Dağı Yerinden Oynatmak

The Herland Trilogy #1

by Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Melda Olcaytu (Translator)

Charlotte Perkins Gilman 19. yüzyıl sonları 20. yüzyıl başlarında yaşamış, feminist edebiyata önemli katkılarda bulunmuş Amerikalı bir sosyolog ve yazardır. Aynı zamanda döneminin önde gelen hümanistlerinden ve kadın hakları savunucularındandır. Dağı Yerinden Oynatmak adlı eserinde, feminist bakış açısıyla ve ironilerle bezeli üslubuyla bambaşka bir dünya yaratmıştır okurlarına.

John Robertson, Himalayalara yaptığı bir keşif gezisi sırasında kayalıklardan düşer ve hafızasını yitirir. Otuz yıl sonra kız kardeşi tarafından bulunduğunda artık bambaşka bir adamdır. Ancak bu süre zarfında dünya da bambaşka bir yer olmuştur. Uzun eve dönüş yolculukları boyunca bu farklı dünyayı tanımaya çalışan John, ülkesine döndüğünde yeniliklere ayak uydurmakta zorlanacaktır. Neden sonra anlayacaktır ki bütün bu değişimin temelinde aslında tek bir şey yatmaktadır: Zihniyet değişimi. “Kadınların uyanışları” diye dile getirir bunu Perkins kurduğu ütopyada, nihayetinde bu dünyayı değiştiren insanların bakış açısıdır ve bunu sağlayan da kadınlardır.

Kadınlar Ülkesi Üçlemesi’nin ilk kitabı Dağı Yerinden Oynatmak, Türkçeye ilk defa Cem Yayınevi tarafından çevrilmiştir.

Genres: Classics, Feminism, Fiction, Science Fiction, Fantasy, Dystopia, Utopia

176 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1911

About the author

Charlotte Perkins Gilman (1860-1935), also known as Charlotte Perkins Stetson, was a prominent American sociologist, novelist, writer of short stories, poetry, and nonfiction, and a lecturer for social reform. She was a utopian feminist during a time when her accomplishments were exceptional for women, and she served as a role model for future generations of feminists because of her unorthodox concepts and lifestyle. Her best remembered work today is her semi-autobiographical short story, "The Yellow Wallpaper", which she wrote after a severe bout of post-partum depression.

She was the daughter of Frederic B. Perkins.

Reviews

[Melissa · Rating 4 out of 5]

First published serially and then as a book in 1911, this early feminist utopian novel was an interesting and fun glimpse into what women thought a world of true equality could look like, and at the same time sadly a bit disheartening for me considering all the years that have past since (over 100) and how little has really changed beneath the surface, or even on the surface.

[Ronnie · Rating 2 out of 5]

Moving the Mountain is some early feminist literature, where Charlotte Perkins Gilman imagines a utopia, not far from her present day, one where the world changes in thirty years: "Moving the Mountain is a short distance Utopia, a baby Utopia, a little one that can grow. It involves the mere awakening if people, especially the women, to existing possibilities. It indicates what people might do, real people, now living, in thirty years -- if they would. One man, truly aroused and redirecting his energies, can change his whole life in thirty years. So can the world."

Thirty years ago, John, then twenty-five, walked off a mountainside and fell into a remote Tibetian village with no memory of his life, but when his sister Nellie finds him, he's reawakened to his old life with no memory at all of the last twenty years.


What follows is Nellie and her family trying to get John acquainted with the new world, a Utopia, where people only work 2 - 4 hours a day, where there's very little crime and no poverty, where fruit trees grow along the road. In the tradition of utopic novels, it's less a narrative and more a lecture: this is the world now, this is how we changed it, this is how the old world didn't work.

It is, overall, pretty idyllic. Except for some excruciatingly jarring moments that set my teeth in edge. I try very hard not to judge old novels (this one written in 1911) by modern standards.

For instance, I know a lot of left-leaning socialists back in the day believed in eugenics, right up until WWII when they saw it in action, and then most decent thinking people were like "oh wait, nevermind, that's horrible." Even still, it was jarring go see it so happily touted as a solution to some of the world's problems, as if there was nothing whatsoever wrong with it, or with killing anyone who was considered a hopeless degenerate.

The racism and white supremacy of the novella was the insidious kind that you almost can't see, except that it makes you feel like your skin is crawling, and the discussing of people as though they're cattle made me cringe.

The discussion of just wiping out dangerous predators so everywhere in the world can be safe for people to live, and the deliberate extinction of several "pest" insects, as if humans are above basic ecology, didn't sit right either.


There are a lot of good ideas in this book. Unfortunately, they're overshadowed by the bad ones.

[Laura · Rating 2 out of 5]

Free download available at Project Gutenberg

I made the proofing of this book and Dagny will make an SR and Project Gutenberg will publish it.

[Mommalibrarian · Rating 3 out of 5]

A man is isolated from civilization for thirty years. He comes back to find that women, who did not have any power including the vote when he left are now running a Utopian society in the United States. Lots of ideas which were probably were quite advanced or amazing at the time (1911). Many are ideas which will probably never happen but some very good. A bit of a dry read.

