Scan barcode
mssgiinny's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
Describir (y resumir) lo que me ha hecho sentir esta lectura es muy complicado.
De Perkins Gilman sólo había leído "El tapiz amarillo" y me gustó mucho, así que le tenía bastantes ganas a esta novela. Llevaba muchos años en mis pendientes y, desde luego, ha sido una lectura increíble.
De Perkins Gilman sólo había leído "El tapiz amarillo" y me gustó mucho, así que le tenía bastantes ganas a esta novela. Llevaba muchos años en mis pendientes y, desde luego, ha sido una lectura increíble.
Habíamos esperado una monotonía sumisa y aburrida y habíamos encontrado una atrevida inventiva social muy superior a la nuestra y un desarrollo mecánico y científico igual al nuestro. Habíamos esperado minucias y nos encontramos una conciencia social ante la cual nuestras naciones parecían niños peleando y niños no muy inteligentes. Habíamos esperado celos y nos encontramos un amplio afecto entre hermanas, una inteligencia noble con la que no podíamos rivalizar. Habíamos esperado histeria y encontrado unas pautas de salud, vigor y temperamento calmo al que era imposible explicar el hábito de la blasfemia.
Gilman plantea un mundo en el que sólo hay mujeres desde hace unos dos mil años, con su propia historia y evolución, tanto a nivel social como biológico, de fauna y flora y todo lo que se os pueda ocurrir. Un mundo, aparentemente, ideal.
Una historia narrada, sin embargo, desde la perspectiva de los tres hombres que las encuentran. Aunque es precisamente esto lo que creo que hace que la historia gane tanto, ya que tenemos tres perspectivas diferentes, que en mayor o menor medida pretenden o no adaptarse a la sociedad que descubren:
- Por un lado tenemos a Terry, clásico machista en cualquier época. Insoportable a muchos niveles, pero sin él, no habría un contrapunto a las dicotomías que se plantean en muchas ocasiones los protagonistas.
- Por otra parte, Jeff: adora a las mujeres de una forma curiosa, ya que no las objetiviza como Terry pero no es capaz de evitar endiosarlas en cierta forma (algo que tampoco me parece correcto). Es quién más y mejor se adapta a Matriarcadia, tal vez incluso demasiado fácil, sin pensar ni plantearse quién es frente a todas estas mujeres y cuál podría ser su papel en esa sociedad (que sin embargo le acepta de mil amores).
- Por último está Van, quién narra toda la historia desde una especie de diario y cuya posición se encuentra a medio camino de la de Terry y Jeff. Es por ello (además de por ser el narrador) que es más sencillo empatizar con su visión de Matriarcadia: tiene una alta estima a todo cuanto aprende de esta sociedad, y cree firmemente en muchas de las opiniones y avances que observa; pero también es capaz de oponerse y criticar aquellas con las que no está de acuerdo, aunque sea parcialmente y pueda entender por qué se ha llegado a esas conclusiones.
Si bien la novela está centrada en la idea de que la sociedad está compuesta únicamente por mujeres, creo que trata temas muy universales que no están ligados al "ser mujer" (en el sentido más occidental). Es decir, la novela no se limita a la dicotomía que tienen los personajes sobre las mujeres que ellos conocen (débiles, sumisas, encerradas en el 'hogar') y las que se encuentran (hábiles, fuertes, independientes, trabajadoras a la vez que maternales).
Para mí, lo que más destaca de todos estos temas es la educación: comunal, en tribu, pero especialmente valorada y otorgada por quienes se han especializado en educar (se hace mucho hincapié en que ser 'madre' no te otorga sabiduría para educar); y, lo mejor de todo, una educación sutil y no impuesta, muy a lo Montessori, en la que todas las niñas se desarrollan en muchas áreas y se especializan en una o varias que realmente les parecen llamativas, consiguiendo una sociedad muy equilibrada y a la que le gusta, genuinamente, trabajar por el bien común.
Aquellas niñas amadas por la nación entera comparadas con la media de los niños en nuestro país venían a ser lo que las rosas mejor cultivadas y más perfeccionadas en comparación con un cardo arrastrado por el viento. Y, sin embargo, no parecía que estuvieran «cultivadas» en absoluto, puesto que se encontraban en su condición natural.
Ninguna niña de Matriarcadia sufrió jamás la rudeza abrumadora con que solemos tratar a los niños. Desde el mismo comienzo eran gente y la parte más preciada de la nación. [...] La gran diferencia residía en que mientras nuestros niños crecen en hogares y familias privadas en donde se hacen todos los esfuerzos posibles por protegerlos y aislarlos de un mundo peligroso, aquí crecían en otro más abierto y amistoso que sabían desde el principio que era el suyo.
