Scan barcode
clacksee's review against another edition
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
0.25
What a load of racist, colonialist, misogynist, misandrist, ableist, eugenicist, homophobic, TERFy garbage.
If this is feminism, keep it the hell away from me.
If this is feminism, keep it the hell away from me.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Ableism, Homophobia, Misogyny, Sexism, Sexual assault, Toxic relationship, Transphobia, Xenophobia, Lesbophobia, Colonisation, and Classism
shibbie's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.25
Content Warnings
Graphic: Misogyny and Sexism
Moderate: Rape, Sexual assault, and Sexual harassment
Minor: Infertility and Pregnancy
csangell11's review against another edition
adventurous
informative
reflective
medium-paced
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
Content Warnings
Graphic: Sexism
Moderate: Rape and Sexual assault
Minor: War
enoki's review against another edition
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
3.5
Content Warnings
Moderate: Sexual assault
euphoria777's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
informative
reflective
medium-paced
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
The points made with this book, especially as they reflect the treatment of women at the time of its writing, but also as it relates to today's gender inequalities, were very interesting and thought provoking. There are triggers in this book, half of which I could forgive because they aren't things the author supports/advocates for. They are flaws of the main characters' world views. However, I was unable to forgive the author's blatant racism and it is for that reason I rated it lower than I otherwise would have.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Racial slurs, Racism, and Sexual assault
Moderate: Rape
mochasandbooks's review against another edition
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.25
I found that while this is a book I am glad I read, it is not one I see myself returning to. Our narrator, in his effort to catalog his experience, can be quite jumpy, and the formal language made it something of a slow book, even if more than a year takes place in the hundred or so pages.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Sexual assault
Minor: Racial slurs and Racism
river23's review against another edition
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
1.5
Content Warnings
Graphic: Sexism
Minor: Sexual assault
bookishchef's review against another edition
adventurous
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
2.0
There are a lot of interesting and modern ideas being thrown around in this little classic. Some of the ideas are incredibly feminist and are still things we're fighting for today.
Interestingly enough, our POV character, Van, is not the character that intrigued me the most. Instead, Terry was the most interesting to me.
Terry, one of the main characters, feels like a real person and while some of his ideas seem outdated, the vast majority of them are still a reality and are still the exact same ideas that many men hold today.
For him, women are there to take care of the household and him. But most of all, women are there to be oggled. He, in a very 19th century way, constantly objectifies and sexualizes the women in Herland. And when they do not cooperate, he calls them "boys", "neuters", "sexless epicenes" and "morbid one-sided cripples" and refuses to see that he is in the wrong.
As any woman who has ever had a discussion with the average cishet man about sexualisation will know, they often still react like that. Except today, women are not called boys, they're called whores or bitches instead.
Eventually, Terry becomes frustrated. And the women around him start to fear him and ostracize him even more. He then reverts to pure hatred and threatening them with sexual assault and murder.
Terry is an incel. And I find it remarkable that Gilman, a woman born in 1860, breaks that awful mindset down so well.
In this book, Gilman also mentions:
- Performative femininity, performative gender in general
- The fact that we as a society pretend to care about children but put them in danger all the time
- The fact that we as a society pretend to care about children but don't do anything to help children that live in poverty
- The weirdness of paternal surnames
- The fear that men cause in many women
- The necessity of community
- Uncomfortable women's clothing for the sake of appealing to the male gaze + ugly women being treated as lesser
- Some women not being fit for motherhood, and motherhood not being everyone's calling.
- The rigid gender divide for every single thing under the sun
- The patriarchal standards surrounding dating, marriage, courtship and lust.
- The fact that many men think they own women, especially when they're in a relationship with them
- The toxicity of patriotism
- The patriarchal home and family ideals
- Many men having the tendency to want to conquer and oppress
- The constant sexualisation of women's bodies
- The death of girls' dreams in a patriarchal society
- The toxicity of tradition
- Marital rape
- Christianity based patriarchy, and the subjugation of women under organized religion
Unfortunately, Gilman doesn't really delve into any of these topics. Just mentions them. And, Gilman's feminism did leave a bad taste in my mouth.
There is no intersectionality, as I expected.
She was a known and infamous racist, even in her time. So, while Ellador (one of the characters), is described as brown, I highly doubt she actually meant the colour of her skin (I think she might meant the girl was a brunette). And stuff like misogynoir is out of the question.
Of course, because of the time it was written in, there are also no trans people, and no lesbians (although there is a minuscule implication that Jeff, another one of the main characters, might be trans).
But that, I expected.
What I did not expect was Gilman's eugenics. She casually mentions eugenics (+ the erasure of men) as being the solution for all crime.
She also has a strong focus on motherhood. She sees women as creatures that all have a maternal instinct, are made to care for others in general and children in particular. She mentions offhandedly that there are women that aren't capable of raising a child, but she also creates a society that is completely based on being a mother.
When Van mentions that people sometimes enter relationships without a focus on children, just to enjoy each others company, Ellador is mortified. Being is mother, is what life is about. Gilman is very pro-life and condemns abortions in this book. Which yes, may be a sign of her time. But it surprised me nonetheless.