[Gigi · Rating 1 out of 5]

A few years ago I researched a list from the American Librarians Association of the top 200 Best American Novels.
Since then I have made that list one of my challenges, to read several titles from it each year.
Most of the titles on the list are written by the 'usual suspects'- famous titles written by famous American authors. But one of the titles caught my eye- a book that was heralded as a landmark book in the feminist movement- Herland a utopian novel from 1915, written by feminist Charlotte Perkins Gilman.
I wondered how it was that I had never read this obviously important title and this summer I set out to read it.
After downloading the title, I saw that it was Book #2 of a trilogy. I have this little 'thing' about reading a book out of sequence so I set out to read Book #1 of the set, which is this title- Moving the Mountain.
I hate to write negative reviews about historic books but, if I am honest, I must admit that it was actually painful reading this title. There is no plot of any substance and virtually no character development- it is simply dry dialogue describing the author's dreams of a utopian society. Most of the book consists of the main character, John Robertson, who was living in an obscure region of Tibet for over 30 years and unaware of the massive changes in the world, being instructed by his family members and others, in the new, rational, well-organized social order.
Now the theory behind this new world order is quite interesting albeit simplistic in the way it has come about (the women of the world simply 'woke up') and the part about killing off all animals that are too dangerous like tigers repulsed me to no end. But the thought of a society where women have equal value, the education of children is the most important work and there is no poverty was lovely- there was so much potential in this book but it was all reduced to dry descriptive dialogue.
It is only 146 pages long but I found myself looking down at the page numbers frequently, much like a bored and anxious child on a family outing ("Are we there yet?")
My hope is that this initial title is dull because the author intended it to be simply the 'set-up' for the central title.
I shall move on to Herland with hopes that there is actually a plot, characters and a storyline. Wish me luck!

[Michelle (driftingsong) · Rating 3 out of 5]

Given that this is my third Charlotte Perkins Gilman book, and I've never given one of her books above three stars, I think that she's just not for me.

Never-the-less this is a short and interesting exploration into what one feminist in 1910 thought a feminist utopia would look like.

As many have previously stated the writing is a bit dry, given that everything about their society is being told to John, so there's zero plot. Logically many aspects of this world would not work such as killing off several animals of different species and most importantly the speed with which everyone "woke up" and changed their mind. Never-the-less this speculative fiction perspective was certainly an interesting ride and gave some food for thought.

It also struck me at how well versed CPG must be in the various topics/aspects of society she explores. Given that I am a teacher myself, I had to say that I was impressed by the very play based/inquiry based learning that she presented.

[Kaitlin · Rating 4 out of 5]

I love a good utopian novel, and Moving the Mountain is no exception. The world Gilman has created as a post socialist utopia is beautiful and inspiring. I especially like the description of agriculture and the caretaking of children, as well as the important role women play in the transition to this brave new world. That's all great. But wouldn't it be nice if we could have a utopia without eugenics? Here is where Gilman lost me, and I found myself often downright uncomfortable with the dismissive description of disposing of "idiots and perverts." The notes on immigrants (only let the clean ones in? WTF does that mean Gilman?) and black people are downright cringe. Still, I think it's worth the read, especially as a standout piece of utopian fiction, a field very dominated by male voices.

[Tamta Tavberidze · Rating 5 out of 5]

ძალიან საინტერესო და ღრმა ტექსტია ,,ყვითელი შპალერი". აქ ჩანს პროტაგონისტის გარდასხვა სახლის მშვიდი დიასახლისიდან ამბოხებულ, იატაკზე მფორთხავ ქალამდე. ეს ტექსტი ააშკარავებს იმდროინდელ კულტურაში გაბატონებულ მასკულინური წესების სისასტიკესა და უსამართლობას. მეორე მხრივ კი აჩვენებს ქალის ამბოხს და პროტესტს, რომელიც ბოლოს ოთახის შპალერიდან ამოხეთქავს და იქიდან ფორთხვით გადმოდის.

[Riathulhu · Rating 3 out of 5]

A feminist utopia from 1911, and it's really interesting and fun to see how women imagined a truly equal society back then.
But even though it's called the “herland trilogy”, it's not a prequel, but more or less the same story again, only this time the whole world has changed and our protagonist has missed 30 years with amnesia in Tibet. Again, there is no real plot, but the changes and social principles are gradually explained to us. This is sometimes very drawn out.
And what makes the book really hard to read are the racist (the protagonist had a wife and children in Tibet, but who cares about them?) and eugenic passages. Therefore only a very limited reading recommendation, even if the other ideas are exciting (women are real people and not just objects of reference for men?? 🤯).

[Ellie · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Brains do not cease to function at fifty, just beacuse a woman is no longer an object to fall in love with, it does not follow that life has no charms for her"

[Ana · Rating 2 out of 5]

A man previously lost to the world is found by his sister and tries to re-enters society. He had amnesia so he is not 55 in body, but 25 in mind. The book explores how the man accommodates to advances in industry and society, finding the change in the position and independent attitudes of women, hardest to wrap his head around.

It was ok and I recommend it if you want something a little dry, but there are some ideas that are a little outdated and offensive. Pro-America sentiment, socialism, improving religion and generalization are strong in this book. It's interesting, but at times heavy handed and repetitive. There is a sprinkling of racism, forced assimilation, selective euthanasia etc. The book is a thinly veiled vision of Feminist Socialist America built on 1910's ideals. It made me really grateful that feminism has changed since then.

For the most part I found John's reactions a little funny and realistic, but I would have preferred more plot and less blind optimism about how quickly people can change. Still, I recommend the audiobook from Librivox: https://librivox.org/moving-the-mount...

[Amy · Rating 3 out of 5]

A for effort, B for context, D for execution. Coming up with a society based on socialist & cooperative principles, feminism and a holistic framework for the economy and education is something I find exciting and I appreciated the thoroughness the author takes in explaining the functioning and reasoning behind each aspect of the utopian society and how they got there. Unfortunately the lack of actual story and story telling makes the reading boring and dated. The last few chapters seem tacked on and don’t give the perspective and understanding that the author was likely going for, and just exposed how dated the book actually is in terms of ‘imagining new possibilities of being’.
Overall quick and interesting read. I appreciate that it helps me deepen my understanding of historical feminist/socialist speculative fiction and utopian lit. It was refreshing to read a utopian story rather than a dystopia, which seems to be abundant storytelling nowadays...

