by Charlotte Perkins Gilman, better known as the author of "The Yellow Wallpaper"
Presentation
Lori, Communities of Women: An Idea in Fiction
Reading
Read the entire novella for class on Thursday, Feb 7
Commenting
1st comment on/by Feb 6
2nd comment on/by Feb 9
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Herland
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
First I must confess, the idea of these women giving birth by immaculate conception bothers me. I could deal with the entire idea of their society if not for this unrealistic aspect that was thrown in. For me, this idea of virgin births ruins the entire story for me. I was looking for a reasonable and believable explanation.
Second, I want to express by disgust of Terry. He is the epitome of all I hate in men today. He sickens me with his constant talk of how weak women are and how women need to be conquered and cared for and how women would never be able to form a society. Yes, the idea of an all women society like this is far-fetched because women don't tend to feel this intense sisterhood in our American culture -most likely this stems from the jealously and competition mentioned that is fueled by our media-...but Terry goes over the top and these women have not been influenced by ideas of our culture.
My favorite chapter was the chapter on religion. Ellador so eloquently questions the mens' religion: "And you have made wonderful progress in those years- in other things?" Why does our culture not progress in religion? Van is unable to answer this question. The women are able to progress in even religion, but our society manages to keep the old patriarchal religious ideas and very fervently....and this is what causes most of our discord as a nation....These women don't have war and competition and consumerism...this aspect of their society enthralls me...I would love to experience it...if only, there was not this idea of immaculate conception...
I loved when Ellador was so horrified by the idea that our "God" would let infants burn in eternal damnation, yet he is supposed to be a loving god...and how do you know it to be the "Word of God"..."because it says so"...Come on, these women are advanced thinking even for today's times! (I may not even get away with agreeing with this, much less expressing the thought myself.)The women are so progressive thinking on this subject.
When reading through this, I noticed even more the stereotypes placed on women in our society and the way women are seen as possessions..."a wife is a woman who belongs to a man"---boy, am I glad I am not a wife anymore---
I also loved when the Herland women told the men they treat their children like PEOPLE---what a novel idea! "No Herland child ever met the overbearing rudeness we so commonly show to children." I enjoyed this story, minus the part I have mentioned, and I think our culture could learn alot from the women of Herland. They left me with a sense of empowerment...if but only for a moment.
It was interesting to read of a women's utopia...especially since it seems they have it all worked out and don't need to rely on OUR GOD to do it. You don't constantly hear how they did things and it pleased God...These women are not so concerned with pleasing Our Man God...
I love this novella, with maybe one exception which I discuss at the end.
What interests me most about this novella is the anticipation in the men before encountering the women and the consequantial disappointment or amazement with what they discover. The men, before encountering the community, are at a loss for what to expect. They can not even imagine what women would do without patriarchal influence or instition. For them, women must be either whores or nuns. What else could there be? Certainly, something not so similar to them and certainly not something so advanced. Of course, what they do find is a society, in many ways superior to the one that men created: something noted by the narrator, "As I learned more and more to appreciate what these women had accomplished, the less proud I was of what we, with all our manhood, had done."
Terry is of course problematic but is particularly fascinating as a case study of how sexism works. At first, he is excited to me the women, who he assumes will be coquettish and silly and beautiful and sexualized. These are his working perceptions of femininity. But when he discovers the women are non-sexualized objects, intelligent, skilled and not beautiful by common standards. He is not only disappointed, but threated and even frightened. He is the typical sexist: motivated by the fear of women's equality. Although they are all sexists to a certain extent, even the open-minded narrator, as we see when they feel threatened and embarassed by the women's agility and skill in the aiming game.
I have no objection to the notion of virgin birth because it represents a completely indepent survival from men. There is no dependence on men whatsoever. It is not used in the oppressive way the Church uses it against women as a humiliating and impossible standard for women's virtue. But I do dislike the fact that the women are completely asexual beings. This is a representation of the fear of admittance of lesbianism. They women could still have children, free from the dependence of the sperm, while being lesbians and fulfilling sexual needs. But their complete independence from men otherwise alleviates this problem. And afterall, it was 1915.
So far I like this book. I expected it be boring just because of the way the cover looks (I guess that will teach me to not judge a book by its cover).