Instead of abortions, Gilman believes in a society where all women take care of all children collectively. Only those who are proven to be good mothers actually teach the children and "mother" them.
Now this is of course, very small minded. Women are more than just baby machines. And they aren't naturally more caring either. And while again, Gilman mentions in 1 sentence that there are women who do not want to give birth, according to her worldbuilding all women do want to care for children.
And while this could be interpreted as the idea that all women are striving towards a better future and care about that future, the characterization of Gilman's female characters does not make me think so.
Gilman also seems to believe that a world without men would be a utopia. And while my gut reaction is to agree, I know that would not be true. Not because women need men, no no. But because sometimes women also just don't get along with each other.
In this book, they all do. As mentioned, they collectively take care of the children and collectively strive towards the same goals without ever clashing. There isn't even profanity in their language.
Because of this collective mindset, the women also all love to learn, to the extent that "the babies and little children never felt the pressure of that forcible feeding of the mind that we call education".
Gilman creates a completely asexual society. Since these women not only reproduce asexualy, but also don't feel lust anymore. They don't have lust nor jealousy. Something which, according to Gilman writing from the perspective of a man, makes their interests boring.
Now, as an asexual person, that sounds like heaven to me. But I'm sure it would be hell for many. And it also undermines the fact that many women, regardless of the presence of men, do have sexual urges.
Over all, very mixed experience. The story was very very boring. And I was more intrigued by Gilman's opinions, than I was by the story or any of the characters. I wish she had delved into ANY of the topics she mentions. But she dedicates a page AT MOST. I wanted more depth and while I admire her for putting some of these feminist statements in a book, in the end it comes down to nothing at all.
Oh and fuck her for even entertaining the thought of eugenics, let alone actually being into it.
Some quotes I liked:
"This led me very promptly to the conviction that those 'feminine charms' we're so fond of are not feminine at all, but merely reflected masculinity - developed to please because they had to please us."
"Patriotism, red hot, is compatible with the existence of neglect of national interests, a dishonesty, a cold indifference to the suffering of millions. Patriotism is largely pride, and very largely combativeness. Patriotism generally has a chip on its shoulder."
"Have you no respect for the past? For what was thought and believed by your foremothers?"
"Why no, she said. Why should we? They are all gone. They knew less than we do. If we are not beyond them, we are unworthy of them, and unworthy of the children who must go beyond us".
"Have you no punishments? Neither for children nor criminals – such mild criminals as your have?"
"Do you punish a person for a broken leg or a fever?"
Interestingly enough, our POV character, Van, is not the character that intrigued me the most. Instead, Terry was the most interesting to me.
Terry, one of the main characters, feels like a real person and while some of his ideas seem outdated, the vast majority of them are still a reality and are still the exact same ideas that many men hold today.
For him, women are there to take care of the household and him. But most of all, women are there to be oggled. He, in a very 19th century way, constantly objectifies and sexualizes the women in Herland. And when they do not cooperate, he calls them "boys", "neuters", "sexless epicenes" and "morbid one-sided cripples" and refuses to see that he is in the wrong.
As any woman who has ever had a discussion with the average cishet man about sexualisation will know, they often still react like that. Except today, women are not called boys, they're called whores or bitches instead.
Eventually, Terry becomes frustrated. And the women around him start to fear him and ostracize him even more. He then reverts to pure hatred and threatening them with sexual assault and murder.
Terry is an incel. And I find it remarkable that Gilman, a woman born in 1860, breaks that awful mindset down so well.
In this book, Gilman also mentions:
- Performative femininity, performative gender in general
- The fact that we as a society pretend to care about children but put them in danger all the time
- The fact that we as a society pretend to care about children but don't do anything to help children that live in poverty
- The weirdness of paternal surnames
- The fear that men cause in many women
- The necessity of community
- Uncomfortable women's clothing for the sake of appealing to the male gaze + ugly women being treated as lesser
- Some women not being fit for motherhood, and motherhood not being everyone's calling.
- The rigid gender divide for every single thing under the sun
- The patriarchal standards surrounding dating, marriage, courtship and lust.
- The fact that many men think they own women, especially when they're in a relationship with them
- The toxicity of patriotism
- The patriarchal home and family ideals
- Many men having the tendency to want to conquer and oppress
- The constant sexualisation of women's bodies
- The death of girls' dreams in a patriarchal society
- The toxicity of tradition
- Marital rape
- Christianity based patriarchy, and the subjugation of women under organized religion
Unfortunately, Gilman doesn't really delve into any of these topics. Just mentions them. And, Gilman's feminism did leave a bad taste in my mouth.
There is no intersectionality, as I expected.
She was a known and infamous racist, even in her time. So, while Ellador (one of the characters), is described as brown, I highly doubt she actually meant the colour of her skin (I think she might meant the girl was a brunette). And stuff like misogynoir is out of the question.
Of course, because of the time it was written in, there are also no trans people, and no lesbians (although there is a minuscule implication that Jeff, another one of the main characters, might be trans).
But that, I expected.
What I did not expect was Gilman's eugenics. She casually mentions eugenics (+ the erasure of men) as being the solution for all crime.
