What do you think?
Rate this book
The Herland Trilogy #3
With Her in Ourland
Two works in one, this volume contains the full text of With Her in Ourland by Charlotte Perkins Gilman, as well as an illuminating sociological analysis by Mary Jo Deegan with the assistance of Michael R. Hill. Ourland is the sequel to Gilman's acclaimed feminist utopian novel Herland; both were published in her journal, The Forerunner, in 1915 and 1916. Ourland resumes the adventures of Herland's protagonists, Ellador and Van, but turns from utopian fantasy to a challenging analysis of contemporary social fissures in "his land," or the real world. The republication of Herland as a separate novel in 1979 revived critical interest in Gilman's work but truncated the larger aims implicit in the Herland/Ourland saga, leaving an erroneous understanding of Gilman's other/better half of the story, in which it is suggested that strong women can resocialize men to be nurturant and cooperative. Gilman's choice of a sexually integrated society in With Her in Ourland provides us with her answer to her ideal society, but her foray into a woman-only society as a corrective to a male dominated one is a controversial option. The challenging message of Ourland, however, does not impede the pleasure of reading it as a novel.
Though known more for her fiction today, Gilman in her time was a recognized and accomplished sociologist who admired Lester F. Ward and frequently visited Jane Addams of Chicago's Hull-House. The male protagonist in Herland/Ourland, Van, is a sociologist, used by Gilman as a foil on which to skewer the assumptions and practices of patriarchal sociology. The interpretation presented here, which adopts a sociological viewpoint, is invaluable reading for scholars and students of sociology, American women's studies, and utopian literature.
Though known more for her fiction today, Gilman in her time was a recognized and accomplished sociologist who admired Lester F. Ward and frequently visited Jane Addams of Chicago's Hull-House. The male protagonist in Herland/Ourland, Van, is a sociologist, used by Gilman as a foil on which to skewer the assumptions and practices of patriarchal sociology. The interpretation presented here, which adopts a sociological viewpoint, is invaluable reading for scholars and students of sociology, American women's studies, and utopian literature.
216 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1916
23 people are currently reading
1405 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 67 reviews
June 10, 2025
This would have been a really interesting novel, if only it were... you know, a novel. It's more like a constant dialogue on various topics between our Herlander and our narrator (sorrry, keep forgetting his name, I don't care), who has become quite the 'wife guy' for her and her thought and brilliance.
There's commentary on the internalized sexism of the anti-suffragettes, feminism, socialism, Marx (paraphrasing: women wouldn't need a bearded dude to explain all these things, we'd know already), Germany (?!?! I need to research what exactly was bothering CPG about Germany), and, more unpleasantly, various 'races' and cultures. The intention is good, um I think, but a sort of sense of superiority over other cultures is apparent. The view on the US still feels a bit too rose-colored. Various atrocities committed by Americans are described as 'great shames'.
And I think what I wanted (and what would have made this more interesting) is our Herland woman interacting in dialogue with other people (instead of that being related to us). Alas, there is none of that.
This is an interesting text, despite my gripes and I would re-read probably with my eyeballs, because as an audiobook I didn't really pause to reflect on things.
There's commentary on the internalized sexism of the anti-suffragettes, feminism, socialism, Marx (paraphrasing: women wouldn't need a bearded dude to explain all these things, we'd know already), Germany (?!?! I need to research what exactly was bothering CPG about Germany), and, more unpleasantly, various 'races' and cultures. The intention is good, um I think, but a sort of sense of superiority over other cultures is apparent. The view on the US still feels a bit too rose-colored. Various atrocities committed by Americans are described as 'great shames'.
And I think what I wanted (and what would have made this more interesting) is our Herland woman interacting in dialogue with other people (instead of that being related to us). Alas, there is none of that.
This is an interesting text, despite my gripes and I would re-read probably with my eyeballs, because as an audiobook I didn't really pause to reflect on things.
June 5, 2017
A very interesting sequel to this early feminist story. In this installment one of the women of Herland ventures out into Ourland with two of the adventures from the previous novel. Unfortunately the world is in the midst of WWI at the time of their arrival and she quickly sees all the advancements and suffering our world has to offer. As Ellador travels the globe and studies our histories and cultures, her insights into everything from immigration, national insularism, education, to wages, unionizing, class disparity, etc are as relevant to the current Universal Healthcare discussions, Livable Minimum Wage debates, the 99% Occupy Movements, any class struggle, or constitutional 'crisis' issues as they were to the changing times and struggles of the early 1900's.
Who would have thought that a feminist work from 1916 would sound so relevant to today's current political hot button issues.
Who would have thought that a feminist work from 1916 would sound so relevant to today's current political hot button issues.
February 23, 2020
"We isolated Herlanders never heard of Socialism," she answered. "We had no German-Jewish economist to explain to us in interminable, and, to most people, uncomprehensible prolixity, the reasons why it was better to work together for common good. Perhaps 'the feminine mind' did not need so much explanation of so obvious a fact. We comothers, in our isolation, with a small visible group of blood relations (without any Father-Boss) just saw that our interests were in common. We couldn't help seeing it. LOL!!!
Ellador was deeply impressed.
“To think that under one single city […] there are the remains of five separate cultures […]. It’s wonderful”
Then she turned suddenly to on Signor Armini “What did they die of?” he demanded. “Die of? Who Madam?”
“Those cities – those civilization”
“Why, they were conquered in war […]”
“By whom?” she demanded […]
“Why other people, other cultures, from other cities”
“Do you mean other people or just other men?” she asked
He was puzzled. “Why, the soldiers were men, of course, but war was made by one nation against another”
“Do you mean that the women of the other nation were the governing power and sent the men to fight?”
No, he did not mean that.
“And surely the children did not send them?”
Of course not
“But people are men, women and children, aren’t they? And only the adult men, about one-fifth of the population, made war?”
This he admitted per force, and Ellador did not press the point further.
"That's what I mean by saying you were ignorant of sociology," was her cheerful reply. "It never occurred to you, that the poor and oppressed were not necessarily good stuff for a democracy."
I looked at her rather rebelliously.