I notice some similarities between this book and Millenium Hall. First of all it is about utopian society of all women, and secondly because it is told from the point of view of a man who has happened upon this place. So I wonder if Gilman was influenced by MH or if she wanted to write a better version of an all-woman utopia or if it is all just coincidental.
I agree with Cindy in that I don't like Terry. I suppose the first thing he did that really turned me off was when he dangles the necklace in front of the girls to try and get one of them. First of all, it shows how superficial he thinks women are. It is very stereotypical of him to assume that all women love jewelry. Second of all, he says that he brought along "bait." In my mind, that comment shows Terry to be a chauvinist man who sees himself as higher than women-the word 'bait' makes it seem like women are animals to be caught. And I think in Terry's mind, that is what they are.
-Elizabeth Bowman Phelps
This novella was really hard for me to get into, but after I started getting into it more (which took till about the middle of the novel) I started finding it more and more interesting. It really made me think about our society today, and in many ways I began to feel like the three men did by becoming somewhat ashamed of how we live our lives, especially when the women were questioning them about how their society was and they just couldn’t seem to imagine or understand it. Their society had no violence, crimes, jealousy, any of that. As I think someone already mentioned in their comments on here, I would really love to experience something like that! Although this novella presents a utopian society that I don’t think could ever exist in real life (mainly because the idea of a virgin birth seems so unfeasible), it was a really fascinating idea.
As I was reading along, it was almost like the story developed like a movie in my head. With every description Vandyck gave I added more and more details to the scenes developing in my head. I tried to image what that island would look like, with perfect trees that all produces something, no garbage, no poverty, just everything being precisely perfect and having a reason for being the way that it was. For some reason the idea that they bred their cats to not meow or attack birds really stuck in my head. Probably because I am a huge cat lover and I love when my cat cuddles up to me and purrs and meows as I pet him.
I also became very interested when the three men took wives in Herland. It was amazing that the women viewed sex as only necessary to create children, whereas the men held the common view today that it can be for both procreation and pure enjoyment. I have heard many women say that “once you have sex, you will want it from then on,” but this novel really disproves that, or maybe it just shows how much more advanced they had become than we women are today. Everything about these women made me appreciate them with the utmost respect, and in many ways admire them. Like many have already said, I too strongly disliked Terry, although I think his character was interestingly contrasted with Vandyck and Jeff. I kept thinking how different this novella would have been had Terry been the narrator instead of Vandyck.
I have heard that there is a sequel to this novella titled “With her in Ourland,” and I am very interested to read that as well. I will have to find a copy of that this summer and see how Gilman manages to follow up this novel!
I'm in agreement with much of what has been said already. I definitely have a problem with Terry. I like how the narrator makes it clear that he and Jeff are in many ways polar opposites. Like when she says that Jeff had "romantic, old-fashioned notions of women" but Terry sees women as either "desirable or undesirable" (23). I loved that the young girls snatched the "bait" from Terry and made him look like a fool in the beginning as Elizabeth pointed out.
I'm with Phaedra in that I do not mind the idea of virginal birth as much as the idea of suppressing these women as sexual beings. The fear of women together in a community being lesbians or being "too intimate" was very common in the years prior to this, which I'll talk about in my presentation. But as Phaedra cleverly pointed out, this was 1915.
Overall, I was somewhat impressed by this novel. It was considerably better than MH. I liked the contrast between the build up of expectations (like some Amazon type women's colony) to what they actually encountered and grew to appreciate/learn about the culture.
It wasn't my favorite, but not hard to read by no stretch of the imagination.
The above comment by aurorafloyd, is Lori Baker...I decided to try my hand at this blogging thing, so I now have an account on here as well!
This is a very strange story, but it's definitely interesting. I like how the three men have their own distinct characters. Terry is the stereotypical, narrow-minded ladies' man. This makes him the least well off in the midst of a community of women who have not be subjected to a patriarchy. Jeff is chivalrous and almost worships women. Van, the narrator, never had much interest in women and is very practical, like the women in Herland, so they are able to relate the most with him. I like this look into a community of women totally independent of men, not even needing them for reproduction (but really really strange). Their perfect community seems like a paradise, with virtually no flaws. The men bring up an interesting point of how that lifestyle can be interesting when there are no obstacles, but the women of Herland seem to prove that life can be fulfilling free of obstacles, just full of learning and community. It's a pretty idea, but the women seem to be lacking in individuality. They're all beautyiful, athletic, intellingent, practical, etc. with only slight variations.
