Feminism

If you believe that it is beneficial for women to have greater, more equal rights and opportunities, then you are - in a sense and to some extent - a feminist.

Is the label important?

Indeed, the label doesnt really matters, but I think the motives matter. One can be a feminist to benefit humanity, and one can be a feminist to benefit women. I think this is relevant because in the second case you may end up overdoing it and only changing who suffers the inequality.

There is no escape from superior social utility as people have more access to social prestige, opportunity and capital. If what you said were indeed Mill's attitude, it is simply Mill recognizing the societal goal and not the individual goal. If it were not for increased access to equality one of my favorite things may never have come to pass. I love peanut butter.

I think that in light of the analysis you have given Mill and what you have taken away from The Subjugation of Women, it would only endorse the fact that he is a feminist. Keep in mind that feminism is above all a reaction to inequality where the goal is that women must attain equal legal and political rights, as well as address the relationship between the sexes, the inequality, the subordination, the oppression, etc. Feminism is in many respects is the medium through which we should identify those sources of inequality. John Stuart Mill is great in the respect that he is taking utilitarianism and applying a feministic lens through which we see the feminine disparity in our own social normative framework. I think that in Mill's case, utility holds the most appeal if all gears are working in tandem rather than having an inherent friction in the greater machine by means of sexism.

With all that said, it would matter a lot if feminism were geared towards equality in terms of the whole social framework. That seems to be (at least as far as I see it) a fundamental motive of feminism. If feminism is a reaction to disparity in rights, etc. and seeks to equate the sexes, then as an end goal, it would matter whether or not the sex in question were actually able to contribute equally to the social framework as a whole. In many ways though, this is concern for the oppressed sex, but only so far as it relates to equality in society. If you look through the writings of Betty Friedan or Simone de Beauvoir, you see a great deal of reactionary sentiment that turned into revolutionary sentiment. 3rd wave feminism is tricky like that because it gave rise to radical feminism and so on where the disparity and equality goal faded into a more drastic counter push, becoming more severe than the subtle male normative framework supplied for many years past. 1st and second wave feminism are more in line with the fundamental definition of feminism, as well as those principles extolled by Mills, Wollstonecraft, etc.

http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/jsmill/sub_wom.pdf

Mill's essay in .pdf format may be found at the link above.

As has already been stated, he was a feminist, regardless of his motives. But I think you are thinking about Mill in the wrong way. His arguments needed to appeal to the good of society as a whole, as the good of women was not going to be a concern for many of the people who he hoped to influence by his book. So in order to get the desired results, it was necessary to look for arguments regarding something that the people who read his book would care about. The people in power were much more likely to be influenced by such considerations than by what was good for women.

I do not know anything about Mill, so I cannot comment on that. However, I've wondered the same thing as far as Anarchism is concerned. Anarchism (without further specification) is against hierarchy in all forms, and patriarchy would be just one form of hierarchy. So is it fair to call Anarchism feminist? I think so. Like what I imagine Mill's situation is, the entire picture of social progress is reliant on equality for women as it for all other people.