"Why just study them," she went on, in that large sweeping way of hers. "Hadn't there been poor and oppressed enough in the past? In Chaldaea and Assyria and Egypt and Rome — in all Europe — everywhere ? Why, Van, it is the poor and oppressed who make monarchy and despotism — don't you see that ?'
"Hold on, my dear — hold on ! This is too much. Are you blaming the poor helpless things for their tyrannical oppression?"
"No more than I blame an apple-tree for bearing apples," she answered. "You don't seriously advance the idea that the oppressor began it, do you ? Just one op pressor jumping on the necks of a thou sand free men? Surely you see that the general status and character of a people creates and maintains its own kind of government?"
Ellador was deeply impressed.
“To think that under one single city […] there are the remains of five separate cultures […]. It’s wonderful”
Then she turned suddenly to on Signor Armini “What did they die of?” he demanded. “Die of? Who Madam?”
“Those cities – those civilization”
“Why, they were conquered in war […]”
“By whom?” she demanded […]
“Why other people, other cultures, from other cities”
“Do you mean other people or just other men?” she asked
He was puzzled. “Why, the soldiers were men, of course, but war was made by one nation against another”
“Do you mean that the women of the other nation were the governing power and sent the men to fight?”
No, he did not mean that.
“And surely the children did not send them?”
Of course not
“But people are men, women and children, aren’t they? And only the adult men, about one-fifth of the population, made war?”
This he admitted per force, and Ellador did not press the point further.
"That's what I mean by saying you were ignorant of sociology," was her cheerful reply. "It never occurred to you, that the poor and oppressed were not necessarily good stuff for a democracy."
I looked at her rather rebelliously.
"Why just study them," she went on, in that large sweeping way of hers. "Hadn't there been poor and oppressed enough in the past? In Chaldaea and Assyria and Egypt and Rome — in all Europe — everywhere ? Why, Van, it is the poor and oppressed who make monarchy and despotism — don't you see that ?'
"Hold on, my dear — hold on ! This is too much. Are you blaming the poor helpless things for their tyrannical oppression?"
"No more than I blame an apple-tree for bearing apples," she answered. "You don't seriously advance the idea that the oppressor began it, do you ? Just one op pressor jumping on the necks of a thou sand free men? Surely you see that the general status and character of a people creates and maintains its own kind of government?"
December 8, 2013
I'm still undecided as to whether or not I want to join in on the SFF Audio discussion of Herland, but decided that if I do, I wanted to have at least read the sequel.
When Herland ends, the three adventurers are leaving Herland, the female utopian society, to head back home. One of the men (the narrator), marries a woman from Herland, Ellador, who is an arborist. With Her in Ourland starts as they leave the country she has never been outside of.
If you are rating this book as a manifesto of feminist/socialist idealism, I would give it 3-4 stars. As a novel, it... well it is hardly a novel. There is some framework of travel laid out to allow Gilman to organize her thoughts about everything wrong with society. Some ideas/complaints seem still relevant today, others still horrify me. I found the short story "The Yellow Wallpaper" to be more effective, probably because I was given more room to interpret the ideas through my own lens. The article in Bitch Magazine, a Portland feminist publication, explains it better than I can. But in With Her in Ourland, it is too didactic to really be called a novel.
The narrator at least seems to be gaining some respect for women who have their own minds and interests through his marriage to a Herlandian. On page two he even remarks, "In our story books we read always of young wives giving up all they have known and enjoyed 'for his sake.' That was by no means Ellador's position. She loved me - that I knew, but by no means with that engrossing absorption so familiar to our novelists and their readers."
Other elements of Herlandia that are admired by the narrator - their method of education, how ideas translate so easily directly to action in their "religion," and a shared social consciousness. This is learned as he observes his wife learning about the lack of cultures worldwide, the tendency toward violence, and the rather glaring problem of inequity.
"Ellador saw human life as a think in the making, with human beings as the makers."
Gilman makes a solid argument for democracy, the idea itself, in a country without a differentiation between people groups based on gender or race. Ellador expresses much of Gilman's exasperation that the USA had such a great opportunity in history and royally fucked it up. Old wine in new bottles - the same ideas, passed down to every generation. Not training children to think, but to parrot. These are not old problems, I'd say!
The part I hate.... the concept that drives me crazy in this and Herland... is the cult of motherhood. Near the end of the book, in a way I believe Gilman meant to be the triumphant finale, Ellador states,
"When your women are really awake and know what they are for, seeing men as the noblest kind of assistants, nature's latest and highest device for the improvement of parentage, then they will talk less of 'sex' and more of children."
I think to Gilman, that is the highest form of life - parenting. I just can't help but think that her imagination was a bit short-sighted, even in the early years of the twentieth century, although it makes me think of a line from "La Vie Boheme" in the musical rent:
"The opposite of war isn't peace; it's creation."
If this is the case, then perhaps it isn't so off base to devise a society where people are focused on furthering and improving the species.
When Herland ends, the three adventurers are leaving Herland, the female utopian society, to head back home. One of the men (the narrator), marries a woman from Herland, Ellador, who is an arborist. With Her in Ourland starts as they leave the country she has never been outside of.
If you are rating this book as a manifesto of feminist/socialist idealism, I would give it 3-4 stars. As a novel, it... well it is hardly a novel. There is some framework of travel laid out to allow Gilman to organize her thoughts about everything wrong with society. Some ideas/complaints seem still relevant today, others still horrify me. I found the short story "The Yellow Wallpaper" to be more effective, probably because I was given more room to interpret the ideas through my own lens. The article in Bitch Magazine, a Portland feminist publication, explains it better than I can. But in With Her in Ourland, it is too didactic to really be called a novel.
The narrator at least seems to be gaining some respect for women who have their own minds and interests through his marriage to a Herlandian. On page two he even remarks, "In our story books we read always of young wives giving up all they have known and enjoyed 'for his sake.' That was by no means Ellador's position. She loved me - that I knew, but by no means with that engrossing absorption so familiar to our novelists and their readers."
