The Man-Made World

by Charlotte Perkins Gilman

In this probing critique of "androcentric culture," pioneering feminist Charlotte Perkins Gilman analyzes with wit and insight the many negative effects of male domination, not only on women in particular but on the welfare of the human race as a whole. Society's long history of male hegemony and female subservience has not enhanced the natural qualities of the human race but rather distorted them, says Gilman, as can be seen in many of society's institutions. In separate chapters she discusses family, art, literature, games and sports, ethics and religion, education, fashion, law and government, crime and punishment, politics and warfare, and industry and economics. In each case she shows how the domineering male influence has caused grievous problems.

For example, in regard to family, she notes, "We live to-day in a democracy. . . the man-made family is a despotism. . . . The male is esteemed 'the head of the family.'. . . A normal home, where there was human equality between mother and father, would have a better influence. . . . Friendship does not need 'a head.' Love does not need 'a head.' Why should a family?"

Critiquing politics and warfare, she observes, "The inextricable confusion of politics and warfare is part of the stumbling block in the minds of men. As they see it, a nation is primarily a fighting organization; and its principal business is offensive and defensive warfare. . . . Fighting, when all is said, is to them the real business of life." By contrast, for women, "Service and love and doing good are the spirit of motherhood, and the essence of human life. Human life is service, and is not combat. There you have the nature of the change upon us."

In conclusion, Gilman looks to a more egalitarian age, when the "change upon us" will be more fully realized: "Women are human beings, as much as men, by nature; and as women, are even more sympathetic with human processes. To develop human life in its true powers we need full equal citizenship for women."

For anyone who cares about a more fair-minded society where every individual can flourish, The Man-Made World is truly an inspirational volume. This superb new edition is enhanced with an introduction by Gilman scholar Mary A. Hill, Presidential Professor of History and Women's Studies at Bucknell University.

Genres: Feminism, Nonfiction, Sociology, Philosophy, Essays, Classics, American

204 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

[Meghan Fidler · Rating 4 out of 5]

A feminist essay written by the author of "The Yellow Wall Paper," I was surprised and delighted to learn that one of my favorite authors was also active in women's rights. "The Man-Made World" has a number of strong points: my favorite was Gilman's fashion commentary. The following is an excerpt from that discussion, one which resonates with her short stories.

"We do not even know that we ought to live in a world of overflowing loveliness; and that our contribution to it should be the loveliest of all. We are so sodden in the dull ugliness of our interiors, so used to calling a tame weary low-toned color scheme 'good taste.' that only children dare frankly yearn for Beauty--and they are speedily educated out of it."

The piece does tend to draw heavily from evolution and 'natural' examples to provide patterns for understanding 'male-ness' and 'female-ness,' something I have always found distressing. This can be forgiven, though, given the historical context in which it was written.

[Maya · Rating 3 out of 5]

Racist and classist as fuck, but she makes some strong points in the 2nd half.

[Saliha Göre · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 - 4 Sterne
Ich fands (größtenteils) sehr interessant und schön geschrieben. Einige Ideen von ihr sind sehr veraltet, jedoch finde ich sollte man bücher im historischen kontext sehen. Für ein Buch aus 1909 von einer Frau sehr beeindruckend und voller guter und revolutionärer Ideen und Gedanken.

[Nicolas Lontel · Rating 2 out of 5]

La pensée de Charlotte Perkins Gilman, bien qu'elle soit féministe, sociologique et socialiste, ne manque pas d'avoir des angles morts très très importants. Ses deux fictions Herland et With Her in Ourland nous permettait de jeter un coup d’œil à ses théories à l'aide d'une fiction utopiste et des suggestions qu'elle offrait pour améliorer le sort de l'humanité. The Man-Made World est une collection d'articles sur différents sujets qui s'intéresse à l'androcentrisme bien avant que les notions de patriarcat, viriarcat ou phallocentrisme émerge et ne soit popularisé. C'est donc une notion qu'elle prend d'un autre auteur (et qui circulait surtout dans les milieux anthropologiques à ma connaissance) pour étudier notre société sous cette lunette.

