Gilman's half-Utopia

I generally didn't like this novel. Not that I found anything bad about Gilman's Utopia, nor would I mind living there in the slightest. Instead, I disliked the glaring contradictions and discrepancies that made her Utopia entirely unbelievable. Granted, every Utopia is supposed to be implausible at some level, but there's always some way of suspending ones disbelief, which this novel failed to do. While reading this novel, I was comparing Herland as much as I could to the more classic Utopias of Thomas More and Plato. And while both of these classics read as instruction manuals to a realistic society, I could not (in the end) come to see Herland as anything but fantasy.

Let's start with some small, specific issues. At first, the very practical attire for these women made them look very similar to the men, especially with their short hair (27). Yet it's only later on when the men grew out their hair that they mention their similarity, as if the women had long hair (39). By that point, the men had made a thorough study of their language, but they still argued over whether there are any men (38). Realistically, if there hadn't been any men in the land for 2,000 years, it would be quite clear in the language. Words like "man", "he", and general masculine conjugations would be startlingly lacking. And speaking of language, they mention quite famously at this time that they have no concept of virgin (39). But later on, when we see the recorded history of Herland, the first generation of women were called virgins (47). Along the same lines, they had no concept of punishment, either, whether that was criminal, interpersonal, or even philosophical (95). And yet, they had no trouble inventing an entire criminal court system out of nothing just to punish Terry, and in record time (113).

On that note, I find the whole idea that this land could possibly be a Utopia quite fantastic. They have absolutely no incidences of crime (70); not a single one conceives of a horrible idea (94); not even their infants are ever seen crying (88). All I can ask is... why? Sure, we know that they have a culture of "peace, beauty, order," etc. (85), but there is never any explanation why that culture persists, let alone anything that could be construed as an explanation why no one has ever contradicted these values. We remember that there were parts of Plato and More that were pleasant and other parts that were unpleasant. But that's because these writers acknowledge  that people are not robots; there are always going to be bad eggs that need to be dealt with somehow. Morris, as we remember, claimed a change in economy can bring about this culture, but Gilman never uses even that. For Gilman, apparently, all evil can be removed from the world if it was populated by women. (That, and a healthy dose of eugenics (59), which we know everyone loves).

And that's the next thing that I find odd. The whole premise of this story is that all the men were wiped out in a great disaster 2,000 years ago. Other than that, there's not supposed to be anything anthropologically different about this society. The fact that they're cut off from the world is merely a device to prevent men from entering. The parthenogenesis is merely a way of making them independent from men biologically. So when we see that this society is set apart from ours by having no crime, no war, no money, no greed, no wickedness, and no disease, we are left to assume that all these things are caused by men. How interesting is it that such a prominent feminist seems to believe that civilization is the handiwork of men! Inasmuch as Gilman is countering her culture by showing the success women can have in creating a society, it nonetheless hinges on the concept that these women are utilizing skills that are (or were in her time) entirely feminine, thus turning their country into "an everlasting nursery or parlor" (84). It's also clear that these women are not immune to the typical hysterias of the day (94).

The only thing their society lacked was the opposite gender, which Gilman admits is necessary (83). It's for this reason that the women commit themselves to marry the aliens, presumably realizing that they have no idea what to expect except fatherhood. And albeit that the three travelers were rather slow in explaining the concept of relationships, it's nonetheless frustrating that these women never compromised their ways once. For being so liberal, they were so unwilling to bend their pride to the customs of people that they willingly pledged their lives to. The moment that Van explained unconditional love to Ellador (108), which is the only time the women admits the men are offering something worthwhile, is no doubt the sweetest part of the book.

An Extreme Collectivism

                The society of Herland represents an extreme of collectivist culture. At the time the novel was written, women lacked rights that were granted to men. This divide was present in both collectivist and individualistic cultures across the world. In fact, women in individualistic cultures gained rights sooner due to the cultural encouragement to fight for one’s own desires, where collectivist cultures instill that the stability and success of the county as a whole should be considered. However, Charlotte Perkins Gillman has taken the idea of a culture that truly values each individual equally from the collectivist vision. In Herland, all of the inhabitants are women and they are all considered equal persons in the society.