I thought it was interesting how the men ended up marrying three of the women. That kind of took me by suprise. They just seem completely unequal. The women appear to me to be superior to the men in almost every aspect.
Another thing that struck me was how the men were very embarrassed to relate to the women how their society is because of how horrible inferior and corrupt it is compared to theirs. Gilman did a very effective critique on how our patriarchal society can use some extensive improvement.
The end of the story was somewhat disappointing. I was wanting to know more in-depth how Ellador would react going with Van into the wider world and more into what happens to Herland now that they're starting to become a "bi-sexual" race. I do feel like that since they incorporated men into their society that it will become more corrupted, not necessarily because of the men, but because of the influence they bring in from the rest of the world. Terry seems to embody much of the corruption present in a patriarchal society and seems to taint their almost-perfect society with fear and anger.
On the whole I did very much enjoy the novel. It gave a very interesting point of view on a society without men and a simply clean and practical lifestyle.
Although for the most part I enjoyed this story, I was upset when the three "lovers" married the men. It seems like the men had too quick of an influence over the women. Why did they have to get married? Why couldn't Van and Ellador just have been lovers? The married part just goes to show how fast we as a society like to impose our views and culture on others. The men's society, or our society, feels like their "way" is the only way that works and the idea of marriage proves this once more.
So even with the evolution of the women's bodies to produce babies without men, I still don't like the fact that although these women have found a way to be independent of the sperm, they still let "the sperm" influence their thoughts when they decide to marry these three fools. ESPECIALLY after Van tells them that a "wife" in our culture BELONGS TO A MAN. Why would a society of women who have had no manly influence for two thousand years, give up to these men so easy? So, I have made peace with the evoultionary, sci-fi births, but I can not make peace with the marriages.
As for wanting to live in Herland, no thanks, but I would like to visit. It is too structured for me.
I agree that the end of the story was quite disappointing. It seems Ellador will become enthralled with our society and somewhat submissive to Van...but I could just be projecting my own cynicism on her... who knows...
I was utterly fascinated by this story. Perkins Gilman holds up an inverted mirror to Western society, showing some of our worst failings by displaying the more reasonable, more rewarding, and, (most important), more decent opposites. Almost as soon as the men enter Herland, they are stripped of the confidence their patriarchal society has allowed them: “we felt like small boys, very small boys, caught doing mischief in some gracious lady’s house” (21). The Herlanders turn the tables (terribly cliché, I know) completely by forcing the men to live by their standards, learn their language, and play their games. The men are “cooped up as helpless as a bunch of three-year-old orphans, and being taught what [the Herlanders] think is necessary – whether we like it or not” (35). This is an extremely apt description of how women were/are treated in our society. For centuries, men have decided what women should study, what forms of recreation we should enjoy, and how we should speak.
If Perkins Gilman hadn’t won me before, her indictment against human conceit would have cinched it. She lets Van discover that “those ‘feminine charms’ [men] are so fond of are not feminine at all, but mere reflected masculinity – developed to please us and in no way essential to the real fulfillment of their great process”. I also appreciated how the Herlanders have removed the self-gratification of being a mother by sharing the pleasures and the responsibilities of motherhood communally. If more of us recognized that individual mother-pride is little more than conceit in ourselves, I have no doubt our children would greatly benefit and also be more beneficial to our civilization. The conceit of the religious is also touched upon – it is only logical that ideas about religion should change as peole grow and evolve. Those who oppose the idea most likely do so from fear of losing the power they think they deserve and don’t want to relinquish – this is the real “Satan”; this is Evil, the desire to overrule others.
I think the most significant element of Herland (meaning the place) and the one that creates the most fundamental differences from our world, is the lack of competition. While it’s true that competition can drive humans to excel, it also warps our sense of humanity. When people internalize the concept of competition practically from birth, it is no wonder that we see it as normal and necessary – if we recognize it at all. The complete removal of competition from this society (with the possible exception regarding mother-skills) the women are able to focus on improvement and the fulfillment that comes from a self-actualization encouraged from their childhoods. Since they do not compete for men’s attention, for jobs, or for celebrity, they can realize their “true destinies” and also form a true sisterhood.