[ekin · Rating 4 out of 5]

charlotte perkins gilman ile tanışmamı sağlayan kitap oldu. hayatı da çok zorlu geçmiş, hem evliliğiyle hem sinir hastalıklarıyla boğuşurken kanser olduğunu öğrenip intihar etmiş. kadınlar ülkesi serisinin ilk kitabı olarak geçtiği için okudum, bundan 111 sene önce yazılan feminist bir ütopya okumak çok iyi geldi.

[Jan Priddy · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a thought experiment, a treatise on building a better America, and not so much a novel. The story is that a man has been struck in the head, spent 30 years in Tibet unaware of his past, is struck again and remembers everything. His family brings him to a much-changed United States, a utopia by most any reconning. This man is the skeptical narrator who questions and visits, travels and doubts what he sees. The revelation that shifts the United States into Gilman's utopia is the acceptance of the notion that women are people.

I find it interesting how little comment I find in reviews about what Gilman was up against. First, women could not vote, could not serve on a jury or testify in court or register a patent or sign a contract. The assumptions about their weakness of mind—the ugliness of the Patriarchy at that time was overwhelming. I've seen enough in my lifetime to know that that masculine superiority is not new and it's far from gone. But I had not connected some dots that Gilman does for me here.

In 1910, there was no FDA or other consumer watchdog. "Wool" was not necessarily wool, food was not necessarily safe to eat, mascara could blind, the cities and urban waterways were a toxic mess, and there was no cure for STDs. It was illegal, literally illegal for women to perform many jobs. However, there were 200 thousand prostitutes in New York City (!) and the opinion of many [men] was that those women were permanently ruined but served a necessary function. Most men did not support education for women, and though wealthy families might indulge their daughters that far, the assumption was that marriage was women's only hope for a secure future.

The bulk of the story is how that returned man comes to accept that a better social is not impossible, not an erosion of rights, and not even any sort of loss, but a matter of following what nature allows us to be—happy. The primary contention is that human beings are not naturally evil, that evil is the result of poverty and a striving for wealth by selfish and powerful men.

All of that is gone in the new America alone with nearly all smoking and drinking and drug use. No one is overworked or underpaid or forced into a caste system where society assumes they belong and men cling to power because they think that is their pathway to success.

Instead, America offers a fair opportunity to every man and woman, good wages, short work hours, private homes but collective food preparation. People should love their work, and do work that suits their skills and preferences. Clean and beautiful clothing, parks, fruit-and-nut-lined highways, and quiet streets. Gilman envisioned abandonment of fossil fuels and reliance on other power sources such as tidal and solar. Essential to all this is a primary goal, which is to bring up children kindly and generously.

There are elements that will offend, such s the rare and long past execution (introduced late in the book) of those morally, mentally, and criminally incapable of change. So, there's that repulsive element. The use of the term "breeding" children is also certain to disturb readers.

To counter this: A significant character is a reformed addict and criminal now serving as the head of an academic department on ethics. As to "breeding," children are born only to parents who want them and who have been trained and proven themselves capable of loving and caring for children, and who may entrust the daycare of their children to trained care-givers. We already know how to prevent the birth of hurt babies—abstinence, testing in utero, etc.—and many parents already do this. There is an irony, perhaps, that we demand training and a license, background tests and oversight to teach in a public school, but not to father or birth and then raise a child. This child-centered care is noted as the most important obligation of this imagined society. And this society makes no bones about being socialist. Somehow, thanks to wealthy and entitled people, that word has become a pejorative. In Gilman's imagined world it is all about justice and joy.

I will also note that the final event in what passes for plot is the narrator convincing his cousin to marry him in order to save her. [see above] I was disappointed that Gilman fell back on that cliché.

This book is mostly dialogue, overuse of the expression "you see" grates, and presents details both ahead of its time and dated, but is well worth reading for how Gilman forces the readers to reconsider what they know is true about humanity. I should have read this decades ago. Perhaps I was not capable of of reading past my objections when I was young? I recall not loving Herland when I read it so long ago, but not why. I am rereading it next.

[Liz · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was an odd one, in the way that a lot of utopian books are: unendingly didactic explaining how society perfected itself, full of the prejudices of the time in which it was published (talk of eugenics and the little mention of race was derogatory), fantastically unrealistic that everyone would just agree to live together in a society that is "beyond socialism," and horrifyingly soul-crushing as it deals with many of the same issues we face today. That being said it was thought provoking and I'm inclined to try reading the second book in the trilogy just to see if there is more of a narrative

The one real problem I had with this book is that its feminist message is undercut when the male narrator who ends up saving his female cousin from her ultra conservative and reactionary father by marrying her and taking her away from that place, even though he had been lost in Tibet for 30 years and ignorant of the changes to his America -- ugh.

[Kayla Randolph · Rating 4 out of 5]

(Mandatory Disclaimer: Yes, there’s eugenics, which is obviously not something I support.)

EVERYONE SHOULD READ THIS. IT SHOULD BE REQUIRED READING FOR ALL STUDENTS, PARTICULARLY BOYS/YOUNG MEN.

WOMEN ARE HUMAN BEINGS!!!

”’Are you — do you mean to tell me, Nellie, that you women are trying to make men over to suit yourselves?’

‘Yes. Why not? Didn't you make women to suit yourselves for several thousand years? You bred and trained us to suit your tastes; you liked us small, you liked us weak, you liked us timid, you liked us ignorant, you liked us pretty — what you called pretty — and you eliminated the kinds you did not like.’”

