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.
Bless this feminist "rant" at the top. People are so afraid of the word "feminism" and are always making this face like the word leaves a sour taste in their mouth because it is so dirty. Is it so wrong for women to be treated as equals to men? There's this image of refusing to shave and burning bras in our backyard that seems to result from the mention of "feminism" which is ridiculous. It's just people wanted to be treated as people, not as a lesser form of people. I think you are spot on when you say that this is feminism. It most certainly has elements of feminist criticism to it, even if it is different from later feminist novels. Gilman should be applauded for all of her work whether it be this or "Wallpaper" because it was so unique and powerful for the time.
ReplyDeleteI will admit that I was upset how open these women were to marriage. How could these women be so accepting of allowing men into their all women's country sooooo easily? But I agree with you that this acceptance is more symbolic than anything. Gilman shows that yes, these women can survive and thrive on their own, maybe even better than a world where both men and women exist. However, the point was proven and these women were curious how to incorporate men into their society so this marriage shouldn't be seen as a weakness or a giving up, but more of an open-minded approach and the acceptance of something different. It also is metaphorical of how the world is not ready for women to rule and work even if they can do so. We've smashed the stereotype of the non-working woman here, but we have still given her the roles of nurturer and mother. These women get so far and then decide that they will marry and accept living as the rest of the world does. Why does Gilman do that? Is it because the world is not ready for that? Or because the women of this time were not ready to do that and fully stand up for themselves as people fighting for rights?
Yeah, I think a lot of people misunderstand feminism as "loud women who think females are better than males" which isn't the case nor the point. Equality and supremacy are not the same thing, and a surprising number of people don't grasp that feminism is about the former and not the latter.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, this book certainly is a feminist text, in that it displays a society in which women are able to support themselves without men. That is to say, they are shown to be able to function exactly as well as men and get along just fine doing "man jobs" and holding "man roles" in a society. The part people think isn't feminist is that they WANT male input, and that's where people are getting confused. The point is that they CAN function without men, which makes them equal. That's the feminism part: women are EQUAL to men. That's why they're interested in learning from / coexisting with them; they want a balance and natural order in their society, where all people can share and prosper and live on the same footing.
If they went "AHH GET THESE MEN AWAY!" This would NOT be a feminist text, it would be a female-supremacy thing, saying that women should WANT to be without men, because men make things WORSE. It's THAT line of logic that's flawed, and the women's willingness to accept male interaction is precisely what makes this a feminist text, not discredits it as one.
So, kudos to you for knowing the difference and getting it right. More people should know this.