                In the society, motherhood is the most important duty of each and every citizen. It is the task of the women of the society to properly raise and educate the children above all else. With no means of expanding their world or making any outward progress due to their isolation, the primary meaning for life is the continuation of their species. Motherhood in Herland is so important to the citizens that it has spawned its own religion. Mother Nature is considered the overarching life force by which all parts of nature feed off of. Mother Nature cares for the citizens through providing food and water and the citizens respect the earth by replanting resources that they have used up. Additionally, all remnants of natural goods that have not been used are returned to the earth to enrich the soil (Gillman, 51). This cycle of motherhood that originates with Mother Nature and is continued by the mothers in the society gives every woman an equal part in the goal of the society to raise and mentor children.

The collectivist theme is taken to such an extreme that the women talk in terms of “we” rather than in terms of “I.” This word use annoys the men that travel to the society as outsiders from Europe. Their exposure and adherence to individualistic culture prohibits them from comprehending the absolute connectedness of the women in Herland. The collectivist ideal is also present in their lawmaking. When thinking about enacting a law, the impact of the decision on the children and on motherhood as a whole is analyzed in detail. Laws are created only if they further the cause of motherhood and receive unanimous agreement from the mothers (Gillman, 57).  Yet, the unanimous agreement comes naturally if the decision will benefit motherhood, since all members of the society value that above all else.

There is one policy of Herland that takes the collectivist culture ideal to such an extreme that personal equality is undermined. When each woman becomes a mother, she is examined to see if she is capable of properly raising the child. If it is decided that the mother cannot educate the daughter to the expected standards, then the responsibility for the child’s education will be given to another woman (Gillman, 70). While this idea preserves the best interest of the child by allowing her to receive the best education possible, it eliminates the personal right to raise one’s own daughter. Naturally, the men are appalled by this idea coming from an individualistic culture. It raises the ethical question of should the child’s right to the best education or the mother’s right to raise her own child be considered more important? This moral quandary shows that no culture can create total equality for all while still having goals for the society.  

So what becomes of them? & More...

After finishing the novel, I want to know what happens to all the characters. I speculate that Terry is happy to be back in the “real” world, but still longs for Alima. But I am more curious to know what happens when Ellador and Van return to the outside world. What does Ellador think of “our” world? Does Ellador and Van’s relationship progress? Does Ellador return to Herland, and if so what does she report about the outside world? Also, what happens to Jeff in Herland? Since they are allowing him to stay does this mean that there will be regular sexual reproduction instead of parthenogenesis? So many unanswered questions!!

Like many of my other classmates, I found this text somewhat contradictory in its message. I am unsure of whether or not Charlotte Perkins Gilman intended this to be a feminist piece. There are some things that suggest that it is, such as the superiority of their society compared to the outside world which is dominated by men. However, at the end of the book, they decide to let Jeff stay and Ellador leaves to explore the outside world and report back if the people of Herland should allow themselves to assimilate with the rest of the world.

There were a lot of parts of this book that were very comical especially when the men were explaining their world to the women with so much pride. They originally had a huge sense of nationalism for the United States, but when they were questioned about a lot of aspects of their society they began to see a lot of the faults of their culture. I think it was funny how the women were not intentionally asking these questions to embarrass or frustrate the men, but the men, especially Terry, still tried to defend their culture and got frustrated when they could see the faults in their culture. I also found it comical that when the men avoided a subject they thought it would go unnoticed, but the women noted which topics they were uncomfortable talking about.

I found the whole idea of parthenogenesis very interesting. It would take a lot of time and many generations for humans to evolve and change from sexual reproduction to parthenogenesis, so how did this begin? I know that they were trying to limit the population, but did they just stop reproducing with men, so women’s bodies had to evolve to be able to reproduce by themselves. I am also glad that Sara was able to explain it to us during class because I would have been very confused as to how it was possible for any species to reproduce without a mate.