“‘… The big change which Nellie is always referring to means simply that women “waked up” to a realization of the fact that they were human beings.’

‘What were they before, pray?’

‘Only female beings.’

‘Female human beings, of course,’ said I.

‘Yes; a little human, but mostly female. Now they are mostly human. It is a great change.’”

[David]

A true utopian fiction full of very pleasant ideas almost all of which seem to make some sort of sense. Yet the 1940 it posited in 1910 couldn't have been less real in contrast to the historical 1940, World War II underway, etc. The ideas concerning revitalizing human existence and curing social ills by adherence to a more social (socialist) societal foundation all seem desirable, but the human flaws which "John" continually asks his family and friends of 1940 about--"how did you fix X, change Y?"-- were obviously stronger than the cures the utopian fiction proposed could be. Over 100 years later, many of the "old ways" rejected by the 1940 New York in which John finds himself, sort of Rip van Winkle style, remain sadly, strongly presented, the mountain not moved at all, merely (and joy for that at least--something to celebrate) a little easier to climb these days.

[Manya Saxena · Rating 5 out of 5]

Moving the Mountain by Charlotte Perkins Gilman feels like stepping into a utopia that might have existed if humanity had simply chosen reason over chaos. Written before Herland, it’s astonishingly modern—a sharp, almost prophetic critique of gender, capitalism, and progress. Gilman doesn’t just imagine a reformed world; she architects one, brick by brick, with moral clarity and biting wit. It’s less a novel and more a manifesto for the possible, where feminism meets social engineering. A century later, it still reads like a dare: what if we actually learned from our mistakes?

[anayunes7 · Rating 2 out of 5]

es una utopía? sí. está bien hecha? no.
no fue una lectura placentera. ni siquiera es q fue "difícil" de leer como tal, sino que la forma de escribir de la autora es tan insulsa y plana que termina siendo un aburrimiento leer el libro.
encima lo leí sólo porq me interesaba Herland, pero este es el primero de la trilogía; ahora se me fueron todas las ganas de seguirla.

[Mayke ☕️ · Rating 3 out of 5]

The topic of this book is super interesting, an utopia with aspects that we do see now in our modern world, though also many we don't see. For the time it was written it's revolutionary, a vision many wouldn't even slightly think of happening.

This book is one long explanation of this utopia. It's an endless conversation with people explaining to the main character what is going on and how it works. After a while it became a struggle to get through.

Being the first book in a trilogy, I do feel this is an introduction to lay the foundation for the other books. Looking at the book on its own I would've loved to know more about the main character, because I really wanted to know more about him. I also wished that it wasn't one stream of information to take in.

[Oto Bakradze · Rating 3 out of 5]

ტექსტები დიდი ვერაფერი.

ეს ვარსკვლავები ფემინისტური ლიტერატურის საწყისებს.

“ყვითელი შპალერი” ნორმალურია. მეტაფორული ტექსტი მასკულინური სამყაროს ჩარჩოებიდან გათავისუფლებაზე.

“მთის გადადგმა” - ძალიან გულუბრყვილო რომანი, ემანსიპირებული ქალების მიერ შექმნილ სოციალისტურ უტოპიაზე.

[Serina · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting product of its time, and should be viewed as such.

It's quite fascinating to read the text jump around from ideas and arguments that elicit various reactions of, "Meh, nonsense," "Hell yeah," to, "Oh my god, that's fucked up."

Before we wade into what is good about the book though, we should probably get the infamous elephant-in-the-room out of the way: The advocacy of eugenics. Yes, it is there by name in the story, having been written during a time where the position was widely held by many "progressives" of the era. However, having initially read reviews and the page about it on Wikipedia before wading into the book itself, I do think that its presence in the text is somewhat misrepresented:

In Gilman's utopia, there is a very heavy emphasis on materialist analysis and rehabilitation. The mouthpiece characters speak extensively about how humans are products of their environment and conditions, and that when given adequate food, money, rest, education, entertainment, and social support, the vast majority of them turn into functioning citizens. John, the main character who represents the views of the "old world," argues at several points that humans are naturally sinful and destructive, only to be shut down by the various other characters who counter that humans are naturally good, and only need to be allowed to survive and thrive to demonstrate this.

At one point, there is a chapter specifically dedicated to a former drug addict and criminal turned professor of ethics, in order to demonstrate the rehabilitation process of the new United States. According to him and other characters, people in this society are only killed outright if they present a danger to others and all attempts to rehabilitate them have failed. The eugenics of this society seems to mostly take place through the documentation and sterilization of people with STIs, such that they cannot pass on their illnesses to uninfected adults or to their own biological children, though such people are allowed to marry each other and otherwise continue on with normal lives. There is also mention that while anyone healthy can biologically produce a child, parents must pass certification courses in order to be allowed to raise them.

This is not to excuse what the book advocates here. In real life, documentation and social shunning of "diseased" people could only ever escalate into violent action, and represents an inexcusable overstep on people's private lives. In our current conditions, parenting certifications would most likely lead to discrimination against particular groups. I bring up these details not to defend these positions, but merely to add important context to the book's flaws, as in spite of these positions being indefensible, they are still leagues apart from the typical modern view of eugenics as all being of the strict, "all criminality and bad behavior is genetic and we must kill degenerates and minorities indiscriminately to bring about a peaceful society" Nazi variety. To assume this would be to inaccurately represent the book's worldview, and also flatten history generally in a way that, I believe, prevents us from understanding why people in the past took up the positions that they did.