Other elements of Herlandia that are admired by the narrator - their method of education, how ideas translate so easily directly to action in their "religion," and a shared social consciousness. This is learned as he observes his wife learning about the lack of cultures worldwide, the tendency toward violence, and the rather glaring problem of inequity.
"Ellador saw human life as a think in the making, with human beings as the makers."
Gilman makes a solid argument for democracy, the idea itself, in a country without a differentiation between people groups based on gender or race. Ellador expresses much of Gilman's exasperation that the USA had such a great opportunity in history and royally fucked it up. Old wine in new bottles - the same ideas, passed down to every generation. Not training children to think, but to parrot. These are not old problems, I'd say!
The part I hate.... the concept that drives me crazy in this and Herland... is the cult of motherhood. Near the end of the book, in a way I believe Gilman meant to be the triumphant finale, Ellador states,
"When your women are really awake and know what they are for, seeing men as the noblest kind of assistants, nature's latest and highest device for the improvement of parentage, then they will talk less of 'sex' and more of children."
I think to Gilman, that is the highest form of life - parenting. I just can't help but think that her imagination was a bit short-sighted, even in the early years of the twentieth century, although it makes me think of a line from "La Vie Boheme" in the musical rent:
"The opposite of war isn't peace; it's creation."
If this is the case, then perhaps it isn't so off base to devise a society where people are focused on furthering and improving the species.
March 22, 2020
Thought-provoking and interesting, as are the other two in the sequence, but awfully thin on plot. At least the second one had three different "takes" on things with the three different men; this one is pretty much just a lengthy socio-cultural analysis thinly veiled as a novel. The odd thing is that Gilman makes it all sound so logical, and so possible, if only we could get people to change how they think. Which, of course, is the hardest thing of all.
Contextual note: I had been listening to this on my way to and from work every day. Now that THERE IS NO DRIVE TO WORK (thanks, coronavirus...) I had to finish it sitting on my sofa. It wasn't quite the same experience. Although the fact that the main character keeps referring to societal ills as a disease became rather more ironic...
Contextual note: I had been listening to this on my way to and from work every day. Now that THERE IS NO DRIVE TO WORK (thanks, coronavirus...) I had to finish it sitting on my sofa. It wasn't quite the same experience. Although the fact that the main character keeps referring to societal ills as a disease became rather more ironic...
July 25, 2016
This was too long, but it was one hell of a rant.
June 10, 2024
This is not a great ‘story’, more the author’s vehicle for giving us her thoughts on what is wrong with society and men in particular. It felt very preachy, so maybe more actual ‘story’ would have meant a better score for me.
February 18, 2016
I had to read this sequel to Herland for an 8-10 page paper due tomorrow...so I read it in one sitting (basically), and all it ends up being is Gilman's Socialism hidden under the guise of a story. At least Herland has a story behind it: three men encounter a woman's utopian society. Ok, I'll bite. And it was quite good. It ends on a cliffhanger, yet most people don't know she wrote this sequel.
Well, I figure because the sequel was less story and more "society-shaming" as it attempts to be a serious continuation of the first book. So Ellador and Van go from Herland to travel so she can see the world and tell her people about it...but instead of being wondered by the cultures and the history, she is disgusted and horrified. Can continues to pacify her by reassuring her that Europe is at war (this is set during WWI, before we got involved...as in the U.S.) and that America, his homeland, will be much better. He builds it up, and then when she arrives she is disappointed in it. Why, you ask? Because of Capitalism.
See, Gilman's a socialist, and Ellador spends the whole book telling Van the problems of the world (i.e. Not big enough government, wrong religious ideals, carrying history forward (because we should just forget where we come from and focus on where we are going), bad sexual practices (procreation only, people!!), etc etc etc). Ugh.
It's clearly just a way to explain Socialism and the desperate need to adopt its practices. The feminism is good, but I hated the socialism. She even laughs at how highly we regard the Constitution. The freakin Constitution, for crying out loud!! How can you just ignore and dismiss it??
In the end (it's not a spoiler if it's 100 years old, ok people?), they go back to Herland and produce a son and live happily ever after, knowing they will help "us" become "civilized" in three generations or so. Real nice, Gilman. Sorry we are such idiots, as Ellador attests. We are children that mucked up the chance at such a wonderful country and its chance to be a "New World." Ugh squared.
I'm so glad I'm done with that one. I was hoping it would be as good as Herland, even though I didn't like the ideals in that book, either. At least there was a story, there was love, and there was a climax. This book was just one long dialogue between Ellador and Van. Boo.
I give it two stars only because the writing was good. I cannot punish good writing. Conceptually a mess, and tedious to read. Would NOT recommend.
Well, I figure because the sequel was less story and more "society-shaming" as it attempts to be a serious continuation of the first book. So Ellador and Van go from Herland to travel so she can see the world and tell her people about it...but instead of being wondered by the cultures and the history, she is disgusted and horrified. Can continues to pacify her by reassuring her that Europe is at war (this is set during WWI, before we got involved...as in the U.S.) and that America, his homeland, will be much better. He builds it up, and then when she arrives she is disappointed in it. Why, you ask? Because of Capitalism.
See, Gilman's a socialist, and Ellador spends the whole book telling Van the problems of the world (i.e. Not big enough government, wrong religious ideals, carrying history forward (because we should just forget where we come from and focus on where we are going), bad sexual practices (procreation only, people!!), etc etc etc). Ugh.
It's clearly just a way to explain Socialism and the desperate need to adopt its practices. The feminism is good, but I hated the socialism. She even laughs at how highly we regard the Constitution. The freakin Constitution, for crying out loud!! How can you just ignore and dismiss it??
In the end (it's not a spoiler if it's 100 years old, ok people?), they go back to Herland and produce a son and live happily ever after, knowing they will help "us" become "civilized" in three generations or so. Real nice, Gilman. Sorry we are such idiots, as Ellador attests. We are children that mucked up the chance at such a wonderful country and its chance to be a "New World." Ugh squared.
I'm so glad I'm done with that one. I was hoping it would be as good as Herland, even though I didn't like the ideals in that book, either. At least there was a story, there was love, and there was a climax. This book was just one long dialogue between Ellador and Van. Boo.
