Reviews with content warning for Ableism - Herland

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Terry, one of the main characters, feels like a real person and while some of his ideas seem outdated, the vast majority of them are still a reality and are still the exact same ideas that many men hold today.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?"

Content Warnings

joey_schafer's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging informative reflective medium-paced

Plot- or character-driven? A mix
Strong character development? It's complicated
Loveable characters? It's complicated
Diverse cast of characters? No
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

3.25

Content Warnings

james1star's review against another edition

Go to review page

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

1.25

It’s literally making me annoyed just thinking about the fact I wasted about 6 hours of my life reading (well listening) to this book. And I made such detailed notes too!!! Why?? I’m thinking right now if I should even bother doing a review. I’ll try to make it short and sweet and will probably make a rant video with all my thoughts on YouTube (link at end if I make it).

Don’t read this book. Honestly it’s so not worth your time and energy. And money if you pay for a copy - I listened via Apple Books as it’s a free audiobook on there, if I’d have paid it would be less than 1 stars.

The plot: three men go to Herland, sort of get captured and educated on the country’s history and people, allowed out to teach about the outside world, see their way of life may not be the best, kinda have relationships… there’s more but I do not care to expand, sorry.

Some pointers:

It’s beneficial as a time capsule for a certain type of feminist perspective in the early 1900s - but even the view of the women is sexist, their whole ‘religion’ and purpose is bound to motherhood so even in a society with only women, they’re still tied to this idea of fulfilling a ‘woman’s biological function’ it defo gives off TERF energy. The idea of abortion seems like the most heinous crime possible to the women as well, this is more time accurate though.

The women also take/took part in genocide and eugenics in their attempt to create ‘perfect people’ whereby any traits deemed unworthy in certain women meant they weren’t allowed to reproduce - it’s likely this got rid of disabled and mentally ill people and possibly other races as there are little variation spoken about people’s skin colour despite some other differences in appearance of the population.

The racism spewed by the men, specifically Terry, was so disgusting to read. There was a point near the end where he said that by ‘mastering’ women of different races, he knew how to better treat white women and get them to go do what he wanted - basically how best to rape a women. No nope never get the f away from me! I was so close to throwing my phone on the floor at that point like I felt physically sick, had to stop and listen to some Madonna and Cher.

This brings me to more sexism and misogyny which is just so rampant throughout this book. The attitudes of both the three men and some of the women abided by this and it was truly horrible to read at times.

The writing is crap. Like it could be forgivable if the plot and characters were better but just no. There is so much repetition of things!!! Omfg, Charlotte hun why? I know it was published in her magazine or something and later compiled into a novel but like nahh… so much could have been omitted. I read about Terry’s view of women like 20 times, how the women praised motherhood so much like 30 times and just ugh I could not stand it. It’s also like very simple, lacks sophistication and extremely boring.

The characters were all so shallow, undeveloped and BORINGGGGGGGG. I hated basically all of them, even the ones we’re supposed to like or at least emphasise with. Van, the MC, is shown to display some change in his attitudes but it all goes around in circles - near the end when Terry tried to rape Alina, he was like it’s not that bad, thinking it’s Alina’s right to submit to her husband. Aghhh no! Esp as these women didn’t even grow up with men and stuff omfg just please. Jeff was also just irritating. What I would like to add is that although Terry is extremely detestable, he was written to be the epitome of a racist sexist chauvinistic pig of a man so it the author’s portrayal of a certain kind of man. But… this type of man is still alive and well today, spewing hate, thinking they’re ‘the shit’ and are entitled to things so despite the over 100 years since publication, we’ve still yet to rid society of this type of human. I don’t know what I just wrote but it’s a point I wanted to make.

The premise and plot was super interesting: a land cut away from the rest of civilisation, with only young women left, after all the men, elderly and children was massacred, to defend for themselves when one gives birth by herself and then follows on for generations creating a country of sisters. This was really promising and it did do a good job at showing how women could not only survive, but thrive without men. They build things, educated the population well, had intensified agricultural and seemed to have solved the population crisis (but iffy on methods but there is some merit to their approach like if a women chose herself not ti have a child and instead used up her motherly love caring and educating other children). They also care well for the environment and other species, moving away from ‘livestock’ rearing to modified vegetables supplying for many - there’s even an example of an inedible tree being worked on over years to grow a superfood-like fruit.

So yes, a lot of things they did was good. But… why is motherhood their everything? It’s really not a good portrayal of feminism, not really allowing for women who don’t want to have or look after children. They also don’t have any type of love except that which is directed at the children (their future) or the country (their present) - no real friendships or romantic love at all. See where I’m going with this… What about gay women? If there’s no men and all these women, why didn’t any of them have attraction to each other, generating stronger bonds then those between mere fellow citizens of herland? Motherhood is the be all and end all for every woman of the country, but some of these women are not allowed to reproduce or, I believe, are only allowed to have children once in their life. So… Van picks up on how they’re all just starving, with so much love to give to children but not enough to absorb it. The solution? Direct the love to other children so they all become perfect. It’s just frustrating how they’re portrayed and I dunno I got so irked by so many things in this book. There’s also this ideal that everything one does is done for the country and for their future sisters, no real pleasure really can be gained by doing the things one enjoys doing. It’s basically a country of robots!!

I usually place women higher then men (is it misandrist of me? Yes. But I have my reasons and personal trauma that I do not wish to share but basically I feel safer with and prefer the company of women) but I don’t think that women are worth more then men. The three men believe men are better and the women believe women are better. There’s no equality or nuance portrayed. Constantly butting heads and it’s really frustrating.

