the subject of women he simply drifted from one position to another, motivated by dimly remembered personal fears and longings. He was aware of his lack of ability to deal with women personally, and this left him ill prepared to engage in political discussions about their future. is was awkward because, at the beginning of his writing career, he had accidentally taken an extremely progressive stance in the debate over women’s suff rage.