I give it two stars only because the writing was good. I cannot punish good writing. Conceptually a mess, and tedious to read. Would NOT recommend.
July 2, 2007
Herland was interesting as a sociological utopian novel. This sequel, however, strips out the utopian part as the narrator and his Herland-native wife travel the globe before coming back to America. Unfortunately, the story and plot are all but non-existent as Ellador sees more and more of the world outside her perfect society, and the book becomes a mouthpiece for Gilman's critiques of American society, economics, race relations, and gender roles. While never moving fully into manifesto territory, With Her in Ourland is still preachy and vaguely condescending.
March 27, 2026
This had less sex crimes than Herland but more eugenics and racism than Moving the Mountain.
I see now the clever way the three are connected: Moving the Mountain is the society that exists after generations have taken all of Ellador’s advice from this book to reform the world.
I’m very glad I read this trilogy because it has merit despite its faults.
I see now the clever way the three are connected: Moving the Mountain is the society that exists after generations have taken all of Ellador’s advice from this book to reform the world.
I’m very glad I read this trilogy because it has merit despite its faults.
“Wherever men had been superior to women we had proudly claimed it as a sex-distinction. Wherever men had shown evil traits, not common to women, we had serenely treated them as race characteristics.”
“‘We men, having all human power in our hands, have used it to warp and check the growth of women. We, by choice and selection, by law and religion, by enforced ignorance, by heavy overcultivation of sex, have made the kind of woman we so made by nature, that that is what it was to be a woman. Then we heaped our scornful abuse upon her, ages and ages of it, the majority of men in all nations still looking down on women. And then, as if that was not enough — really, my dear, I’m not joking, I’m ashamed, as if I’d done it myself — we, in our superior freedom, in our monopoly of education, with the law in our hands, both to make and execute, with every conceivable advantage — we have blamed women for the sins of the world!’”
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 4, 2025
Don‘t be fooled into thinking this is a novel - it reads more like an essay or a manifesto. While the last part focused primarily on a feminist society, this time the focus is on socialism. There are definitely some interesting approaches, even if the Herland protagonist could perhaps have used stronger discussion partners. Everything is explained to you via conversations and there is little room for personal interpretation. After a while it gets tedious. (Again there are definitively parts that aged very badly, eg racism and antisemitism)
Nevertheless Charlotte Perkins Gilman must have been an extraordinary woman and her ideas still feel relevant today.
Nevertheless Charlotte Perkins Gilman must have been an extraordinary woman and her ideas still feel relevant today.
October 24, 2019
“We have always had war," Terry explained. ... "It is human nature."3/5 stars.
"Human?" asked Ellador.
"Are some of the soldiers women?" she inquired.
"Women! Of course not! They are men; strong, brave men..."
"Then why do you call it 'human nature?' she persisted. "If it was human wouldn't they both do it?"
"Do you call bearing children 'human nature'? she asked him.
"It's woman nature," he answered. "It's her work."
"Then why do you not call fighting 'man nature' -- instead of human?”
ebook, 144 pages.
Read from September 19, 2019 to September 20, 2019.
Review at The Pluviophile Writer: https://bit.ly/31DQ2YV
Picking up where Herland left off, Ellador and Van set off around the world to show Ellador the rest of the world away from her homeland and all of her matriarchal values. Van decides to leave America for their last visit, his home, in hopes that she will see it more favourably. While Ellador adapts fairly well in many aspects of his society she is truly traumatized and cannot shake the horror of how women, animals, and children are generally treated. Ellador is the most disappointed that America had the chance to do things differently and didn't.
Even though Ellador struggles, Van and Ellador grow deeper and more intimate in their relationship. Ellador does eventually want to attempt to bear children by Van but still doesn't understand or have the urges for physical intimacy, which Van completely respects and understands.
This book steered away from a novel and narrative and read more like an essay or a rant of the author's ideologies, similar to the first book in the trilogy, Moving the Mountain. While I enjoyed aspects of this novel, particularly how Ellador managed particular situations during some of her encounters with men, this book was generally unsurprising and concluded as I expected it to.
In terms of its ideological content, this book solidifies the author's views and any remaining issues she has found with the patriarchal society while reaffirming previous values made in the other novels. If you're interested in all of the author's ideologies then I feel that reading the whole trilogy is important, however, if you're looking for more of an interesting story, you could easily get away with just reading Herland.
January 13, 2021
I was leading a book club group, choosing Herland for the main book for discussion, but figured it wouldn't hurt to read the Herland trilogy in order to bring some more themes to the table for the discussion. I read all three in audiobook form, which can be found easily as they are all in the public domain.
This book's story starts off right at the end of Herland. In Herland, three men find a society of women and learn how their community is thriving. They marry three of the women, and one tries to commit marital rape but ultimately fails and is put on trial. He is banished from their society. With Her in Ourland starts with his exile. One of the other men misses his society and wants to leave with his wife, his wife is intrigued with life outside Herland, so she agrees to go. Much like the other books, the "story" is mostly at the beginning and end, with the middle mostly being a dialogue between the characters about Gilman's thoughts on society. In the end, the couple decide to go back to Herland.
This was written during WWI and before the 19th amendment, so as with the other books, my little disclaimer is that if you're going to read this book, then you should know there are a lot of outdated ideas. Out of the three books, I consider With Her in Ourland to be the worst because of how blatantly racist it is. It's a real shame because at first, I was getting into reading this because Gilman is so outspoken about religion at the beginning, which is just barely acceptable today in the right circles, but I can't imagine how completely extreme it would have been for her time. However, reading further, once the couple are out of Herland, they decide to travel to different places around the world before going to his previous home in America. There are some good points made, such as when they hear a girl screaming while getting her feet bound. Such a thing was terrible for the time and Gilman does note this, but she also misses some larger points overall. Most of the people they come across during their journey that aren't Anglo, were considered "savages" or were described by very damning stereotypes. When talking about how to better a society, the couple decide that it would be best to breed them with white people to not only change their physical appearance, but to change their behavior as if it's white people who are the purest of beings. Gilman was very pro-eugenics, and it even shows a bit in the first two books in this trilogy, but her thoughts in this book very much line up with white supremacy.