There doesn't seem to be much of a race angle in the eugenics of the book either. Don't get me wrong — I have no doubt that Gilman was racist as a white woman living in the early 20th century. The book does next to nothing to explore the dynamics of race specifically in this new United States. Towards the end, there is a brief, singular black character who fits in with the racist "happy plantation worker" stereotype, and is called the n-word by an antagonistic character. Shortly after his appearance though, said antagonistic character also mentions in passing that most black Americans now refuse to work for people like him, demanding proper wages and to be treated equally to white people. This suggests that some degree of anti-racist reform has taken place in the utopia, though it is not given anywhere near the attention it deserves, nor am I sure if we would have wanted Gilman to try, as I am sure she would have unforgivably blundered the topic.

And while the eugenics and white-centrism does deserve attention and condemnation, I also think it has dominated the discourse around this book to the point of overshadowing its other aspects. Perhaps that is justified, and no shade to you if you feel that it is, but there is a lot to dissect here beyond just the eugenics.

What was striking to me throughout the read was just how many of these same arguments we are still having to this very day. Some of John's lines I could have ripped word-for-word from the average redpilled Twitter user. If you will excuse my extensive quoting (it's a book long in the public domain after all), just look at some of these examples, and tell me you've never heard this in some manosphere comment section somewhere:

“How do you stop it? More interference with the individual rights?”

“More recognition of public rights. A bad noise is a nuisance, like a bad smell. We didn’t used to mind it much — but the women did. You see, what women like has to be considered now.”

“It always was considered!” I broke in with some heat. “The women of America were the most spoiled, pampered lot on earth; men gave up to them in all ways.”

“At home, perhaps, but not in public. The city and state weren’t run to suit them at all.”

“Why should they be? Women belong at home. If they push into a man’s world they ought to take the consequences.”

Owen stretched his long legs and looked up at the soft, brilliant blue above us. “Why do you call the world 'man’s'?” he asked.

“It was man’s; it ought to be. Woman’s place is in the home. I suppose I sound like ancient history to you?” and I laughed a little shamefacedly.

“We have rather lost that point of view,” Owen guardedly admitted. “You see...” and then he laughed. “It’s no use, John; no matter how we put it to you it’s a jar. The world’s thought has changed — and you have got to catch up !”

“Suppose I refuse? Suppose I really am unable?”

“We won’t suppose it for a moment,” he said cheerfully. “Ideas are not nailed down. Just take out what you had and insert some new ones. Women are people— just as much as we are; that’s a fact, my dear fellow. You’ll have to accept it.”

“And are men allowed to be people, too?” I asked gloomily. “Why, of course! Nothing has interfered with our position as human beings; it is only our sex supremacy that we have lost.”

“And do you like it?” I demanded.

>>>

“Well, what comes next? What’s done it?” I demanded. “Religion, education, or those everlasting women?”

He laughed outright; laughed till the boat rocked, “How you do hate to admit that it’s their turn. John! Haven’t we had full swing — everything in our hands — for all historic time? They have only begun. Thirty years? Why, John, they have done so much in these thirty years that the world’s heart is glad at last. You don’t know.”

I didn’t know. But I did feel a distinct resentment at being treated like an extinct species. “They have simply stepped on to an eminence men have been all these years building,” I said. “We have done all the hard work — are doing it yet, for all I see. We have made it possible for them to live at all! We have made the whole civilization of the world — they just profit by it. And now you speak as if, somehow, they had managed to achieve more than we have!” [...] Did women build the Pyramids? The Acropolis? The Roads of Rome?”

“No, nor many other things. But they gave the world its first start in agriculture and the care of animals; they clothed it and fed it and ornamented it and kept it warm; their ceaseless industry made rich the simple early cultures. Consider — without men, Egypt and Assyria could not have fought — but they could have grown rich and wise. Without women — they could have fought until the last man died alone — if the food held out. But I won’t bother you with this, John. You’ll get all you want out of books better than I can give it. What I set out to say was that the most important influence in weeding out intemperance was that of the women.”

I was in a very bad temper by this time, it was disagreeable enough to have this — or any other part of it, true; but what I could not stand was to see that big hearted man speak of it in such a cheerful matter-of-fact way. “Have the men of today no pride?” I asked. “How can you stand it — being treated as inferiors — by women?”

“Women stood it for ten thousand years,” he answered. “Being treated as inferiors — by men.”

We went home in silence.

>>>

“It used to be said that any man could find a woman to marry him,” I murmured, meditatively.

“Maybe he could — once. He certainly cannot now. A man who has one of those diseases is so reported — just like small-pox, you see. Moreover, it is registered against him by the Department of Eugenics — physicians are required to send in lists; any girl can find out.”

“It must have left a large proportion of unmarried women.”

“It did, at first. And that very thing was of great value to the world. They were wise, conscientious, strong women, you see, and they poured all their tremendous force into social service. Lots of them went into child culture — used their mother-power that way. It wasn’t easy for them; it wasn’t easy for the left-over men, either!”

“It must have increased prostitution to an awful extent,” I said.

Owen shook his head and regarded me quizzically. “That is the worst of it,” he said. “There isn’t any.”

I sat up. I stood up. I walked up and down. “No prostitution! I— I can’t believe it. Why, prostitution is a social necessity, as old as Nineveh!”

Owen laughed outright. “Too late, old man; too late! I know we used to think so. We did use to call it a ‘social necessity,’ didn’t we? Come, now, tell me what necessity it was to the women?”

I stopped my march and looked at him.

“To the women,” he repeated. “What did they want of prostitution? What good did it do them?”

“Why — why — they made a living at it,” I replied, rather lamely.

