Monday, March 2, 2015

Who Needs Boys?? Oh Wait... Apparently We Do...

The end of this book has left me very unsure of my feelings, just as we were warned that we would be after the last class.  I really liked the beginning of this book and agreed with Gilman very strongly.  As a joke, my mom and I have always discussed the perks of having a society made up of only women, using men only for reproductive purposes.  While this was a joke (and not very nice) I was very surprised to find that this is almost exactly what Gilman did.  I laughed out loud when the men were surprised by the organization and beauty of Herland upon their arrival.  I wasn't sure what they were expecting.  To me this society was designed exactly as I would have imagined a society made up of all women to be designed.- orderly and clean.

As a feminist work, I think that Herland did a wonderful job at pointing out the downfalls of Gilman's society in the beginning.  I admired her feminine characters and the strength and autonomy that they possessed.  I especially loved the chapters in which the differences between Herland and the outside world were drawn.  I think that the points raised were well thought out and important for Gilman's time, and I think that she portrayed the problems in a comic way that kept the reader interested and entertained.  They created an effective commentary and were one of the most memorable parts of the book for me.

As the book came to a close, however, I found the ingenuity and cleverness that Gilman had possessed in the beginning of the book to be undermined by the ending plot.  While Gilman successfully created a society that was autonomous without any males and that called into question a lot of the practices of her society, the romantic relationships that develop between the characters at the end of the novel contradicted her original points and premise and left me very confused.

When the society was first introduced, it was described as self-sufficient, clean, orderly, and crime free with everyone treating each other as family.  The society was described as successful despite its autonomy and independence from any male influence.  While the men were surprised to see a society of all women working so successfully, I did not find it strange at all.  I applauded the society and, while I may have opposed the greatest honor being motherhood, agreed with many of the characteristics of Gilman's society.  When the women began falling for the men, however, I found myself shaking my head and questioning Gilman's purpose.  The autonomy that she had created so successfully at the beginning of the novel was lost as these women began to become romantically attached to the men that entered their society.  As a feminist work, it lost its edge.

While I did find that the women seemed to remain dominant, or at least somewhat equal, in the relationships that the developed, I still think that the development of relationships on any level with males ruins the premise of the novel and discredits many of the beginning points of the book.  How could these ladies have been so successfully autonomous for so long if they fell for men as soon as they entered their society?  Why do the men need to be integrated into the society in order for it to be considered successful or complete?  Why do these women find themselves drawn to these men, especially Terry, who do not respect or understand their way of life and who bring their own ideas and prejudices with them?  While both Van and Jeff seem to enjoy the ideals of the society and respect the women, allowing them to share equally in the relationships, it seemed very strange to me that these strong, independent, successful women felt the need to share any of that or give it up for a relationship with a male of any kind.  Maybe these relationships would have made sense to me if these women had been seen struggling without men or had been left feeling incomplete, but that was not the case.  This society had even figured out how to reproduce without men...  It was only when the romantic relationships developed that violence, in the form or rape, was introduced into the society, and the peace and tranquility that the society seemed to have at the beginning had disappeared in a way at the end of the book.


While this book made an effort at, or appealed to, both feminist and utopian literature, I think that it fell short on both accounts.  Its contradictory nature and the
willingness of its inhabitants to change and leave keep it from being effective in either category.

2 comments:

  1. I'm really glad that you felt this way after reading because I feel very similarly. the book is going strong having me think power to the women and who needs men, but then BOOM there's that Shakespearen three weddings at the end crap to go against everything that Gilman just spent the entire book trying to dismantle. The book slowly persuades the men that women can succeed on their own and run a country that is even more sound and peaceful than the US is, and though Terry is never fully convinced, Gilman is able to sway the majority of the men. These men now realize how capable these women are and see that the way these women live has so many benefits like their lack of war, conflict, crime and their great education system and passion for learning. But, then everybody gets married! I was not asking for these men to be burned at the stake or banished from Herland, but come on! Did these women really have to fall into the pits of marriage after having been independent for so long?

    Sara mentions that Gilman might have been taking a symbolic approach, and I would have to agree. If these women are going to marry men after all these women have not married for hundreds of years, then there has to be a good reason. But what the hell is that reason? Have these women realized that having men in their lives would lessen the burden of motherhood by adding a father? have they decided just to spice up the culture and population by adding in new people? Have they decided that they want to have a chance to be treated like US women just to see what it's like for a change? I'm just not quite sure what gilman is grasping at. Is she saying that a women's world is possible, but that it can't last? Or is she saying that although this women's world is very possible, men aren't ready to accept it yet? I have so many more questions than answers when it comes to the end of this novel, but I think that's what makes it so great.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm really glad it didn't turn out to be a story about "who needs men" because that's not feminism, it's just supremacy, which is wrong no matter how you slice it. I guess the story does a decent job in showing that the women CAN survive without the men, but they'd rather not, since that's not the way things are "supposed" to be and they feel incomplete without knowing what else is beyond their customs. I guess this is a pretty solid way to work toward equality, because a story about women who hate men and don't need them or want them would just breed tension between sexes that doesn't need to exist. So it did a solid job speaking about equality rather than supremacy of either sex.

    I totally agree that the marriages were wildly unnecessary. It seemed like the women didn't understand why marriage would be a custom, so I figured that would be where the men realize "yeah marriage is weird, why do we do it?" But instead the women decided to go through with it, and yeah, the fact that Terry gets married to is just silly. The story was trying to make plot where there didn't need to be plot, and it crashed miserably, like any movie that forces a love triangle just to pull in some more viewers.

    So yeah, I agree it kind of falls short of being a "Utopia" in the way we're used to seeing them; it's not about a place that's more advanced and doesn't want to change, it's about a place that was forced to be the way it is and is interested in branching out, which seems like an odd thing to want in a place that's got no ill thoughts.

    ReplyDelete