Smashing the Patriarchy with Gilman

 Much like Dr. MB statement about the definition of Utopia, I do not mess around with the definition of feminism. Whether it is good or bad, it is still a Utopia. I do not humor people who claim we should really be humanist or that feminism is misandry at its finest. No. Just no. Feminism has undoubtedly changed over time and we have to acknowledge that before anyone writes this book off as not feminist. It is, but not in the way we think of now. Even the feminism of 2015 is radically different than the feminism of 1995, much less 1915.  We should not be afraid to call this a feminist work. We really should not be afraid of the word at all. Feminism is not about man hating, it is about gender equality. Feminists just want to "smash the patriarchy" and make sure we all have equal rights. That is all.

Now that that is out of the way...

I think this book is inherently feminist even though it may not seem so at first. While we wonder why she started out so great with her all female society and then succumbed to what we deem a less feminist ending, I think she did it on purpose for a variety of reasons. The most glaring is that she really intended to juxtapose the two worlds so that in making a shocking world only focused on females and the female perspective, it really forces one to look at the current male society. By showing an almost overbearing female society, Gilman really points out the double standards of the present. Terry, Jeff, and Van (though Terry mostly) really react to being confined and being treated as somewhat lesser. They are always watched, much like women in Gilman's society were always being judged and kept on a short leash that did not extend too far outside the home. One of my favorite double standards that Gilman subtly addressed is the idea of maternity. Many people have this idea in them that all women want to be mothers. Gilman certainly plays on that idea in the female society she writes about, where motherhood is exalted. However, when the men are formally joined to their "wives" the burden of fatherhood is suddenly thrust upon them. Terry exclaims, "Fatherhood! As if a man was always wanting to be a father!" (106). By Terry pointing out that not every man wants to be a father or is enraptured by it, it makes one think then of the reverse view of modern society and presents a novel idea: not every woman wants to be a mother.

Another reason for the switch to a love story and inherently less feminist to some, is that Gilman is commenting on the fact that males and females really need to work together to find a middle ground. Gilman presents various stereotypes of man. Terry is the burly manly man who represents masculinity in all its glory. Jeff represents men who see women as a beautiful idea rather than a person (manic pixie dream girls, anyone?). Then Van represents the middle ground. We are meant to think Van is a great guy. In this regard, I think Gilman is calling for men to set aside a hyper masculine way but also to not be too disillusioned with the woman spirit as well. We do not need to be worshipped, just equal.

Finally, the books reversion to needing men to survive I think is a call by Gilman admitting that there is still a long while to go. I am somewhat reminded of The Awakening (which you should all read if you have not) where the main character breaks free of her womanly duty and is a woman on her own but ultimately ends up *spoiler alert* committing suicide in the end as she cannot fully escape. I think the way Gilman ends Herland is similar. She acknowledges the desperation she must be feeling. She can be an activist and write stories with feminist messages, but that does not always equate to results. In her ending, Gilman admits this is a hard fight that is not won and may seem hopeless at times. I certainly commend her for her contributions.

Zack Willis SLAMS the utopian genre! Click HERE to see what he says!

            I think that this post will focus less on Herland, and more on the Utopian genre as a whole, as I’m starting to notice certain patterns that have been developing and honestly I’m beginning to become a little detached.

            I’ll start by saying I’ve read Unveiling a Parallel before. We had to read it for Dr. Kolmerten’s seminar class, and it was by no means a bad novel, nor is Herland, but I’m beginning to see that so many of these Utopian reads lack subtlety and that feels like an issue to me. In my paper, I praised the conversational tone of Utopia, saying that it enables the reader to feel included in the conversation with Raphael Hythloday, and allows More to act as an interlocutor to help the reader explain the concepts he is putting forth. Basically, by having Utopia focus less on plot, More can put forth more ideas about what he thinks a utopian society should be. Because it’s one of the first of its kind, Utopia is an interesting read. However, if the entire genre were exactly like Utopia, it would wear out its welcome with the tired formula of “here’s a conversation between two people where the one guy explains everything and the other guy just kinda listens.”

