Reflection on Charolette Perkins Gilman’s Herland

I knew absolutely nothing about this book before I started reading it. I had never heard over it and there is not even a synopsis on the back to provide a glimpse into what the novel will be about. I figured by the title Herland that it would potentially be ‘futuristic’ and revolve around a land of women, but it could also simply follow one female character. 

            I’m glad to say that I’ve been presently surprised. When I started reading the first page, I had to go back and read the first couple sentences again. Terry, Jeff, and Van—those aren’t women’s names. Most of the books that I’ve read that have been penned by women, focus on women and are from a woman’s point of view. My first reaction was anger. Gilman is playing in to the hands of the patriarchy. She doesn’t realize her ‘conditioning’. In order to write a book about women, their needs, desires and wants, it had to be from a men’s point of view—how could this really be effective? We’re not reading into the women’s mind, nor are we experiencing the feminine way of life. 

            Then I stopped myself. 

            While, yes, some of the claims I made might be true, as I dove deeper into the reading I realized that Gilman’s choice of writing in a male voice was (or seems to me) quite deliberate. She presents the reader with the traditional ‘masculine’ voice that they are used to reading. Alongside this voice comes traditional male values as well as a man’s interpretation of woman, femininity, motherhood, and sexuality. Gilman in turn, parallels this view with one that is purely female, creating an intriguing dichotomy that exposes gaping flaws in the way that the patriarchy portrays women. Furthermore, she is establishing a form of ‘women’s culture’ and voice by rooting their way of life/ideology in motherhood—motherhood defined by a woman. These women and children that live, isolated, on this small stretch of land present completely different characteristics of ‘woman’ and femininity. Our main, male, characters find these qualities to be less valid since they don’t fit his definition of womanhood, but this begs the question—who has the power to define womanhood? Women? Men? Or each individual woman herself? 

            It reminds me of varying cultures to a certain degree. Who decides that one is a savage? Who determines that one lifestyle is superior to the next? Each people group will believe that their way of life, their religion, their culture is dominate—until they are forced to believe otherwise. I feel that Herland does bring up an interesting question about competition which can be applied to this scenario as well as many more. 

            First, we must define competition. Do we believe that competition is inevitable? Simply a part of human nature? Or do we believe that this is a more masculine quality? Gilman seems to argue that competition is a masculine quality, given that in Herland, the women do not feel the need to compete with one another. The thought of domination and competition are not only foreign to the women, but goes against all that they stand for. The women of Herland are more of a collectivist culture. I’m not stating that they lack independence—for these women are very independent, but they do not place their individual independence above the needs of the community. They believe that, together, the combination of all women and children also forms a sort of individual and that each woman serves her part in bettering the ‘race’ as a whole. This spirit can only be achieved through a sense of ‘sisterhood’ and ‘comradery’. While they have slightly elevated statuses for women who serves as justice members, priestess, and foundational mothers, these women believe that no one woman is above the next. This partly has to do with their deep connection and devotion to motherhood. 

            In contrast, Terry, Jeff, and Van describe their world and the importance of competition, which when looked at historically has affected not only women, but much of the world. If we make the claim that competition is a masculine trait and rewind time we can see how competition relates to gender and how it morphed into an unhealthy desire for power. Survival. It is a part of life. Some creatures will rise to the top of the food chain and others will not. This is evident by the process known as extinction which is well documented. Humans are not yet extinct. Why? Rewind time. 

            It is 12000 B.C. unknown and dangerous animals roam the earth and the human race is trying to survive. Let’s also work under the assumption that women do have some physical limitations. A man in this time meets a woman, they have sex and start a family. A tribe forms. The men might have several purposes. The first being to protect their wife and children from the harsh weather conditions and animals. He wants to extend his familial line as long as possible in order to keep the human race going. Then we must note, that in harsh conditions where food is limited, other people can become predators. The greatest enemy to man is man himself. So, the man is also protecting himself from his fellow man. Almost subconsciously competition begins to seep into our way of living. Survival equates competition. Rather than evolving past that and eliminating competition entirely, the goals of competition simply evolved. Domination over one another, being of a certain economic status, who has the most land, the most money, the fanciest clothes. It is no longer about survival or ‘betterment’ (maybe to some extent) as it is about ‘winning’ and proving one’s superiority. 

            This trait is depicted very clearly in the three men, mainly in the beginning of the novel, but most evidently in Terry—whom I despise. The men came to find Herland in order to take control of the land, to dominate, and capture the women. They expected to do all of this with ease, given that in their society, they have power over women, and that when they return they will receive acclimates for their accomplishments. They will climb the social ladder, receiver glory, power, money, be worshiped in a sense. This could not be further from their experience. Yet a great irony that I find in Herland and I’m not sure if Gilman does this on purpose or not (I’d assume that she does given that she chooses each individual word with such care) the more the men want to dominate, the more they become dominated. The roles become inverted as they are placed in ‘the woman’s shoes.’ These women maliciously control and manipulate these men, ‘treating them as children and schoolboys’ which infuriates mainly Terry. He is under the impression that women are unable to wield power—especially over men, but are to submit to men and it infuriates him that he is unable to dominate these women. Terry also expresses other traits that I believe represent the suppression of women in the ‘real’ world. His constant desire to escape capture and perpetuating anger can be read as women desperately wanting to escape the patriarchy and its suffocating atmosphere. Furthermore, his anger towards women can reflects women’s anger towards men. 

            While I strongly dislike Terry because he exhibits about every sexist trope that exists, I do believe that he serves a larger purpose than appears on the surface. Each of the men are there to reflect some form of suppression that is placed upon women, that isn’t viewed, necessarily by men as oppression. Jeff, for example, idolizes women, worships them and quickly takes to the new culture that he finds himself in. All the women that reside on Herland are like goddess, none contain fault and in a twisted way his over-adoration of these women leads partly to his downfall. 

Van is more complex. I haven’t quite figured him out yet. He is the ‘sociologist’ and is clearly curious to learn about this new culture (and the more he learns the more ashamed of his own culture he becomes). However, when they begin to court the women, Van is the most desired. I believe that this plays back into the idea of competition and egotism. Which is briefly discussed. The men believed that they would have their pick of the women, when in reality the women chose them. I feel that in modern society this is accurate. I feel that women have a lot of say in relationships. There even is the saying ‘happy wife happy life’. Maybe I’m an idealist, or maybe I just know myself and know that I only allow certain men in my life. Because I also know plenty of women who ‘settle’, who believe that they deserve to have their husbands to beat them, women who are forced into to dating, having sex with, and marring men because they felt as if they didn’t have a choice.