Although Mill's On Liberty and Plato's Republic both advocate the abolition of gender roles, their respective justifications and resulting ideologies differ in salient ways. The beginning of these differences stems from the fundamental moral premises from which these ideologies derive; justice is of paramount importance, but Plato argues that roles are equal only to the extent that they are equal while Mill argues that they are equal only to the extent that they are chosen. While Plato fails to recognize males and females as fundamentally equal, Mill's ethics of choice not only establishes this fundamental equality, but also provides a context in which the elimination of gender roles contains the potential for progress. Granted that Mill's argument lacks the formalism that consistently establishes equal roles, it is more convincing in its practicality and sensitivity to real human conditions as well as respect for individuals and society. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get Original Essay Plato advocates the elimination of gender roles to the extent that it is consistent with equality and social conformity; only after individual differences have been eradicated can members of a society uniformly fight for the common good. Plato's argument for equal social roles is therefore placed in the ultimate context of a perfectly just society. Males and females are relegated to similar positions only as means to this perfect society, rather than as ends in themselves. Therefore, while recognizing the need for equal social roles for the purpose of justice, Plato hypocritically denies the fundamental equality between men and women; while observing that "natures are equally scattered between the two animals; and woman participates according to nature in all practices, and man in all", (Plato 294) adds, "... in all of them woman is weaker of man" (Plato 294). This double standard is the very basis of gender roles. By failing to address the cause of gender roles, Plato's solution cannot truly eliminate inequality between the sexes. In contrast, Mill rejects the assumption that men and women are intrinsically unequal. He argues that “what is now called the nature of women is an eminently artificial thing – the result of forced repression in some directions, of unnatural stimulation in others” (Mill 138). The use of force contradicts freedom, and women's freedom, from gender and other roles, is essential not only in order to "have the most universal and pervasive of all human relationships governed by justice rather than injustice" (Mill 196). but also for the purposes of greater utility, progress and well-being of individuals and society. In its direct opposition to these ends, "the principle which regulates the social relations existing between the two sexes... is wrong in itself, and now one of the chief obstacles to human improvement" (Mill 119). Mill perceives society as an entity constantly in a state of flux; in short, “any society that does not improve deteriorates” (Mill 210). In this context, the abolition of gender roles is a means for both individual and social improvement. Unequal gender roles subjugate women in ways that confine them to a domestic sphere and limit their participation in other areas of life. To these areas of life women therefore cannot contribute equally – they can neither enrich themselves nor others in what they do not have access to – and “the loss of the world, by refusing to use half the full amount of talent it owns." possesses, it is extremely serious” (Mill 199).This “loss” refers not only to that of utility, but also to that of ideas and potential truths. Mill suggests that women, freed from gender roles, have a potential contribution not only as individuals, but also as individual women, because women might perceive partial truths of which men are aware.unaware. At this point, it could be argued that freedom of choice, as it generates conflicting differences, is an obstacle rather than an aid to social improvement. After all, Plato advocates the abolition of gender roles precisely for the purpose of eliminating individual differences. As he asks, “Have we any greater evil to a city than that which divides it and makes it many instead of one?” (Plato 141). Indulgence towards individual inclinations and preferences, as Plato would say, is at odds with advancing the general good of society. However, even if it must be admitted that free choice erodes uniformity, this erosion is not only beneficial but necessary; “All the strength and value, therefore, of human judgment, depends on the one property, that it can be made right when it is wrong, [is that] it can only be relied upon when the means of putting it right are retained” constantly at hand" (Mill 23). Only within a society in which roles are freely chosen is there an environment conducive to individuals challenging, evaluating, and changing standards of right and wrong. In Plato's conception of a ideal society, the liberation of women from gender roles plays a minor role. Plato imagines a society that is structurally perfect and therefore, at best, static. Not only is this assumption unrealistic, but it is also contrary to the idea of ​​structural progress. In this context, the abolition of gender roles may simply improve the utility of society and not its infrastructure, which is based, completely and strictly, on the ideal of perfect justice. Complete justice, provided it is attainable, appears to be insufficient compensation for the sacrifice of families and other cherished institutions that contain gender roles. Plato's argument is also impractical as it fails to realistically satisfy some needs and characteristics of human nature; perfect equality requires the destruction of individual differences; “the best governed city is most like a single human being” (Plato 141). However, despite a uniform social infrastructure, differences will inevitably emerge from individuals of different natures; preferences, prejudices and inclinations will develop independently of nominally equal social roles. “Plato constructs a rationalist meritocracy that eliminates all consideration of sex…People are placed in their appropriate social spaces, performing only that function for which each is suited” (Elshtain 119); although equal, the roles are imposed on dissimilar individuals. Women are liberated from the confines of gender-based roles only to be confined to socially imposed merit-based roles. Where individual will does not coincide with the assigned role, the self-denial required is an immense sacrifice. Plato's alternative to gender roles is less attractive than Mill's alternative. Mill's argument is not only more practical but also more sensitive to individual inclinations in its realistic recognition of different natures. The premise of freedom establishes desired alternatives to gender roles; individuals can choose their own roles, which often, but not always, coincide with their merits. Mill's ideology constructively exploits individual wills instead of destructively repressing them; “Who,” asks Mill, “can calculate what the world loses in the..