            So what does expansion on the genre look like? I would say that Herland and Unveiling a Parallel are natural progressions from where Utopia started. Both novels are deeply preachy in the points they want to put forward, but also try to disguise it with some semblance of a plot. Herein lies my problem with these texts: the plot is secondary to the point. In some cases, and what is certainly the case here, this happens because the author wants the point to be first and foremost. It needs to be in your face and you need no chance to forget it. But as a reader, I personally am not a fan of having themes shoved in my face. I like to think a little. I won’t deny at all that these novels still certainly have things to dig through. Clearly this is true; otherwise our classes would be much shorter. However, I prefer novels like Brave New World or 1984, in which we understand the world the story is set in, but the plot comes first. We care about the characters, and because we care about them, we want to discover more about the world they live in so we can understand their motivations. Of course, these novels tend to lean more dystopian.

            So there’s my question. Can the utopian genre have an entertaining plot without the society going to hell? I think it’s possible, but the lack of conflict is certainly a hurdle. Recently I read The Time Machine by H.G. Wells, which was a sort of sci-fi utopian novel about a man who travels to the distant future and discovers a utopian society, and while he kinda explains their customs and how things work, the bulk of the conflict is about his struggle to find his time machine and return to the past. I think Wells certainly did it right. It was entertaining and while the main character certainly jacked things up a little bit (i.e. setting a forest on fire), nothing indicated that the society itself was doomed.

            I don’t disagree with what I wrote in my paper. Utopia has a conversational tone, and that works for it. I think that style would work for any utopian writing. However, the genre would become oversaturated quickly. Because of this, I think utopian novels need to dig just a little deeper on plot.

We Just Raise up our Glass, We Don't Give a Rat's Ass if You're a Democrat or Republican.. We're Just All Drunk Americans

I decided to start this one out with a little Toby Keith and "Drunk Americans," because I’m going to start out with a probably unpopular opinion and say that although straight forwardly this is a feminist text, it is much more so a humanist text. Toby's got his own little Utopia in his bar that works out perfectly fine and that is for one key reason: they don't give a rat's ass WHAT you are. I think that there is so much more to Gilman's work than the sex of a person and what they’re capable of, and I believe that the overpowering female to male ratio distracts us from something much greater than feminism. The most powerful plea in this book is that for the “immense Loving Power [to work] steadily… toward good” (98). Essentially, loving, “being loved…and understood” (98). The understanding is most important, for if we can understand one another on the most basic level of existing as human beings, the things we can’t change don’t matter so much and the ability to love becomes much greater, opening endless doors to a successful and united world.

During a discussion of philosophy and religion, Van says to Ellador, “you do love one another— you do bear one another’s burdens—you do realize that a little child is a type of the kingdom of heaven. You are more Christian than any people I ever saw” (98). This specific reference about religion at the end of the text is one that defends the humanist part more so than the feminist. It’s not what doctrine a person follows that matters. Rather, it is the actions they take and the view they personally possess solely because it’s what they have come to value, not what something or someone tells them to value. We can stretch this concept further than simply religion and beliefs as well. This “sameness,” as symbolized by the all-female society, stretches further than just the gender. In fact, I think the intrusion of the men into this society helps to identify which “sameness” matters.

Perhaps the absence of the male for so long, in combination with the quick acceptance and even admiration of them upon their arrival, represents that the physical things or the things we cannot change shouldn’t create friction in a community. At the end of the day, we’re all people. Republican, Democrat, Black, white, male, female, straight, homosexual, whatever it may be. These aren’t the factors that should throw off a Utopia. So, while I can understand the frustration that Gilman’s allowance of the men and the relationships that flower with them may cause, I view it as a really strong statement about humanism. Meanwhile we all thought we were reading a feminist book. Who knew?

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.