Il n'y aura pas de surprise qu'elle défend les valeurs dites féminines qui pour elle semblent être une combinaison d'acquis et d'inné ce qui fait la base de son féminisme culturelle (les valeurs féminines, intrinsèques aux femmes, sont supérieurs aux valeurs masculines [violence, conquête, compétition, etc.]). Elle passe beaucoup de temps donc à défendre ces valeurs, surtout dans la maternité et l'éducation des enfants qui semblent être la tâche cardinale selon elle; il y a aussi une belle défense de la paternité (qui doit ressembler à l'idée qu'on se fait de la maternité) et de l'implication des pères dans l'éducation des enfants dès le plus jeune âge. Elle est définitivement à la suite de Mary Wollstonecraft dans les perspectives féministes d'éducation des jeunes filles et de leur importance primordiale.

Sinon, le reste de l'essai s'attarde surtout à déconstruire l'idée des hommes au pouvoir et qui gère les affaires de la nation parce qu'ils sont supposément plus compétents dans ce domaine ou parce que ça a toujours été ainsi. Dans sa réponse à l'androcentrisme (ce qu'on appellerait aujourd'hui un peu le boys club), elle réagit vivement à ce que cette mainmise du pouvoir par les hommes a produit (guerre, affrontement, compétition) et propose plutôt de développer l'entraide et la paix dans le monde en y invitant justement les femmes à participer massivement et à leur donner le droit de vote. Il y souligne aussi comment les hommes ont peur du vote des femmes alors que celle-ci ont des opinions certainement très différentes et que le gouvernement ne sera pas uniquement constitué de vote de femmes ou d'hommes et que chaque parti aura des votes des deux sexes.

Là où l'aveuglement de la sociologue débute, c'est lorsqu'elle parle de civilisation. Elle aborde souvent ce sujet pour distinguer l'être humain de l'animal pour éviter de lui prêter une essence et montrer comme l'humanité devrait être au-dessus de ce déterminisme biologique. Le problème, c'est que pour elle, la civilisation, ce sont une petite catégorie de gens qui n'ont pas des danses ou des chants barbares (il faut des outils, donc absolument des instruments de musique), il faut qu'elle soit moderne (urbaine), et que bien que les pauvres l'ont définitivement plus difficilement et qu'il faut les aider à leur sortir de leur condition, ça reste une sous-catégorie de gens.
J'ai été très surpris de la voir se défendre contre l'eugénisme dans un de ses textes, mais pour elle, l'eugénisme n'est que la sélection naturelle des animaux où le plus violent triomphe de ses adversaires et peut avoir une progéniture, ce qui ne s'applique pas à l'humain puisque l'humanité est civilisée et n'a pas besoin de recourir au meurtre pour mieux élever et protéger ses petits. C'est une conception assez étroite de l'eugénisme puisqu'on retrouve sous sa plume, à de très nombreux moments, d'autres formes d'eugénisme à commencer par la castration des prisonniers (pas tous, mais une partie tout de même) dont elle a absolument horreur de les imaginer avec des enfants. On retrouve aussi des bouts comme : « This one change will do more to promote the physical health and beauty of the race; to improve the quality of children born, and the general vigor and purity of social life [...] » ce que n'importe qui reconnaîtra aujourd'hui comme un discours eugéniste.

C'est là où Gilman a beau proposer des solutions vraiment intéressante pour mettre de l'avant les femmes et réduire les inégalités, quand vient le temps de parler des pauvres, des Noirs, des moins fortunés, des personnes laides, etc. Elle ne fait que reproduire une autre forme d'androcentrisme envers les personnes minorisées en créant cette idée de civilisation auxquelles elle n'ont pas accès avec des critères complètement arbitraires comme le type de danse, tel ou tel type de comportement à avoir en société ou encore l'urbanisation des villes. Bref, un plafond de verre complètement artificiel pour empêcher ces personnes d'accès à des statuts. À oui, et l'assimilation complète aux valeurs américaines est aussi nécessaire pour tout·es les immigré·es (ça, on l'a vu ailleurs aussi dans sa fiction, notamment dans With Her in Ourland). Bref, elle qui critique que les hommes dominent et demandent aux femmes qui veulent du pouvoir de devoir s'assimiler à des valeurs masculines violentes et néfastes, ne fait que reproduire ces dynamiques avec d'autres groupes sociaux.