“Yes, a nice, honorable, pleasant, healthy living, didn’t they? With all women perfectly well able to earn an excellent living decently; with all women fully educated about these matters and knowing what a horrible death was before them in this business; with all women brought up like human beings and not like over-sexed female animals, and with all women quite free to marry if they wished to — how many, do you think, would choose that kind of business? We never waited for them to choose it, remember! We fooled them and lied to them and dragged them in — and drove them in — forced them in — and kept them as slaves and prisoners. They didn’t really enjoy the life; you know that. Why should they go into it if they do not have to — to accommodate us?”

[...] “Legislated us all into morality, did they?” I inquired sarcastically.

“Legislation did a good deal; education did more; the new religion did most; social opinion helped. You remember we men never really tried to legislate against prostitution — we wanted it to go on.”

“Why, surely we did legislate against it — and it was of no use!” I protested.

“No; we legislated against the women, but not against the men, or the thing itself. We examined the women, and fined them, and licensed them — and never did anything against the men. Women legislators used very different measures, I assure you.”

“I suppose it is for the good of the world,” I presently admitted; “but...”

“But you don’t quite like to think of men in this new and peculiar position of having to be good!”

“Frankly — I don’t. I’m willing to be good, but — I don’t like to be given no choice.”

John is not very different from many reactionary, antifeminist men today despite having been written in 1911. He sees women's subservient status as them being "pampered" and that venturing outside the domestic sphere ought to be met with disregard for their wishes. He plays victim when society finally starts accommodating women's wishes and needs, equating this to dehumanization of men. He stamps his foot at men not being treated as "inferior" (when they are not) while seeing women having to deal with the same treatment as a trifle. He credits all of civilization to men while downplaying women's role. Even when he admits that men have an unfair advantage, and that they are actively making the world worse by having it, he'd rather grumble about his right to "individual choice" than dare expect men to adjust their own behavior, and treats it as a tragedy when some of them cannot find wives when they refuse to do so.

Part of how patriarchal culture is able to continue is by creating the illusion that women's complaints are a modern and recent development, and that they never had a problem with these things before, not until "modern feminism corrupted them." But when you look at in time, whether through nonfiction or fiction, you find that this has never been true. Women have always been complaining about the same things, for centuries now, and men have always been making the same excuses.

This for me ultimately is the value of "Moving the Mountain" and what made the read satisfying for me in spite of its flaws. Yes, it has ideas that are unrealistic or morally questionable. Yes, it's a dry read that is much more focused on being a manifesto than a proper story. But in this current gendered climate, it is a relief to see any story where these absurd attitudes are argued against and put in their place, and no longer pose a threat to the world. It's a relief to see that, in spite of the fact that we still have a lot of work to do for women, these attitudes existing in 1911 didn't stop us from making the progress that we already have.

At the end of the story, John returns to his uncle's home in the countryside, which the new societal culture has largely left untouched, where he expects to fit comfortably back into. But having seen the happiness and health of the women living in the new world, he cannot help but be made saddened and uncomfortable by the treatment of his aunt and female cousin, finally forced to recognize that a gender egalitarian culture is superior to patriarchy. Wanting to give her a life with true experiences, John helps his cousin escape her family and brings her back to the new world, which she finds to be comparable to Heaven. It's a surprisingly hopeful ending, where at first John found the new world to be a tyrannical annoyance he constantly argued against, now sees it as a salvation for someone he cares about.

The same sentiment goes for many of the other policies advocated for in the novel, which today would still be decried as "radical socialism." Community-based living, locally grown and renewable food, education-as-play for children, reduced work hours with living standard pay, that work should be enjoyable and fulfilling, all there. A little bit further to the center than outright communism, but definitely further left than social-democracy. Granted, there's not a lot of hard theory on how humanity got to this point (and I can see that frustrating some people), mostly just vague platitudes about everyone suddenly learning that "we're all in this together!" But then maybe utopia novels shouldn't necessarily have to be strictly realistic in this sense, more idealistic.

“Yes; don’t you notice that ever since you began to study our advance, what puzzles you most is not the visible details about you, but a changed spirit in people? Thirty years ago, if you showed a man that some one had dumped a ton of soot in his front yard he would have been furious, and had the man arrested and punished. If you showed him that numbers of men were dumping thousands of tons of soot all over his city every year, he would have neither felt nor acted. It’s the other way, now.”

Parts of the book are eye-roll-inducing in their preachy naivety, some are shocking for their era-relevant bigotry, but other parts are genuinely inspiring and uplifting. And maybe the book should be allowed to be flawed in this way without reducing it entirely to the dustbin of history. I do believe that, in particular, we tend to be much harsher on the shortcomings of woman thinkers than men, especially if they are feminists. Male novelists and theorists are allowed to be products of their time and have their flaws and bigotries critiqued without having their entire body of work or worldview condemned and dismissed, a privilege that their female equivalents are often not given.

This is not to say that women should be let off the hook for their bigotries or wrong ideas, merely that they should not be treated as uniquely repugnant or irrelevant simply for having them, not unless we are prepared to do the same with equally bigoted or wrong men. There was plenty to condemn back in 1911, but also plenty to take interest in and potentially apply today. You don't have to like Charlotte Perkins Gilman or her work, you are allowed to morally repudiate her — all I ask is that you take care to honestly evaluate who you do read and follow, and make sure that you are applying your own standards equally.

All around, I do wish that more feminists, and people in general, were bold enough to write utopia novels these days, or at least ones that are not just deconstructive secret dystopias. We're all so scared of having our sincerity torn apart now, that we've been reduced to a whole lot of critiquing but not a whole lot of building or imagining.

Sure, every utopia novel will have fatal flaws that reflect the biases and bigotries of the writer, but personally I find that this is precisely what makes them fascinating and useful: they better elucidate the strengths and weaknesses of our visions for the world, and thus open an easier path to discussion and correction. What makes "Moving the Mountain" intriguing is what it gets wrong in addition to what it gets right, as it prompts reflection on how these positions could have coexisted at one point, and what incompatible positions modern-day progressives could be unknowingly holding now.