The observations in our class regarding the lack of individualism among the women are certainly valid. However, we evaluate this lack based on our own definition of what makes a unique individual – it is the only definition we know. But our concept of individualism depends largely on comparison (or competition). When we describe an individual’s attributes, we focus on the ones that stand out in contrast to others’, or to the “norm”. I believe that the inhabitants of Herland would disagree if charged with lack of individuality. This type of evolutionary society would have developed their own concept of distinctiveness among its population.
So, yes, I would like to live in Herland. There are many reasons, but most of them come down to a very simple one – the inhabitants are decent and kind.
Sorry I missed that class discussion if you all thought there was a lack of individualism. Alima is very much different than Ellador and Celis. She is quite strong and stubborn. Van even says she is "exceptionally strong even in that race of strong women" (88). Which she would have to be to have put up with Terry for as long as she did! Also, Terry says toward the end of the novel that he thinks she could have taken him by herself that night that he tried to force himself on her. The women also talk about those that are meant to educate the children and those that are not. The men were quite disturbed at the thought of a mother and child being separated, but the women, of course, were used to their way of life and said that these women recognized that someone could better care for their child. There also were certain types of women that watched over the men, probably more like Alima. So, there is some sort of uniqueness on Herland. Individualism may be a bit of a stretch, but they do have different names for each and every person. So, I'm not sold on the fact that there is a lack of individualism. As far as they're concerned they have all the freedom to be who they want to be. They do not know any different. I found the whole educational process to be quite fascinating. I could imagine how frustrating that would be to try to teach something to someone that they had never seen, heard, or even imagined really. Teaching is hard enough as it is! I would never have grown as impatient as Terry, though!
During the whole marriage ceremony and leading up to it I kept thinking, "Here we go again. Another 'feminist' novel that ends in a marriage!" However, it is not a marriage like we think of in our society, at least not while they are on Herland, so I was okay with it. Until Terry did what he did, anyway. I do share the fear of some on here that Ellador will conform to what a "wife" is in our society once she leaves Herland, so that did bother me. But I liked the fact that Jeff changed over completely. That redeemed the novel for me a bit in the end. Overall, I still felt like it sold out a bit. What is the deal with these marriages??
Lori Baker
I agree that the "marriage" part was a little off. The text implies that the ceremonies were performed to placate the men's sensibilities - to give them "permission" to have sex with the women while assuring themselves that they acted "morally" (i.e. within the laws of Christianity). The women, however, don't feel tied any more strongly to these men than before the ceremony. Alina unequivocally "divorces" Terry after the attempted rape, and she doesn't need a pope or a judge to make it so. Ellador agrees to "go home" with Van, but her decision doesn't seem to be influenced by the "marriage". I didn't find any evidence in the text that the women cared about the ceremony at all, or that they felt it bound them to the men - what bound them was the fact that they chose to be with these men, and later chose whether or not to stay with them.
@aurorafloyd: many good points about the differences in the individual women. Another thing you missed in class was the question, "would you like to live in Herland?" I think we were about 50/50.
I too was okay, just okay, with the marriages at the end. I do think that part of feminism is to transform existing institutions from the inside... in addition to tearing them down. So this may represent, or may at least be interpreted to represent, one execution of feminism.
I liked the ambiguous ending and the vague wording of the punishment discussion because it portrayed a transformation of the way these women exerted themselves and their empowerment to protect their community and well-being.
I'd like to eventually read a novel of utopian society which was able to incorporate individualism. Although this society did seem closer to utopia than the hierarchical society of Millennium Hall.
Well unfortunately I missed the class discussion on Thursday as well, but it seems you all have brought up some very good discussion points. I was okay with the novel ending up in marriage as well. Aside from the fact that all of our female utopian novels have ended in marriage and it is starting to seem a little cliché, I think it was an interesting way to kind of unite what the customs and views that are familiar with us in our society today with the female society of Herland. I believe it helped show the women’s different views of marriage and heterosexual relationships compared to how we see them today. As someone stated before, they didn’t see marriage as the binding legal contract that we see it as today. It really did seem to be just an experiment to them. Also to the women of Herland, sexual intercourse was seem strictly as a form of procreation, which is very much different from how our society sees it today.