C'est pour ça que bien qu'historiquement très intéressant : elle décrit en détail le patriarcat dans une perspective anthropologique et sociologique, relève des exemples concrets, propose des tonnes de solutions; elle finit par tomber dans les même pièges qu'elle dénonce. Son « projectionnisme » s'avère toujours, à la fin, complètement désolant aujourd'hui malgré le travail sérieux qu'elle a entreprit dans son entreprise.

[Femi · Rating 2 out of 5]

DNF. I'm at 28% of the book. I was confident upon reading the first chapter since she was a one-step-ahead Wollstonecraft on believing that it is not women who are deficient. Gilman seems to understand that it was a matter of masculinity/femininity (but she did not bring it further by asking what aspects of masculinity and femininity that we need to preserve, like Daly). But, as I read more, what she said really need context and further explanation. It is not fun and rather drab to hear her say that women are oppressed, we need an androcentric world yadda-yadda without bothering to explain quite fully the context behind it. Though I admit that I respect her for her strong start in chapter 1, by comparing the situation of women to those of sheeps

[Sonnydee · Rating 4 out of 5]

Perkins Gilman, you son of a gun. This book is Christian apologist, heteronormative, gender essentialist, and way too uncritical of racist anthropology, and I've read enough turn of the century leftist writings to know that yeah, this is a comparatively conservative take from someone who runs with that crowd. And yet, it's a rhetorical cannonball and a completely brilliant rebuttal of Darwinian sexual selection.

It's so brilliantly, perfectly constructed that it should be read in rhetoric classes, and for all its conservatism, in some ways it's ahead of our time, let alone its own. I can't believe this little book wasn't more influential. Maybe it was, and I just hadn't heard of it. It's certainly been influential on me, and I'm sure I'll keep referring back to it.

[John · Rating 2 out of 5]

Before "Phallocentrism" and Freudian inspired feminism, there was the word "Androcentrism" used here by Perkins Gilman. Those words are basically the same, that the world and its systems are made and favored for men leaving women as second-class citizens.

Because this is a totally wrong starting point, almost everything she says is faulty. Some things, of course, are men-centric - like why only men go to war. Masculinity has its natural traits that will mount to something different than a feminine world would. Since men are the ones that have the power, there may be a tendency toward war. But men or masculinity are never, I repeat, never the only cause for anything. Every androcentric thing is really a much more complex set of prerequisites both in human nature and nature itself.

For Gilman Perkins however, androcentrism, is the source for everything that has gone bad. For example - industry. Her argument goes something like this: Industry is sub-par. That is because men steer industry. In a normal world, the industry would function. The industry is really feminine. So men have destroyed the industry. IT would function better with a female rule. But the industry is not functioning in a normal world. Industry brings order into a world of chaos, thus it makes the chaos work - and when it is not working it is the remains of the world in chaos that shows it's middle finger.

So, add this kind of arguments to a handful of topics. Like health, arts, sports, knowledge, politics, crime, education etc. It gets kind of boring to read her, again and again, looking through her androcentric glasses.

I do however enjoy a few of her thoughts and ramblings - more in other books, but here as well - but she is just too blinded by bias overall. Masculinity bad. Femininity good. Masculinity has subdued Femininity. Yeah, we get it. It's not quite how you put it.

On a side note, it seems like a lot in this book is reflected in her novels "Herland" and "With Her in Ourland" - so that was quite interesting to observe.

[Veronica Schwarz · Rating 5 out of 5]

When will we ever learn?

I was close to tears of frustration and sadness reading this book.