[Spencer · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the first book in a trilogy of feminist, utopian, fantasies. As were the others, it is a first person narrative, written from a male point of view—by a woman. John Robertson grows up in rural South Carolina. His mother dies shortly after his sister Ellen(Nellie) is born when he is just 7 years old. John is intelligent and a good student. He attends college, where he learns he has a talent for ancient languages. At the age of 25 in 1910 he travels to Tibet for further study. While there he has an unfortunate accident that causes him to forget who he is. Just as we are about to find out what happened to him, there is an editor's note—"Next two pages missing". As this was a Guttenberg Project e-book, I thought there had been a mistake while scanning. After thinking about it for a while, I came to the conclusion that Gilman was having trouble coming up with a plausible explanation for thirty years of amnesia that follows. It is now 1940, and sister Nellie is a tourist in Tibet. She spots a hooded, disheveled old man, who is wearing a belt with the initials "JR" engraved on the buckle. She asks, through an interpreter, "Where did you get that belt?" The man removes his hood, looks at the woman, and cries "Nellie!", falling backward and knocking himself unconscious. The blow causes him to regain his memory and his identity. Reunited after a thirty year absence, John and Nellie set out on their return trip to America. Nellie warns him that that America has changed a lot in the past thirty years. She is now a University president, which amazes him. Women have waked up and stepped forward, instigating many changes in American society, commerce and government. They have not only gained the vote, but they have become leaders. She recommends that John take a year off to study the New America. The novel is basically the fruit of his research. Though he hasn't known who he was for three decades, we find that he is misogynistic, chauvinistic, conservative. He has quite a few old fashioned ideas about what is right and wrong, and especially about the proper role of women in society.
Nellie tells John that women are different now, and so are men. He imagines masculine women and subdued men. Few people smoke now in 1940, and no one has chewed tobacco for more than 10 years. Wages are higher, everyone does only work that they enjoy, everyone has "enough" money, and the work day is only 2 hours long, though most work 4 because they enjoy it so much. There is no poverty, no prostitution, very little alcohol consumption, and there are no saloons anymore. All drinking is done in government run Social Clubs that double as theaters, lecture halls, and civic centers. Food is much better, as it is all meticulously inspected by the government. Kitchens have been removed from homes and apartments, and food is now prepared by trained professionals in central kitchens. Meals are delivered 3 times a day via dumb waiters, as are between meal snacks. Dirty dishes and linens are returned via thee same dumb waiters. The world is quieter as irritating noises have been prohibited, as have foul odors, and ugly colors. There is no racism, few accidents, few fires, little crime, no labor problems, no graft, no shoddy merchandise and few crying babies. Immigration is openly encouraged and there is world wide demand for new immigrants. Everyone has come to the conclusion that immigrants are an excellent source of new labor and new citizens. This is facilitated by the fact that with their new freedoms women are having fewer babies. John discovers that most established businesses are now government run, as are the schools, farms, utilities, newspapers and transportation. Sterilization for "defectives", criminals and perverts is legal. The only women that John can find that still fit the image he had from 30 years ago are the type he didn't like back then.
John is concerned about what he considers lost freedom, and longs to meet someone that is more like him. He feels like he is from an extinct race. He travels back to rural South Carolina, where he was born. He visits his Uncle Jake, Aunt Dorcas, and Cousin Drusilla. Jake no longer reads a newspaper because they are too "liberal". The family hasn't left the farm in several years, and Drusilla is now considered an old maid at 45. She never had a youth, and is now considered an old woman. John comes up with a solution for all, which I will not mention.

[Ashley · Rating 2 out of 5]

2.5

[Filipa · Rating 2 out of 5]

The beginning looked really, really interesting and I was very excited to continue reading. But somewhere along the way I got somewhat bored with it (V was right!). I'm sure the next book of the trilogy will be more interesting - I certainly hope it will be!

[Afifah Luqman · Rating 3 out of 5]

I would be lying if I said I wasn't really absorbed in this at the beginning. It sounded really good. Also considering this book was written 110 years ago, this was really good utopia. We have some of this now - women who vote, women who run businesses, women who marry at later ages and choose when or if they want children. Some of it we don't have. Some things were problematic, but i doubt we'd ever reach there.

It did get a little rushed and a little dry towards the end. Else I'd rate it 4 stars. Will read Herland too. I intend to read the books in order. Discovered Gilman when I read 'The Yellow Wallpaper' and now I'm determined to read more of her writings.

[Catriona Casali · Rating 2 out of 5]

Oh boy. I loved Herland, and was surprised to find out that it was the middle of a trilogy. So I got Moving the Mountain, had pretty high hopes, and found that after giving it a 50 page effort I could not go on. A thinly veiled lecture, but interesting from the view of someone who wonders what a feminist visionary may have hoped for in the early 1900's. This book would be a great addition to a course about social movements/feminist theory/etc.. but it's outdatedness is surpassed only by it's weakness in story line.

[Gaia · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ho letto questo libro per un gruppo lettura nel quale stiamo analizzando e discutendo la storia e lo sviluppo dei femminismi. È senza dubbio estremamente interessante se letto in quest'ottica, presenta ovviamente delle riflessioni che fortunatamente non condiviamo più nel femminismo intersezionale. Fondamentale quindi risulta la nota in prefazione che spiega proprio ciò e ci rende consapevoli di che tipo di testo abbiamo di fronte.

[Arianna Proserpio · Rating 2 out of 5]

Pur avendo compreso il messaggio che voleva trasmettere il libro, non sono riuscita ad apprezzarlo davvero, né per il contenuto né per il modo in cui è scritto e costruito.