Should you read this book. To be honest no. However, I’d you go into it with the intention of critiquing it and looking at points from a sociological perspective it might be helpful. There are some interesting points made and realisations that I would say are worthy of revealing. Nothing that new to me but it was written in 1915 so obviously things have changed, certain ideas and opinions are more commonplace and the rights of women have improved. From a literary perspective, it’s honestly trash with a boring, long winded plot, shallow and unlikeable characters and just generally bad writing.

Content Warnings

annainthebooks's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous challenging inspiring reflective tense medium-paced

Plot- or character-driven? A mix
Strong character development? It's complicated
Loveable characters? It's complicated
Diverse cast of characters? No
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

4.0

Content Warnings

lovelyannalee's review against another edition

Go to review page

relaxing slow-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

1.0

It wasn’t bad until it got to the racism, eugenics, ableism, and anti-domestication of animals. Strangely, the latter was the most surprising thing out of the whole novel. Honestly, living in a society full of white, able-bodied women who worship pregnancy sounds like the complete opposite of a utopian paradise. I’m also super confused on how this is a feminist novel when

they literally get married and Celis gets pregnant. Wasn’t the entire point that women produced asexually and didn’t need men anymore?

Anyway, Herland is nothing more than mediocre and boring propaganda that doesn’t even commit to its own message. If it wasn’t an audiobook, I wouldn’t have even bothered finishing.

Content Warnings

dancingkouign's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous 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? It's complicated

0.5

hated it. read it for uni so copy-pasting the book report i did on it to explain my rating.

The first book I chose to read was Herland by Charlotte Perkins Gilman. She first published it in a
journal she wrote as well as edited called The Forerunner in 1915. It is a fiction novel but is a
result of the author's feminist beliefs. It seemed interesting to read what would be a feminist
utopia from a 1915 perspective.
Herland introduces us to Terry O. Nicholson, Jeff Margrave and Vandyck Jennings; their
adventures are told from the latter's perspective. While on "a big scientific expedition", they hear
rumours about the existence of a region entirely populated by women. They decide to go on a
secret quest to discover it in hopes of being known as the first to breach this isolated territory that
even native had never seen. It goes on to their time there, the mutual learning of both cultures
and all the happenings that ensue. There is an extensive emphasis on comparing the three
men's culture (1910s USA) to the women's.
Going into the book, one might expect much feminist rhetoric, considering it is "a feminist utopia."
However, it can strongly be argued that this book is in no way feminist. The fact that the main
characters are all men and are repeatedly comparing women to animals does not even start to
brush why this book is quite sexist. Let's dive in. The women of this world (the three most
important being Celis, Alima and Ellador -who end up being love interests which does not scream
feminism but that is not even why this book is not feminist) are implied continuously to be better
than the men (and the women of "our" world); therefore it is fair to assume that the values
assigned to them are what the author defends. So what are the values of these women? The first
and foremost is Motherhood. Their whole civilisation and survival are based on it.
"These women, whose essential distinction of motherhood was the dominant note of their
whole culture, were strikingly deficient in what we call "femininity.""
"By motherhood they were born and by motherhood they lived—life was, to them, just the
long cycle of motherhood."
Basing women's worth on their ability to produce children (here through parthenogenesis aka
asexual reproduction) is not only reductive to fertile cis women, but it is also ableist and
transphobic. Speaking of ableism, the undertones of eugenics are incredibly disturbing.
"We have, of course, made it our first business to train out, to breed out, when possible,
the lowest types."
Generally, this book and therefore, the author seem to have a very narrow vision of feminism. It
is feminism only made for rich, straight, cis, non-disabled women: it completely ignores
intersectionality. What can almost be amusing is the apparent tinge of feminist separatism which
is often associated with radical feminism and lesbian feminism/separatism (the idea that the way
to fight patriarchy is to separate women from men) is quite contradictory with the complete
absence of sexuality or any individual desire expressed by the women. Those women's life
revolves entirely and uniquely around children, Motherhood and maintaining the catharsis they

created. It sounds ludicrous that a country of millions of women would not have "the faintest idea
of love—sex-love, that is." as if homosexuality was not even a thing. It also sounds quite sexist,
implying that women cannot know/understand desire, pleasure or love without a man there to
show them. To continue with the values defended in this book, the discourse around abortion
was appalling.
"None of us wanted these women to think that OUR women, of whom we boasted so
proudly, were in any way inferior to them. I am ashamed to say that I equivocated. I told
her of certain criminal types of women—perverts, or crazy, who had been known to
commit infanticide."
This disgusting portrayal of women choosing to terminate a pregnancy was one of the most
infuriating things in this book. Since the women of Herland keep being presented as being "right",
their strong opposition to abortion and the awful ways they talk about women who would choose
to is just terrible. The times were different, which has to be acknowledged, but it does not mean
we cannot bring up modern criticism.
Besides, let's bring up the idea of putting down feminity. These women were described as better
than America's women because they were not feminine; they were as strong as men and did not
care about beauty. There was a time where the idea of a strong woman was a female man, but
these days, feminism seems to have moved on to accepting that feminity is not a bad thing, that
not being a man is not a bad thing. The fact that superior women are so because they resemble
men is not great. Sure, gender roles are terrible but being feminine is not inherently wrong, in
women or men.
There are so many more instances of dreadful connotations and disquisitions. The fact that this
is presented as a utopia in any way is ridiculous, and to pretend this book is feminist is not
accurate. It would not even be coherent with the more conservative current feminism
movements.
I have to say I was quite excited about going into this book. I am very interested in the history of
feminism. Nevertheless, this was incredibly disappointing and irritating. The plot was not even
interesting enough to distract me from the underlining message. There were a few moments
where I did get into the story, where I was interested to hear more about Herland's society.
Likewise, I did enjoy the idea of imagining the reaction of outsiders on "our" (America's) ways of
living. Still, truly the themes of the book ruined any possibility of enjoyment for me.

Content Warnings

More...