I just can't recommend this book over the first two. The race eugenics concepts Gilman advocates for are atrocious, even for her time. If you are to read this, read it for history's sake, but not for idealism.
This book's story starts off right at the end of Herland. In Herland, three men find a society of women and learn how their community is thriving. They marry three of the women, and one tries to commit marital rape but ultimately fails and is put on trial. He is banished from their society. With Her in Ourland starts with his exile. One of the other men misses his society and wants to leave with his wife, his wife is intrigued with life outside Herland, so she agrees to go. Much like the other books, the "story" is mostly at the beginning and end, with the middle mostly being a dialogue between the characters about Gilman's thoughts on society. In the end, the couple decide to go back to Herland.
This was written during WWI and before the 19th amendment, so as with the other books, my little disclaimer is that if you're going to read this book, then you should know there are a lot of outdated ideas. Out of the three books, I consider With Her in Ourland to be the worst because of how blatantly racist it is. It's a real shame because at first, I was getting into reading this because Gilman is so outspoken about religion at the beginning, which is just barely acceptable today in the right circles, but I can't imagine how completely extreme it would have been for her time. However, reading further, once the couple are out of Herland, they decide to travel to different places around the world before going to his previous home in America. There are some good points made, such as when they hear a girl screaming while getting her feet bound. Such a thing was terrible for the time and Gilman does note this, but she also misses some larger points overall. Most of the people they come across during their journey that aren't Anglo, were considered "savages" or were described by very damning stereotypes. When talking about how to better a society, the couple decide that it would be best to breed them with white people to not only change their physical appearance, but to change their behavior as if it's white people who are the purest of beings. Gilman was very pro-eugenics, and it even shows a bit in the first two books in this trilogy, but her thoughts in this book very much line up with white supremacy.
I just can't recommend this book over the first two. The race eugenics concepts Gilman advocates for are atrocious, even for her time. If you are to read this, read it for history's sake, but not for idealism.
October 29, 2022
Despite not caring for either Moving the Mountain or Herland, Herland ended in such a way that I felt compelled to read With Her in Ourland.
At the end of Herland, Van Dyke and his wife, Ellador, have decided to leave the utopian Herland in order to show Ellador the greater world, for a two-fold purpose: to get the world's measure and see how it's run, see if it would be appropriate or desirable to introduce Herland to it.
The go first to Europe, and the Great War where World War I is in progress; it's rather a shock to Ellador, who has lived in a country that has been at peace and has known nothing like war at all for close to 6000 years. Then they go to Asia, before finally making it to America. Ellador is not impressed by what she sees, has plenty of criticisms, but she has some measure of hope.
In keeping with the theme of the other books, this one is again didactic, perhaps even more so than the previous ones. There's little thought given to plot or characters, and it's more use as a vessel for Gilman to get her thoughts down on paper.
Gilman does seem to have a stronger ability to see faults than to come up with solutions, and in that way, this book was stronger than the previous two. But her general racism and xenophobia manages to shine through, and in the last quarter of the book, we're slapped full in the face with some pretty intense antisemitism. The culthood surrounding motherhood still makes my skin crawl.
Her ideas on education and community supports still shine through, even if her general view of ecology is "if it's not useful specifically and only for humans, it shouldn't exist."
In the end, I don't think I'm especially glad that I decided to read all three books, but at the very least, at least all three of them were short (each of them being well under 200 pages).
At the end of Herland, Van Dyke and his wife, Ellador, have decided to leave the utopian Herland in order to show Ellador the greater world, for a two-fold purpose: to get the world's measure and see how it's run, see if it would be appropriate or desirable to introduce Herland to it.
The go first to Europe, and the Great War where World War I is in progress; it's rather a shock to Ellador, who has lived in a country that has been at peace and has known nothing like war at all for close to 6000 years. Then they go to Asia, before finally making it to America. Ellador is not impressed by what she sees, has plenty of criticisms, but she has some measure of hope.
In keeping with the theme of the other books, this one is again didactic, perhaps even more so than the previous ones. There's little thought given to plot or characters, and it's more use as a vessel for Gilman to get her thoughts down on paper.
Gilman does seem to have a stronger ability to see faults than to come up with solutions, and in that way, this book was stronger than the previous two. But her general racism and xenophobia manages to shine through, and in the last quarter of the book, we're slapped full in the face with some pretty intense antisemitism. The culthood surrounding motherhood still makes my skin crawl.
Her ideas on education and community supports still shine through, even if her general view of ecology is "if it's not useful specifically and only for humans, it shouldn't exist."
In the end, I don't think I'm especially glad that I decided to read all three books, but at the very least, at least all three of them were short (each of them being well under 200 pages).
January 29, 2023
Although it is a continuation of Charlotte Perkins Gilman's The Land of Women, it is an equally exclusive work in terms of content.
Our author, who was born in a bipolar world (matriarchal-patriarchal) and had the chance to get to know both worlds, has processed a tremendous critique of the system and the expression of matriarchal thinking through the character of Ellador.
Although this is fictional, it is also a subject based on reality. Brought criticism because, with solutions that the world has to offer matriarchal, patriarchal social structure of capitalism has created the greatest fury against one of the pillars which is brought against an criticism and solutions, solutions that perform for everyone's sake matriarchal perspective book is a tremendous spot moved. In particular, the importance of social equality and cooperation between men and women instead of male hostility has become a functioning befitting the matriarchal idea. The book is actually completely based on facts.
it was the continuation of my review of the country of women book, but it rarely happens to come across such a beautiful duo in dualistic readings.
The only negative thing I can say for the book, the translation or the original language of the book, I don't know that originate from intense inverted sentences, and in some places we oznes yuklemsiz was distracting to have a structure sentences. Although it has made it a little difficult, I would say it is a very successful book. My strong recommendation for those who are studying the country of women. Those who have not read should definitely start reading from the first.
Our author, who was born in a bipolar world (matriarchal-patriarchal) and had the chance to get to know both worlds, has processed a tremendous critique of the system and the expression of matriarchal thinking through the character of Ellador.