As far as whether or not I would want to live there, I would have to say no. I would definitely find it an interesting place to visit, but I wouldn’t want to spend a lifetime there. I think it would be boring compared with life today. Granted the lack of competition, poverty, war, and struggles would be nice, I don’t think I’d be as happy living there. Life in Herland would have so much less diversity, creativity, and romance. As a female that often feels in love with love, I think I would have to agree that it is “better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all.” I’m sure these women felt a sense of love for each other, but I don’t think it could compare with the love of a close partner one would share their life with.
I too noticed that both utopian novels had a male narrator. Were Scott and Gilman writing for a cause and therefore needed a male point of view to make the novels palatable to the men of their generation?
I preferred this novel to Millenium Hall because it was obviously science fiction and therefore easier for me to appreciate some of the imaginary ideas and situations. I felt that Scott in MH felt that her ideas were feasible, and I just kept questioning the practicality of her society as I read the book.
The idea of parthenogenesis didn't bother me at all; isn't modern-day cloning a cousin? I just found it remarkable in that era for a woman to be so knowledgeable and so forward thinking.
This was our first author who came from the US and I think it showed that education of women(for the upper classes anyway)seemed to deal with religion, economics, science, agriculture, much more well-rounded than the English authors of the same era. It's easy to generalize, though; maybe Charlotte Gilman was just an exceptional person herself.
I think Gilman was guilty of creating stereotypical American males. However, I think she knew exactly what she was doing, and she characterized her males in such a way so that she could bounce her ideas off of them.
As I mentioned in class, the idea of the fulfillment of a female society through motherhood was surprising to me, especially since the author herself chose to have only one child and left that child at the age of nine. The religion of the society was also based on the idea of motherhood.
It really didn't fit the picture of feminism that I had been introduced to in my college years. After hearing Gloria Steinham speak last week, it reminded me of the sexual revolution, and how the incidence of single-parent families has risen since the 70's. I taught in elementary schools for 25 years, and it really has made a difference in the economic and psychological stability of our children. (Please don't boo me!) A utopian society to raise our children would be wonderful, but it very impractical and also assumes that smallness of minds and ruthless competition are only qualities of males.
I really enjoyed her comments on science in the book, (parthenogenesis was the most obvious), but there were several practices that bordered on genetic manipulation. Her ideas of elimating certain animal species and controlling the population were fascinating.
I really enjoyed reading Herland, it was a quick read and kept me interested. I agree with many of the comments about the characters in Herland, especially about Terri. While the concepts of immaculate conception and marriage in Herland bothered some, I think that it was just a small aspect to the science fiction novel and don't take away from the book. The main point that I took from the novel was a need for social reform, where women had a place in society.
I think the most interesting aspect of Herland is when it was written. I love that Charlotte Perkins Gilman was bold enough to write a story like Herland in a time before women could even vote!
-Rachel Layer
oh I'm really mad at myself for having to miss the class discussion on this one, because I feel think I would have had some things to say. For one, I'm pretty excited that we're done with these visions of feminine utopia. While I'm in favor of the idea that women don't need men, I found the idea of asexual reproduction a little on the creepy side. I was also a little put off by the idea expressed by some of these women that the only purpose of sex should be reproduction. I happen to enjoy sex much more than I enjoy small children, so things are looking pretty bleak for me in Herland. Anyway, I guess this was all an extension of the idea that sex was a thing for women to endure but never enjoy.
I also like to think that a society run entirely by women would function better than any of those historical disasters dominated by men. It almost seemed to me like the book was trying to illustrate that allowing men to dominate the women in a society especially tragic because not only are women equal to men, but they're also better capable of managing, well, everything. It seems like every example in the book is made not to present women as equals but as superiors (think intellectual ability and physical strength). Anyway, I know I missed the class discussion...and I know my comments are late late late...but sometimes I just can't keep my opinions to myself.
@caitlin: LOVED the sex/small children point! While I still think I could live there, it is with the assumption that certain human needs would be met that could not be written about in 1915 AND that, since the citizens are placed where they're best suited, I would be far, far away from all the children, small or otherwise!
I'm glad somebody else feels the same way. It's funny how some people try to make me feel guilty when I say I don't want to have children...like it's some kind of obligation that I incurred automatically for being born with a uterus.
Post a Comment