Charlotte Perkins Gilman wrote many books, fiction and nonfiction. She is known in some circles for her speculative fiction novel, "Herland". She wrote "The Man-Made World" in 1911. She wrote perceptively of the position of women in society and its underlying cause, a cause which still exists today. The frustration is that they are the very same things that many feminists are still writing and speaking about today. Laws and some attitudes have changed, women have the vote and the right to stand for parliament at every level. They now outnumber and out-perform men in numerous educational fields but have yet to see even equal benefits for this evidence of their talents and intelligence. More subtle ways have been used to replace the earlier inhibitors of women, so that women still do not share power, or receive the same status, recognition, voice, reward, opportunity, personal time, encouragement, benefits or privileges available to most men, many of whom are blissfully unaware of those privileges. And male violence agains women is at pandemic proportions. Charlotte Gilman's arguments are clear, rational and a clarion call for change. We might not agree in this century with some her perspectives but the thrust of her argument has much to teach us. Read it. Men and women. Read it.

[Ghala Anas · Rating 5 out of 5]

انتهائي من ترجمة الكتاب الحادي والعشرين: عالمٌ صنعه الرجال - شارلوت بيركنز جيلمان

تتناول جيلمان ملامح العالم الذي يسيطر عليه الرجال اليوم، وتناقشه في ضوء التفرقة بين الخصائص الجنسية والخصائص البشرية، فالخصائص الجنسية هي تلك التي يختص بها جنس الذكور وحدهم، أو جنس النساء وحدهن، أما الخصائص البشرية فهي التي يشترك بها الجنسين، وهي الأكثر أهمية وضرورة لبناء العالم ورسم ملامحه.

تناقش الكاتبة أثر هيمنة الخصائص الذكورة على العمليات والوظائف البشرية، والتي يُقترض أن يشارك بها الجنسين على حد سواء، وتتحدث عن تبعات ذلك على مجالات حياتية عديدة، كالسياسة والقانون والرياضات والآداب والفنون ومفاهيم الصحة والجمال وغيرها، مبينة هيمنة الخصائص الذكورية (الرغبة والاقتتال والتعبير عن الذات) على المجالات البشرية لتجعل العالم حلبة صراع مستمرة، مقارنة ذلك بالخصائص الأنثوية (الحُب والرعاية والخدمة)، مُظهرة الخصائص الأقرب للبشرية والأكثر انسجاماً معها، وضرورة لتحقيقها في العمليات التعليمية والتربوية لأجيال المستقبل.

يُعد الكتاب مُهماً كدراسة اجتماعية تبين، بإيجاز شديد، أوجه الهيمنة الذكورية على العالم، والأوجه التي يُفترض بالجنس البشري تحقيقها بضمان التكامل في وظائف الجنسين، والإدراك الأعمق للوظيفة الأمومية وتعبيراتها، والأثر المتوقع لها على العملية السياسية والاقتصادية والتعليمية الأهم.

قراءة ماتعة!

[Peg Tittle · Rating 5 out of 5]

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED

“Advocates of football, for instance, proudly claim that it fits a man for life. Life–from the wholly male point of view–is a battle, with a prize. …This is an archaism which would be laughable if it were not so dangerous in its effects. … The valuable processes today are those of invention, discovery, all grades of industry, and, most especially needed, the capacity for honest service and administration of our immense advantages. These are not learned on the football field. … ” (p39-40)

“An unforgettable instance of this lies int he attitude of the medical colleges toward women students. The men, strong enough, one would think, in numbers, in knowledge, in established precedent, to be generous, opposed the newcomers first with absolute refusal; then, when the patient, persistent applicants did get inside, both students and teachers met them not only with unkindness and unfairness, but with a weapon ingeniously well chosen, and most discreditable–namely, obscenity. Grave professors, in lecture and clinic, as well as grinning students, used offensive language, and played offensive tricks, to drive the women out …” (p50).

And today? Have things changed? You bet. Now they’re chanting “‘No’ means ‘Yes’; ‘Yes’ means ‘Anal’!”