Although this is fictional, it is also a subject based on reality. Brought criticism because, with solutions that the world has to offer matriarchal, patriarchal social structure of capitalism has created the greatest fury against one of the pillars which is brought against an criticism and solutions, solutions that perform for everyone's sake matriarchal perspective book is a tremendous spot moved. In particular, the importance of social equality and cooperation between men and women instead of male hostility has become a functioning befitting the matriarchal idea. The book is actually completely based on facts.
it was the continuation of my review of the country of women book, but it rarely happens to come across such a beautiful duo in dualistic readings.
The only negative thing I can say for the book, the translation or the original language of the book, I don't know that originate from intense inverted sentences, and in some places we oznes yuklemsiz was distracting to have a structure sentences. Although it has made it a little difficult, I would say it is a very successful book. My strong recommendation for those who are studying the country of women. Those who have not read should definitely start reading from the first.
June 17, 2022
The sequel to Herland was both good and disappointing. I loved that it picked up right where Herland left off and proceeded to tell a wonderful story of Van and Ellador's world travels. However, the like 5 or 6 chapters of the book were nothing more than Ellador making profound political and societal statements. And I literally mean for chapters. There is no story to be had until the last chapter where they return to Herland to live happily ever after. That last chapter was so rushed, especially compared to the fact that Ellador is on a soapbox for chapters upon chapters. Perkins Gilman rushes the end of the novel almost as an after thought like, "Oh right, I forgot, I had a story to tell. Hm I guess they can just go back to Herland and have a kid." Don't get me wrong, most of what Ellador spouts off is profound and wise (except for the casual racism and anti Semitism), especially for the time this was written, but it could have been done in a better way that was a part of the storyline instead of it becoming the storyline.
Overall, I was expecting it to be better than it was. If it hadn't gone off the rails, I would have enjoyed it much more. Still, I love Charlotte Perkins Gilman as a writer and even when I was sick of Ellador's thoughts, it was still an enjoyable read.
Overall, I was expecting it to be better than it was. If it hadn't gone off the rails, I would have enjoyed it much more. Still, I love Charlotte Perkins Gilman as a writer and even when I was sick of Ellador's thoughts, it was still an enjoyable read.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 19, 2018
Dated, racist and plotless. The thin narrative, a world tour for Van and Ellador (Terry is dropped from the 'story' almost instantly), is just a skeletal device for a discussion on social and racial development. This discussion is not presented through experience or circumstance but almost solely through dialogue. Hidden amongst dated views about social complexity being a linear progression and racism veiled behind pseudo science there are some interesting points about feminism, economic independence and democratic responsibility; sadly none of these are/were that original. The developing relationship between Van and Ellador is presented well, they misunderstand, challange and agree with each other in a relatively realistic fashion but their relationship (beyond their conversations) is rarely challenged and is not investigated to any significant depth. This sequel exacerbates the 'uncivilised' attitudes of the Herland novel - and the author - but fails to do the same for the aspects that made the original worth reading. There are some broad parallels to Wonder Woman in the initially set up of this sequel, for anyone interested in that.
May 4, 2016
Ellador and Vandyck Jennings leave Herland ostensibly to see America. They get diverted and see Sweden, France, Italy, Egypt, India, China, Japan, Hawaii, San Francisco, the Southwest, Kansas, and the Great Lakes Region. Ellador, being very intellectually curious, notes the sociological, economic, and cultural oddities that she sees. She challenges Van on why America doesn't make the changes she feels would make America a better place to live, such as had been done in Herland. She addresses racism, socialism, poverty, religion, suffrage, feminism, birth control, sex, income inequality, government corruption, education, war, and corporate price gouging. She spends two years gathering her notes and lecturing anyone interested in hearing what she has to say. It is a sexless marriage, and both are quite happy. She decides it is time to return to Herland and write a book. Van follows her and they discuss starting a family. It's not as good as Herland, but was still read worthy.
February 10, 2017
It's hard to review something like this. I loved it because it is absolutely fastinating to me, what a white utopian feminist saw as the utopian ideal back in the early 1900s, and how that compares to what I, a (also white), rather utopian-feminist (by my own definition, not necessarily how others define it) think of a utopia.. not that I often have. This book (and Herland) have been a feast of ideas and things to think about and consider, and I love that, even if there are several things I very much disagree with. I will say, halfway through this book I started reading Gilman's biography which enhanced the reading immensely, and given it quite a bit of context (not to mention the countless articles about Gilman & her works I've read since starting this!).
I really, really want to write an updated 'version' of Herland. I lack follow through for such projects, so I'm sure it wont happen, but I sooo wish I could actually do it. It would be so fascinating to explore.
I really, really want to write an updated 'version' of Herland. I lack follow through for such projects, so I'm sure it wont happen, but I sooo wish I could actually do it. It would be so fascinating to explore.
March 17, 2010
Story covers at length the shock of a very intelligent woman from Herland (all female utopia) traveling around the world. Flying over the French battlefield during WWI, hearing a Chinese mother binding her daughter's feet, seeing the devastation of the environment, and finding out that half the citizen's of the United States could not vote. Published in 1916. This is the tiniest bit more interesting than Herland but still very repetitive. The solutions that occur to the woman thinker are ones that have since been tried and found lacking. Perhaps they were poorly executed. The woman never gets over the fact that the women in the United States are content to accept the world as it is when in Herland they were compelled by their motherhood to make the world over for the benefit of their children.
May 9, 2016
This is the follow up to "Herland." Once again, I found this an interesting read not because it's written well, but because it's fascinating to see how a woman viewed the world 100 years ago. This one was different from Herland in that there wasn't a real plot, just a series of rants about society. It's like the author used the premise of a novel to write about her own views of the world. Some of them are insightful and still relevant today (wage inequality), but many of them are a bit odd. At times it feels like she is one of those voluntourists who travels to a developing world, looks around and thinks, I know how to fix all of this. But really, not all of her solutions would work- not even remotely.
September 12, 2017
This was less story than Herland. This is more strictly a dissertation on the sociological issues our world faces, and a launch pad for solutions. But while less of a novel, it is no less in brilliance or relevancy... Still, a century later.
