Scan barcode
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Terry, one of the main characters, feels like a real person and while some of his ideas seem outdated, the vast majority of them are still a reality and are still the exact same ideas that many men hold today.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: Acephobia/Arophobia, Misogyny, Toxic relationship, Xenophobia, and Sexism
Moderate: Sexual assault, Racism, Classism, Sexual violence, and Ableism
Minor: Infertility, Slavery, and Religious bigotry
amyalicejakob's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
inspiring
mysterious
reflective
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
Content Warnings
Moderate: Racial slurs and Xenophobia
xwritingstoriesx's review against another edition
adventurous
hopeful
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
I have a lot of thoughts when it comes to this book. I appreciate the concept especially as it was conceived in a time when women were considered vastly inferior to their male counterparts. To construct a society in which men are secondary and live in a matriarchal system is somewhat genius. I had some gripes about the execution of this book however. Firstly, while I can appreciate a rich backstory of the mother deity these women worship, I dislike how it strictly ties to reproduction and motherhood. Women are already indoctrinated into this mindset of motherhood from a very young age on a worldly scale. It sort of misses the mark of feminism and feminist power, to me at least. To show women in a much more self-involved light would've made for a much more interesting storyline. Women are obviously much more than their wombs, especially as a lot of women struggle with infertility and/or simply do not want to reproduce. I also would've appreciated a queer love story between two women somewhere in the book as it would've made a lot of sense.
Another point I want to make is that this book endorses a coloniser mentality. Throughout this book, the travellers who "discover" the island wish to change the native people to adhere to their strict values and principles. This also has ties to patriarchal hegemony and authority but I found that it moreso aligned with the historical invaders of the past. There was even scenes in which a character discussed reigning over the land, a foreshadowing of the entitlement to come. It was uncomfortable to continuously read conversations and scenes in which there was discussion of white entitlement and power. Again, though it is unfortunately realistic, I was really hoping for a utopian society where these travellers would not even consider such ideas as it directly contradicts the utopian theme.
The final pages of the book contain a scene which infer an attempted sexual assault of a female character. There was a lot of discussion about the men's right to do as he may which was disgusting to read, another example of male entitlement the characters exhibited. Then to criticise their judgement of such an act was also hard to read. I didn't like to read it though to see it from a different perspective, everyone has a different view of utopia. Men in this period were deeply sexist, misogynistic and racist, so it would make sense for the characters to act this way. Considering that I was expecting a utopia in which all the characters were agreeable and compassionate, I personally wouldn't consider this entirely utopian.
Another point I want to make is that this book endorses a coloniser mentality. Throughout this book, the travellers who "discover" the island wish to change the native people to adhere to their strict values and principles. This also has ties to patriarchal hegemony and authority but I found that it moreso aligned with the historical invaders of the past. There was even scenes in which a character discussed reigning over the land, a foreshadowing of the entitlement to come. It was uncomfortable to continuously read conversations and scenes in which there was discussion of white entitlement and power. Again, though it is unfortunately realistic, I was really hoping for a utopian society where these travellers would not even consider such ideas as it directly contradicts the utopian theme.
The final pages of the book contain a scene which infer an attempted sexual assault of a female character. There was a lot of discussion about the men's right to do as he may which was disgusting to read, another example of male entitlement the characters exhibited. Then to criticise their judgement of such an act was also hard to read. I didn't like to read it though to see it from a different perspective, everyone has a different view of utopia. Men in this period were deeply sexist, misogynistic and racist, so it would make sense for the characters to act this way. Considering that I was expecting a utopia in which all the characters were agreeable and compassionate, I personally wouldn't consider this entirely utopian.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Misogyny, Confinement, Colonisation, Forced institutionalization, Pregnancy, Sexual assault, Xenophobia, and Sexism
More...