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.

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.