[Yesenia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Charlotte Perkins Gilman was a genius.
Perhaps there are many things she missed (how could she really believe that housework and child-rearing could be turned into industries, just because making clothes and shoes had been turned into industries? well, there is a logic, but it is oddly flawed...)

A genius. This book was eye-opening and thought-provoking and incredibly intelligent and profound. A must-read for any woman who wants to understand feminism, but more especially, the world around us. Even if by the end you reach different conclusions from those reached by Perkins Gilman, the critical understanding of our world as "man-made", and why that is a mistake as well as an act of oppression, is inescapable.

[Bruce · Rating 3 out of 5]

C.P. Gilman is an excellent writer; I like many of her ideas; I especially appreciate her concepts of masculine, feminine, and human. I also like her ideas regarding kitchens and nurseries. But her conclusions that our culture is Androcentric is off base and untrue. She ignores the historical dialectic, that is to say that she disregards the fact that history follows paths that work, even though those paths aren't always ideal; we are still working on that! I don't claim to understand all of history, but I do believe that men and women have always cared for and supported each other. My grandparents were contemporaries of C.P. Gilman, and I know that they worked together with mutual love and respect, and they were typical of their time and society. Therefore, I conclude that Gilman was not a keen observer of Americans.

[Adam · Rating 3 out of 5]

A truly excellent book with some great critiques of patriarchy, but is outdated through its constant focus on the biological differences between men and women. We, in the 21st century, understand gender and sex to be different concepts, and for the differences between men and women to be much more fluid than Gilman believes.

Beyond the parts with outdated views, Gilman’s critique of patriarchy is an excellent read, especially given how brave it must have been to write in the context of 1911.

[lucy snow · Rating 4 out of 5]

disclaimer that i only read the sections on health and beauty, society and fashion, the man-made family, masculine literature, and education.

this is a very interesting book that breaks down the ways in which 'our androcentric culture' has limited and restricted women in all sectors of society.

i particularly liked the section on society and fashion - she breaks down the idea that women created this rigid and competitive society, when in reality "what intercourse was allowed to women has been rigidly hemmed in by man-made conventions".

will be useful for diss hopefully

[Madawi · Rating 4 out of 5]

أحاول أقرأ الكتاب وأنا أذكر نفسي انه انكتب قبل أكثر من ١٠٠ سنة.
مجملاً فيه أفكار وصفت وضع النساء عبر التاريخ ونتاجه، حبيت هذا الجانب..
التفريق بين الصفات الجنسية والانسانية وربط التطور الإنساني بالذكورة وصفته بشكل ممتاز.

مأخذي على الكتاب:
١- مبالغة في تصوير لو كان أثر الأنوثة على تاريخ الإنسانية أكبر قطعاً راح يكون هذا شيء إيجابي.
٢- تكلمت عن الأديان كأنها كلها نفس بعض، في موقفين تكلمت عن الإسلام بالذات وكانت المعلومات مغلوطة.

[Rita Marie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Amazing book and amazing author. I especially liked the part where Gilman talks about government and politics, noting how men, who enjoy fighting and competing, have turned these social functions into little "wars" with only one winner possible. As true today as it was in the author's time.

[mika · Rating 4 out of 5]

some ideas are definitely outdated and got me 🤨🤨 (though that is to be expected from a late 19th ct author/ess)
overall i really enjoyed reading this and many passages resonated with me, and basically charlotte perkins gilman can marry me

[Halida · Rating 3 out of 5]

Basically this book is about how we are too focused on what's 'womanly' and what's 'manly'. We divide the world into these categories instead of what's most important: our humanness. Humanness distinguishes us from other creatures, who also categorize their species into females and males, and it is possessed by both men and women.
The most detrimental effect of these categorization is that one group, the males, tend to think that their manliness represents humanness. Many fields in life, from art to politics, are perceived as belonging to men only. It is enough for women to be a wife and a mother, to be a domestic servant.
Gilman admits that men and women are naturally different. The goals of a man have been to fulfill his desire and to combat; a woman to love and serve. She makes a very interesting analogy by comparing the nature of two sexes to that of a Christian. And this analogy's supposed to be one of the solutions to the issue we had/ still have today:
"The human character of the Christian religion is now being more and more insisted on; the practical love and service of each and all; in place of the old insistence on Desire -for a Crown and Harp in Heaven, and Combat -with that everlasting adversary."

I'm giving this book 3.5 stars because the ideas are great, and surprisingly still relevant a century after this book was written. However, I struggled a little halfway through the book. Without devaluing the importance of politics, law, religion, etc., I just feel those chapters aren't as engaging as the first ones. Nevertheless, this is a good read.

[Tove · Rating 2 out of 5]

Charlotte Perkins Gilman discusses in this book the issues with a society where men and maleness is considered to be the normality; where men are people, individuals, and women are females more than human beings. To hear her theories on social, economical and political development in relation to this male dominance, and in relation to a hypothetical female dominance or sex-equality, is more interesting, though, than relevant to modern feminism. For me, when you want to heighten the status of female qualities, and not rather eliminate the general assumption of what female qualities are (as well as for male qualities), you are not deliberating, but simply restraining in a different manner.

[Michael]

Published in 1911, this is a public domain book; I was not able to get Goodreads' "read book" link to work, but it is available here at Project Gutenberg.

Review to come when I read it, probably 2017...

[Lindsay · Rating 5 out of 5]

just finished it. its amazing. of course it has to be kept in mind when it was written (1911). at the time these ideas were still being developed. good read though

[Kelly · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although she takes a rather reductive view of innate male and female character traits, she lays out her arguments fairly persuasively. A great, short, early feminist read.

[Velvetink]

kindle

[Jenny Yates · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was amazed by this early feminist work, dating from 1911. Many of these ideas were far, far ahead of their time. It’s very clear and articulate, and it’s interesting from the very first sentence. It starts out, “Let us begin, inoffensively, with sheep.”

So Gilman begins with the animal kingdom, noting that the sex of an animal is evident mainly when it comes to reproduction, and that otherwise, they are known by the type of animal they are. She continues to our species, and postulates that we should see activities as being male, female, or human, and that most of the things we do can simply be called human.

She theorizes that male sexual behavior for humans is much the same as for animals – displaying, attracting the female, fighting off competitors. And in our current society, the emphasis on differentiating male and female has led to these traits invading many areas of life in which they do not belong. She covers many different subjects – education, war, crime and punishment – describing basic structures that are analogous to male reproductive strategies, and don’t particularly serve the good of humankind in general.

She writes that female sexual behavior has to do with choosing, nesting, and raising healthy children, and that these represent more socially advantageous behaviors. But she is not talking about one gender cutting off the other (as is the case now) but about a synthesis. We don’t need to be “male” or “female” while creating a world in which we can thrive; we only need to focus on the fact that we are all human and have the same basic needs.

In a world which emphasizes humanity rather than gender, Gilman’s ideal is “a system which intelligently manages our common interests, a growing and improving method of universal service”. She writes that androcentric thinking has defined labor as a curse, when actually normal industry would look like this: “a world full of healthy, happy people, each busily engaged in doing what he or she most enjoys doing”. She goes on, “Whosoever works at what he loves is well and happy. Whoso works at what he does not love is ill and miserable. It is very bad economics to force unwilling industry. That is the weakness of slave labor; and of wage labor also where there is not full industrial education and freedom of choice.”

I don’t agree with Gilman on everything. She had a strong belief in the advantages of breeding, which I don’t particularly share. She mentions that, in an androcentric system, men often choose their spouses for being mild and tractable, and she says this weakens the species as a whole. Of course, eugenics is not so much a science as a way to perpetuate prejudice, but its oppressive side wasn’t as well known in Gilman’s day, and many people subscribed to these beliefs.

Mostly, throughout the book, I was going “yes!”. Her feminist and socialist ideas resonate for me, and I’m still hoping for the kind of world she imagined.