La narración de Van me parece fascinante por cómo se debate a la hora de contar el funcionamiento de ciertos aspectos de lo que consideramos 'el mundo real', ya que llegados a un punto, le avergüenza (igual que a Jeff) lo que estas mujeres puedan pensar. Van se da cuenta de la de circunstancias que da por hecho que son lógicas (y me atrevería a decir que habiendo pasado más de 100 años desde que se publicó el libro, hay momentos en los que me ocurría a mi también), que podrían ser muy diferentes y mejores. Pero lo que más me gusta de él es cómo intenta encontrar un equilibrio entre todo esto.
Dejé de sentirme como un extraño, como un prisionero. Había un sentimiento mutuo de entendimiento, de identidad, de propósito. Debatíamos sobre todo. Y a medida que avanzaba y avanzaba, explorando su alma rica y dulce, mi sentimiento de una amistad placentera se convirtió en una amplia base de una combinación de tal altura, extensión y densidad que me resultó cegadora.
Por último, la forma en que se desarrollan los distintos romances (por ponerles un nombre) me parece preciosa: El de Jeff es sin duda el que más éxito tiene por su forma de ser y su capacidad de adaptarse tan rápidamente a Matriarcadia; mientras que el de Terry es la clásica relación en la que ambos se quieren y se odian a partes iguales y estás todo el día pensando que a la próxima que rompan no volverán, aunque siempre parecen hacerlo (aviso para navegantes: hay una escena no explícita sobre un intento de violación). De nuevo, me decanto por el de Van dada la forma en que aprende y evoluciona de un amor romántico a un amor más completo: una amistad, una fraternidad, un cuidado y un entendimiento muy profundos. Cuando se debate el tema del sexo en la relación de Van, me sorprende mucho que sea capaz de esperar a pesar de lo impaciente que se siente, y así lo describe:
Estaba asombrado con los resultados. Me di cuenta de que mucho, realmente mucho de lo que había supuesto honradamente que se trataba de una necesidad fisiológica, en realidad era psicológica o algo así
Por intentar concluir, diré que Matriarcadia me ha parecido una obra increíble, que creo que todo el mundo debería leer. No estoy de acuerdo con todas las decisiones que han tomado estas mujeres, no creo que todas sean buenas u óptimas (en especial las relacionadas con exterminar cierta fauna y flora, aspecto del que no he hablado), pero creo que se puede aprender mucho de lo que Gilman plantea en esta novela.
Content Warnings
Minor: Rape and Sexual assault
pedanther's review against another edition
challenging
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- 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
3.5
Content Warnings
Graphic: Sexism
Moderate: Ableism, Confinement, Misogyny, Racism, Sexual assault, and Xenophobia
Minor: Animal cruelty, Body shaming, Child abuse, Death, Mental illness, Rape, Slavery, Violence, Abortion, Pregnancy, Toxic friendship, Colonisation, and War
clacksee's review against another edition
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
0.25
What a load of racist, colonialist, misogynist, misandrist, ableist, eugenicist, homophobic, TERFy garbage.
If this is feminism, keep it the hell away from me.
If this is feminism, keep it the hell away from me.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Ableism, Homophobia, Misogyny, Sexism, Sexual assault, Toxic relationship, Transphobia, Xenophobia, Lesbophobia, Colonisation, and Classism
shibbie's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.25
Content Warnings
Graphic: Misogyny and Sexism
Moderate: Rape, Sexual assault, and Sexual harassment
Minor: Infertility and Pregnancy
csangell11's review against another edition
adventurous
informative
reflective
medium-paced
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
Content Warnings
Graphic: Sexism
Moderate: Rape and Sexual assault
Minor: War
enoki's review against another edition
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
3.5
Content Warnings
Moderate: Sexual assault
euphoria777's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
informative
reflective
medium-paced
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
The points made with this book, especially as they reflect the treatment of women at the time of its writing, but also as it relates to today's gender inequalities, were very interesting and thought provoking. There are triggers in this book, half of which I could forgive because they aren't things the author supports/advocates for. They are flaws of the main characters' world views. However, I was unable to forgive the author's blatant racism and it is for that reason I rated it lower than I otherwise would have.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Racial slurs, Racism, and Sexual assault
Moderate: Rape
mochasandbooks's review against another edition
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.25
I found that while this is a book I am glad I read, it is not one I see myself returning to. Our narrator, in his effort to catalog his experience, can be quite jumpy, and the formal language made it something of a slow book, even if more than a year takes place in the hundred or so pages.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Sexual assault
Minor: Racial slurs and Racism
river23's review against another edition
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
1.5
Content Warnings
Graphic: Sexism
Minor: Sexual assault
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: Misogyny, Sexism, Toxic relationship, Xenophobia, and Acephobia/Arophobia
Moderate: Ableism, Racism, Sexual assault, Sexual violence, and Classism
Minor: Infertility, Slavery, and Religious bigotry