November 1, 2019
In the land of white feminism
This book contains some disgustingly racist and antisemitic views. Apart from that it is often very boring, but you will also find some interesting analyses of the society it was written in.
This book contains some disgustingly racist and antisemitic views. Apart from that it is often very boring, but you will also find some interesting analyses of the society it was written in.
September 2, 2023
It did not give what I needed it to give
November 11, 2025
With Her in Ourland by Charlotte Perkins Gilman is the fierce, intellectual echo to Herland—a homecoming not to comfort, but to confrontation. Gilman takes her utopian dream and hurls it into the flawed real world, testing whether compassion and intellect can outlive war, greed, and patriarchal arrogance. It’s a bold dialogue between hope and history, brimming with the courage to question even the foundations of “human nature.” As she writes, “Do you call bearing children ‘human nature’? she asked him. ‘It’s woman nature,’ he answered. ‘It’s her work.’ ‘Then why do you not call fighting ‘man nature’—instead of human?’” That one exchange captures the book’s brilliance—a dismantling of assumptions so sharp it still cuts clean through our century’s noise. Visionary, unsettling, and unforgettable.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Read
August 28, 2023Gilman brings Ellador of Herland into "Ourland": the world and, especially, the United States of c.1916. Her observations are very critical of many of the U.S.'s most cherished beliefs about itself, and, though her American husband Van generally (if sometimes grudgingly) agrees with what Ellador says, the intervening century has not, in most cases, resolved the inequities addressed and, in some cases, has made them worse. As even Gilman's strongest supporters admit, she is not perfect; elements of racism and elitism are present in her work. But many of the ideas she voices through Ellador have merit and, in most instances, would be preferable to the reality of 1916 (or 2016, for that matter).
April 9, 2018
Cinsiyet, ırk, din, toplumsal olaylar ve genel geçer doğrulara daha doğrusu sorgulamadan doğru kabul ettiğimiz çoğu olguyu güzel bir noktadan yakalayıp irdelemiş bir kitap. Kadınlar Ülkesi ve Bizim Ülkemiz pek çok insanın klavuz kitabı olmayı hakediyor. Doğru sorgulamaları barındıran aydınlatıcı bir kitap.
December 6, 2017
Ho veramente così tante cose da dire su questo libro che non so da dove iniziare, ma so che a fine recensione avrò dimenticato almeno la metà delle cose. Bene così.
Per prima cosa, questo libro si stacca tantissimo dal precedente: qui la trama e la narrazione sono solo scuse per svendere un saggio socio-economico-politico.
Il problema è che fino a metà questo libro regge anche. Sembra avere delle buone basi: un'esterna visita il mondo dei primi del '900 e si ritrova disgustata dalle condizioni sociali ed economiche di tutte le nazioni e delle persone che ci vivono dentro. Ci può stare, ripeto, ma poi si arriva alla metà del libro.
È evidente che la scrittrice sia una scienziata: si parla di numeri, percentuali, tecniche di economia e altro. E non sarebbe nemmeno quello il problema, se poi la questione sociale fosse stata trattata come di dovere.
Una donna che prende in giro altre donne non si può sentire – men che meno una donna che prende in giro le prime femministe per i loro metodi confusionari. Un gruppo che ha il coraggio, per la prima volta e da solo, di uscire da regole fisse, non solo sociali ma anche politiche, non può essere preso in giro solo perché "disorganizzato". Si capisce che la Gilman al tempo non era d'accordo con le scelte delle donne, con il femminismo, con le reazioni delle donne al suddetto femminismo, ma a questa pare sfuggire il punto focale: erano le prime. E quando si è i primi si va a tentativi. E andare a tentativi significa anche avere alcuni pregiudizi verso sé stessi, avere difficoltà a scavalcare visioni che la società ci impone.
La parte divertente? Pure la Gilman lo fa. Si dimentica bellamente la parte del razzismo – che c'è, e arriva benissimo anche dalle sue parole. E allora dove sta la coerenza? Facile: la Gilman stessa non è conscia di tutto ciò che dice, perché alcune cose (ad esempio, appunto, la questione razziale) le sono state insegnate così e basta. E, come sopra, il motivo è lo stesso: perché è stata una delle prime a farsi avanti.
Trovo comunque che l'incoerenza di fondo non mi abbia fatto apprezzare questo romanzo, che poi romanzo non è. È infatti un saggio camuffato male. I pensieri vengono trasmessi principalmente tramite dialogo, che in questo caso specifico funziona, ma fa sembrare il libro come una conferenza, più che come un vero e proprio romanzo. Presumo che questo faccia parte dell'idea di realismo della Gilman, per cui su questo non posso dire niente.
In più c'è sempre l'idea che donna = madre che ancora non mi garba troppo.
Ci sono delle idee di base che ho apprezzato, altre che sono state appena accennate e non approfondite, altre ancora che non ho apprezzato nemmeno per sbaglio, e proprio per questo posso dire che capisco che questo libro abbia una profonda importanza nella letteratura femminista, soprattutto perché porta molte nuove idee, ma allo stesso tempo, in questo momento storico, questo è un romanzo (libro) brutto. Forse pure più di Herland.
Per prima cosa, questo libro si stacca tantissimo dal precedente: qui la trama e la narrazione sono solo scuse per svendere un saggio socio-economico-politico.
Il problema è che fino a metà questo libro regge anche. Sembra avere delle buone basi: un'esterna visita il mondo dei primi del '900 e si ritrova disgustata dalle condizioni sociali ed economiche di tutte le nazioni e delle persone che ci vivono dentro. Ci può stare, ripeto, ma poi si arriva alla metà del libro.
È evidente che la scrittrice sia una scienziata: si parla di numeri, percentuali, tecniche di economia e altro. E non sarebbe nemmeno quello il problema, se poi la questione sociale fosse stata trattata come di dovere.