She also has a strong focus on motherhood. She sees women as creatures that all have a maternal instinct, are made to care for others in general and children in particular. She mentions offhandedly that there are women that aren't capable of raising a child, but she also creates a society that is completely based on being a mother.
When Van mentions that people sometimes enter relationships without a focus on children, just to enjoy each others company, Ellador is mortified. Being is mother, is what life is about. Gilman is very pro-life and condemns abortions in this book. Which yes, may be a sign of her time. But it surprised me nonetheless.
Instead of abortions, Gilman believes in a society where all women take care of all children collectively. Only those who are proven to be good mothers actually teach the children and "mother" them.
Now this is of course, very small minded. Women are more than just baby machines. And they aren't naturally more caring either. And while again, Gilman mentions in 1 sentence that there are women who do not want to give birth, according to her worldbuilding all women do want to care for children.
And while this could be interpreted as the idea that all women are striving towards a better future and care about that future, the characterization of Gilman's female characters does not make me think so.
Gilman also seems to believe that a world without men would be a utopia. And while my gut reaction is to agree, I know that would not be true. Not because women need men, no no. But because sometimes women also just don't get along with each other.
In this book, they all do. As mentioned, they collectively take care of the children and collectively strive towards the same goals without ever clashing. There isn't even profanity in their language.
Because of this collective mindset, the women also all love to learn, to the extent that "the babies and little children never felt the pressure of that forcible feeding of the mind that we call education".
Gilman creates a completely asexual society. Since these women not only reproduce asexualy, but also don't feel lust anymore. They don't have lust nor jealousy. Something which, according to Gilman writing from the perspective of a man, makes their interests boring.
Now, as an asexual person, that sounds like heaven to me. But I'm sure it would be hell for many. And it also undermines the fact that many women, regardless of the presence of men, do have sexual urges.
Over all, very mixed experience. The story was very very boring. And I was more intrigued by Gilman's opinions, than I was by the story or any of the characters. I wish she had delved into ANY of the topics she mentions. But she dedicates a page AT MOST. I wanted more depth and while I admire her for putting some of these feminist statements in a book, in the end it comes down to nothing at all.
Oh and fuck her for even entertaining the thought of eugenics, let alone actually being into it.
Some quotes I liked:
"This led me very promptly to the conviction that those 'feminine charms' we're so fond of are not feminine at all, but merely reflected masculinity - developed to please because they had to please us."
"Patriotism, red hot, is compatible with the existence of neglect of national interests, a dishonesty, a cold indifference to the suffering of millions. Patriotism is largely pride, and very largely combativeness. Patriotism generally has a chip on its shoulder."
"Have you no respect for the past? For what was thought and believed by your foremothers?"
"Why no, she said. Why should we? They are all gone. They knew less than we do. If we are not beyond them, we are unworthy of them, and unworthy of the children who must go beyond us".
"Have you no punishments? Neither for children nor criminals – such mild criminals as your have?"
"Do you punish a person for a broken leg or a fever?"
Content Warnings
Graphic: Misogyny, Sexism, Toxic relationship, Xenophobia, and Acephobia/Arophobia
Moderate: Ableism, Racism, Sexual assault, Sexual violence, and Classism
Minor: Infertility, Slavery, and Religious bigotry
mariebrunelm's review against another edition
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
2.0
This book was recommended to me by friends, but if it had not I don't think I would have read it knowing the author's views on racism. And that's why I have trouble with raving blurbs speaking of Herland as a great feminist utopia. It's a utopia for white, cis, heterosexual women, right. But to me feminism can only exist if it's inclusive and Charlotte Perkins Gilman really is not. It's the kingmd of books where Indigenous people are called savages and where women living in isolation for 2000 years have no idea what sexuality is. Yeah, sure.
The premice of Herland is that 3 male explorers stumble upon this region cut off from the rest of the world, inhabited only by women. And it really is interesting to have this exploration of a feminine society (hint : their clothes have a multitude of pockets).
But there's really no way to overlook the author's unbridled racism and homophobia and so to me that's a strange definition of feminism.
The premice of Herland is that 3 male explorers stumble upon this region cut off from the rest of the world, inhabited only by women. And it really is interesting to have this exploration of a feminine society (hint : their clothes have a multitude of pockets).
But there's really no way to overlook the author's unbridled racism and homophobia and so to me that's a strange definition of feminism.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Sexism and Sexual assault
Moderate: Homophobia and Racism
atringas's review against another edition
adventurous
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.25
First published in 1915, Herland is a truly exceptional book. Widely categorised as a “Feminist Utopia” novel, it examines the possibilities and differences in development in an entirely female world, and the eventual intersection of that world with modern men (of the time).
The true wonder of this novel however lies in the way its format and message stand up more than a hundred years later. The commentary on society, gender roles, modern life and everything else all apply today just as well as they must have at the time of publication, making ‘Herland’ an essential feminist read.
The true wonder of this novel however lies in the way its format and message stand up more than a hundred years later. The commentary on society, gender roles, modern life and everything else all apply today just as well as they must have at the time of publication, making ‘Herland’ an essential feminist read.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Confinement, Misogyny, Sexism, and Sexual assault