Blog #5, Andrea Jumper

Herland critique

Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s novel Herland, is a novel written to show that women do not need men to survive and that women are independent creatures who can do everything by themselves and better without men. In my opinion this is absurd. As much as some dislike hearing it, we need men to have a functioning world. Yes it is unquestionable that women are strong and independent and can do many, if not most things themselves. Often times women do a certain job or task exceedingly better than men.  As Gilman writes, the women of “Herland” have But men were put on the planet for a reason and despite all the things women can do on their own, men are a huge part of the puzzle. Biologically women, as a species, are designed to require men to reproduce and for protection. Women are instinctively dependent on men, the social status they can pass on, the protection they offer due to their genetically stronger bodies, and the natural need to reproduce.

Also in Gilman’s writing it seems that she is focusing so much on the women’s injustices that she forgets about the men. The descriptions of the three men are incredibly stereotypical and unfair. She writes of a womanizer, southern gentle, and the all around “good guy.” Writing with such narrow-minded stereotypes for men in the first place, in my opinion, ruined her credibility for writing a novel about the equality of women. Later on in the novel, the three men marry women from the Herland society. The only marriage that ends up working out in the end is that of the “good guy.” That in itself is defining the men and their relationship with women based on what she and the rest of society would automatically assume, not what is actually the case; which is what she is fighting in the case of women, but apparently not for men.

Giving this novel a 2.5 star rating, I would not recommend it to a friend, although it may have been ground-breaking at the time, I think it is tremendously prejudiced and one sided.