Una donna che prende in giro altre donne non si può sentire – men che meno una donna che prende in giro le prime femministe per i loro metodi confusionari. Un gruppo che ha il coraggio, per la prima volta e da solo, di uscire da regole fisse, non solo sociali ma anche politiche, non può essere preso in giro solo perché "disorganizzato". Si capisce che la Gilman al tempo non era d'accordo con le scelte delle donne, con il femminismo, con le reazioni delle donne al suddetto femminismo, ma a questa pare sfuggire il punto focale: erano le prime. E quando si è i primi si va a tentativi. E andare a tentativi significa anche avere alcuni pregiudizi verso sé stessi, avere difficoltà a scavalcare visioni che la società ci impone.
La parte divertente? Pure la Gilman lo fa. Si dimentica bellamente la parte del razzismo – che c'è, e arriva benissimo anche dalle sue parole. E allora dove sta la coerenza? Facile: la Gilman stessa non è conscia di tutto ciò che dice, perché alcune cose (ad esempio, appunto, la questione razziale) le sono state insegnate così e basta. E, come sopra, il motivo è lo stesso: perché è stata una delle prime a farsi avanti.
Trovo comunque che l'incoerenza di fondo non mi abbia fatto apprezzare questo romanzo, che poi romanzo non è. È infatti un saggio camuffato male. I pensieri vengono trasmessi principalmente tramite dialogo, che in questo caso specifico funziona, ma fa sembrare il libro come una conferenza, più che come un vero e proprio romanzo. Presumo che questo faccia parte dell'idea di realismo della Gilman, per cui su questo non posso dire niente.
In più c'è sempre l'idea che donna = madre che ancora non mi garba troppo.
Ci sono delle idee di base che ho apprezzato, altre che sono state appena accennate e non approfondite, altre ancora che non ho apprezzato nemmeno per sbaglio, e proprio per questo posso dire che capisco che questo libro abbia una profonda importanza nella letteratura femminista, soprattutto perché porta molte nuove idee, ma allo stesso tempo, in questo momento storico, questo è un romanzo (libro) brutto. Forse pure più di Herland.
April 24, 2018
"Herland" was cute enough, I mean, it envisioned an utopia - something we all do in some sense, and is a part of fantasy. "With Her in Ourland" brings that utopia in to comparison to our world, something that should peel away some naivete. It didn't. It's not really fair to compare fantasy with reality - but still, that's what Perkins Gilman goes into.
As suspected, she goes strong into the defense of Socialism(it's the fantasy remember), trying to have some distance in the beginning(as her views, according to herself, were not totally Socialist) but almost full in as the result. Communism is close too, but she is unable to define it because Ellador is unfamiliar with the terms and Van is as unknowable of what he talks about as I suppose Perkins Gilman is herself.
A bad argument is made for socialism, and against a bad portrait of capitalism. Note, not everything is Capitalism, and not everything criticized in the book is done wrongly. There are much wrong in the world, and so would it have been in a even a little bit more realistic "Herland." She tries to argue against the gist of what Van thinks is the core of the American ideal - the best of what the west could bring forth. She fails, both in arguing the counter and in arguing against it. Sloppy, but at least it is tried with a lot of effort and width in the approaches.
I love the format of fiction embedded with politics and philosophy - so that's not what brings this book down(it brings it up), what brings it down is the message - the message of a horrible solution to a world that is trying to figure it out. Sometimes I almost thought Perkins Gilman got a glimpse of reality in the buildup of an argument, but then blew it.
As suspected, she goes strong into the defense of Socialism(it's the fantasy remember), trying to have some distance in the beginning(as her views, according to herself, were not totally Socialist) but almost full in as the result. Communism is close too, but she is unable to define it because Ellador is unfamiliar with the terms and Van is as unknowable of what he talks about as I suppose Perkins Gilman is herself.
A bad argument is made for socialism, and against a bad portrait of capitalism. Note, not everything is Capitalism, and not everything criticized in the book is done wrongly. There are much wrong in the world, and so would it have been in a even a little bit more realistic "Herland." She tries to argue against the gist of what Van thinks is the core of the American ideal - the best of what the west could bring forth. She fails, both in arguing the counter and in arguing against it. Sloppy, but at least it is tried with a lot of effort and width in the approaches.
I love the format of fiction embedded with politics and philosophy - so that's not what brings this book down(it brings it up), what brings it down is the message - the message of a horrible solution to a world that is trying to figure it out. Sometimes I almost thought Perkins Gilman got a glimpse of reality in the buildup of an argument, but then blew it.
September 20, 2022
(Rating 2.5) —- I read Herland whilst studying for my masters and really enjoyed it and have finally got round to reading the rest in this trilogy!! Firstly, I think it’s important to read this in context as it is very dated and with the occasional casual racism thrown in which thankfully wouldn’t be acceptable now.
Overall, it did bring up some great ideas about men and women and our gender roles. For example, she repeatedly sees that all the wars have been done by men yet the world sees it as one nation against another. Also, when she is told that women would also do this, she says no they wouldn’t because men have successfully made them defer to men as rebellious women would not be married and therefore it would be their extinction. As we are seeing our world through new eyes it’s quite interesting to see it viewed so plainly when we don’t explicitly see it that way.
Saying this, I thought the delivery was quite clumsy. It ends up lecturing the reader on politics and how America is bad or could be better and even though some of these were interesting ideas, some were just too contrived. There was also a lot of talk on democracy, socialism, etc, which was repeated too often for my liking. To sum up, it’s really a social critique of different countries and their ways of life told from an ‘outsider’.
Overall, it did bring up some great ideas about men and women and our gender roles. For example, she repeatedly sees that all the wars have been done by men yet the world sees it as one nation against another. Also, when she is told that women would also do this, she says no they wouldn’t because men have successfully made them defer to men as rebellious women would not be married and therefore it would be their extinction. As we are seeing our world through new eyes it’s quite interesting to see it viewed so plainly when we don’t explicitly see it that way.
Saying this, I thought the delivery was quite clumsy. It ends up lecturing the reader on politics and how America is bad or could be better and even though some of these were interesting ideas, some were just too contrived. There was also a lot of talk on democracy, socialism, etc, which was repeated too often for my liking. To sum up, it’s really a social critique of different countries and their ways of life told from an ‘outsider’.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 67 reviews