In questo “mondo perfetto” le donne si sono "risvegliate" e sono riuscite a ricostruire la società, rendendola migliore sotto ogni punto di vista. Il protagonista è John, un uomo del passato che si ritrova in questa realtà completamente trasformata, in un mondo che non riconosce più, dove le dinamiche sociali, i rapporti tra le persone e il ruolo delle donne sono stati completamente riscritti.

Ho apprezzato molto proprio questa scelta della voce narrante: è attraverso il suo sguardo che il libro prova a mettere in discussione tutto, e questo funziona. Il suo continuo interrogarsi, il suo non riuscire a comprendere fino in fondo ciò che vede, il suo bisogno di trovare una logica in qualcosa che per lui non ne ha, rendono la lettura meno piatta.
"Non riesco a crederci. Ho sentito quello che hai detto e capisco ciò che hai fatto... ma non ho una chiara comprensione del processo. Considerando come erano le persone, con tutti quei vecchi peccatori incalliti, tutta la rozza ignoranza, la stupidità, l'ottuso pregiudizio, l'apatia, l'egoismo... fare in modo che un mondo così segua il buon senso... in trent'anni! No, non capisco».
Ed è proprio questo il punto più interessante, il fatto che lui non accetti tutto passivamente ma che metta in dubbio ogni cosa, cercando di capire come sia stato possibile un cambiamento così radicale in così poco tempo.

Il problema, però, è tutto il resto. Ho avuto costantemente la sensazione di leggere un elenco. Non mi sono mai sentita davvero immersa in questo mondo nuovo, semplicemente c’era sempre qualcuno che spiegava come funzionavano le cose, cosa era cambiato, cosa era stato migliorato. Dopo un po’ tutto diventa stancante, ripetitivo, quasi noioso, mancano completamente il coinvolgimento e la sensazione di "esserci dentro" ed è un peccato enorme perché le basi erano fortissime.

Tutto, infatti, parte dalle persone, da un cambiamento profondo del modo di pensare e di stare al mondo:
«E' innato per un animale sociale come l'uomo sviluppare un istinto sociale; ogni desiderio personale che va nella direzione opposta al bene sociale è chiaramente un residuo di un periodo presociale inferiore, è sbagliato in quanto inappropriato».
L’idea che attraversa tutto il libro è che l’umanità sia migliorata perché, a un certo punto, è cambiato proprio l’uomo.
«Di sicuro è più facile seguire i più bassi impulsi che i più alti; più facile lasciar andare che sforzarsi». E invece no, «questa è una vecchia convinzione sbagliata, John, il concetto dello Sforzo», perché abbiamo sempre dato per scontato che fosse naturale essere “peggiori” e che per essere migliori servisse qualcosa di straordinario, quasi contro natura».
Quello che mi ha colpita è proprio questo spostamento di prospettiva. L’idea che il migliorarsi non sia un’eccezione ma una possibilità quasi inevitabile, se solo si cambia il modo in cui si guarda al mondo e agli altri. Forse non si tratta nemmeno di diventare “buoni” ma di smettere di giustificare tutto ciò che ci allontana dagli altri: l’egoismo, l’indifferenza, certe forme di chiusura che diamo per "normali".
Queste sono riflessioni che mettono in discussione qualcosa di molto radicato ma, purtroppo, rimangono sempre un passo indietro, raccontate più che vissute, e questo finisce per togliere forza proprio a quello che avrebbero da dire.

Allo stesso tempo mi ha colpita molto il tema della resilienza, del rialzarsi, del non essere mai definiti davvero dalle proprie cadute.
«Tornando a quella schiera di donne "cadute" per le quali sei così preoccupato, si sono semplicemente rialzate, tutto qui, si sono rialzate e sono andate avanti; c'è ancora ampio spazio per rialzarsi e camminare».
E ancora di più questo passaggio:
«Dimenticarlo! Non dimenticherei neanche un passo anche se potessi! Perché John, è grazie alla mia profonda consapevolezza di questa mia discesa che posso aiutare altre persone a rialzarsi!».
Qui la caduta non è qualcosa da nascondere o cancellare ma diventa parte di ciò che permette di comprendere gli altri, di riconoscerli, di sostenerli. L’idea che la fragilità non sia un limite ma un punto di partenza.

Dentro questa stessa visione si inserisce anche tutto il discorso sul ruolo delle donne.
«Sì. Perché no? Non avete modellato le donne a vostro piacimento per molte migliaia di anni? Ci avete allevate e addestrate per compiacere i vostri gusti; vi piaceva che fossimo piccole, vi piaceva che fossimo deboli, vi piaceva che fossimo timide, vi piaceva che fossimo ignoranti, vi piaceva che fossimo carine…».
È una riflessione che mette a nudo quanto certe “nature” siano in realtà costruite, plasmate, imposte nel tempo.
«Come sai che le donne erano così "per natura", senza considerare l'educazione mirata, la selezione artificiale e tutti i generi di restrizioni e punizioni? Dove è stato mai permesso alle donne di crescere "secondo la loro natura" fino a ora?».
È qui che il libro apre davvero uno spazio di riflessione più profondo, perché non parla solo di donne o di società ideale ma di quanto spesso confondiamo ciò che è stato imposto con ciò che crediamo “naturale”.

Sono tutte riflessioni che condivido e che ho trovato estremamente interessanti ma purtroppo, alla fine, quello che mi è mancato è stato il coinvolgimento.

[Amanda B · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoyed some of the feminist utopian ideals, but the repetition of John trying to gain an understanding of the new ways of things got a bit repetitive. Then the ending felt very abrupt! I’ll carry on with this trilogy though ☺️