1. What does Gilman's opinion of women reveal about [her] opinion of men? Are they fundamentally different?
2. How well does Herland stand up as work of modern feminism, especially considering the focus on motherhood (simplifying language for children, considering motherhood the “one great personal contribution" of a woman)?
3. Was Gilman a proponent of eugenics? Herland seems to be a utopia where the less desirable individuals don't breed.
4. Is the novum in Herland really cognitively explicable? The explanation given for the evolution of the parthenogenetic race seems more like magic than science. I could understand if Gilman meant this development to be explained or supported by Darwinism, but such a significant change as asexual reproduction would have to take place over millions of years.
Not sf. By most standards, sf, but not hard sf. Hard sf.
5. A lot of the latter part of the book revolves around the three characters' marriages—in particular, the different ways they deal with the question of sex... Does [Gilman] think there's a place for sex, or consider it outmoded?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment