Herland

Are men seen as the problem with our society in Herland?

The novel is described as a feminist novel. Yet, this is not exactly acurate. The absence of men in the utopian society may seem extreme to some, and it is. This is how Gilman makes her point. She does not create a world without men because men are terrible creatures who have corrupted the world. The utopia which lacks men is a clean peaceful place, which surpasses in almost every way the competitive societies that we live in. But, it is neither the absence of men nor the presence of women that makes this to be the case. Gender, in this novel, is symbolic for the most part. Gilman does separate the two genders to destroy stereo types, but also to establish a concrete difference between the two worlds. The male world is not bad, and the female good is not good. The world in which people are defined by others and limited is bad, while the world in which people are free to grow without being defined or compared to others, and are able to see the unity of all people is good. Comparing Herland to the real world, Gilman begins destroying gender based stereotypes. Because there are no distinctions of gender in Herland, nor any superficial characteristics which accompany gender, Herland women take on the roles of all people without considering any limitations. These women are strong, agile, nurturing, intelligent, cooperative, and able to rely on themselves. They are not "typical" females. As Gilman explains through the male character Van, "Those 'feminine charms' we are so fond of are not feminine at all, but mere reflected masculinity developed to please us because they had to please us, and in no way essential to the real fulfillment of their great process" (p59). In the same way, stereotypes about men can be thrown up as well. Gilman shows the reader that if people stop basing their identities on what others want, they will no longer be