Gilman_and_Her_Philosophy_on_Women_and_Work

Gilman’s Humanist Philosophy And How IT Challenged Women’s Roles In Society Charlotte Perkins Gilman was a writer, economist, lecturer, and an early theorist of the feminist movement. She was a supporter of causes such as women's suffrage and social and political independence for women. Gilman argued that the long-established sexual and maternal roles of women had been over-emphasized to the detriment of humanity’s social and economical potential. Her message emphasized the need for modern women to become economically independent, since that was the only way they could experience true freedom. Women could gain this state of independence by way of education and self-development, and by challenging the societal and religious views that marginalized their roles and prevented them from growing beyond the positions that male-dominated society had outlined for them. True freedom could only be attained when women could contribute and, more importantly, benefit equally in a relationship with male counterparts and husbands. Gilman argued for the equal value of women and their feminine roles and encouraged them to pursue interests outside of the home. Her philosophy influenced women to challenge their undervalued domestic roles in society in order to change the cultural environment, which she believed had become an institution that tacitly oppressed women through the patriarchal beliefs upheld by society. Although Gilman saw herself as more of a humanist, her writings were a call to arms for women and portrayed a utopian society in which long-established gender roles were challenged. Gilman did not believe that the roles of wife and mother should necessarily preclude the opportunities to develop their gifts and interests outside of the home. Varied interests and opportunities would enable women to lead more unrestricted lifestyles and provide them with more autonomy, and in so doing, women would feel less oppressed and become a fully acknowledged contributing member of society. In other words, women should not be forced to accept what society dictates they should to be doing as women, and the types of professional roles available to them should not be limited to unpaid domestic housework. Gilman’s own life served as an example of this unrestricted lifestyle. In addition to becoming a wife and mother, she was largely self-educated and eventually became a writer and lecturer. She was a forward thinker who advocated a society that was structurally equitable for all humanity. In The Living of Charlotte Perkins Gilman: An Autobiography, she described how she was trying to carve from her unrepresentative life “insights about how a woman might live in a world in which such an unrepresentative life as hers could become accessible to all women (Perkins Gilman, 1935).” She wanted to provide hope and offered a different perspective on issues of gender equality and the struggle for women to achieve both autonomy and independence. In her treatise Women and Economics, Gilman described a perplexing condition affecting the economic position of the sexes. She stated that “we are the only animal species in which the female depends on the male for food” and also “the only animal species in which the sex-relation is also an economic relation (Perkins Gilman, 1898).” Since women’s survival in prehistoric and recently modern times depended on men, her sexual attributes are obviously developed and carefully nurtured. This relegated women’s roles to those only associated with sexual activity and any resulting aspect, such as childbearing (Degler, 1956). A distinguishing feature between the economic status of men and women was that men were expected to produce and distribute wealth, while women simply received it in their hands. Gilman maintained that “the economic status of the human race in any nation was governed primarily by the activities of the male, and the female obtains her share in the racial advance only through him (Perkins Gilman, 1898).” Gilman promoted not only the intrinsic but economic value of household labor. “To be a teacher and leader, to love and serve, to guard and guide and help,” she states, “are well in line with motherhood (Degler, 1956).” This demonstrates her staunch belief that women were not deficient in any intrinsic way, only opportunistically. Her writings served to empower women in developing and redefining their roles in society. In today’s business terms, Gilman was concerned with equal opportunity in the workplace. In the article, Feminist Classic Philosophers and Other Women, Turksma (2001) asserted that “Feminism should not only concern itself with fair play and equality but also with changing the rules of the game. Not only politics, economics and science, but philosophy is very important in making and changing the rules.” As in the study of philosophy, Gilman was concerned with the meaning of human life, especially the culturally-defined gender roles in society. Gilman argued that women's contributions to civilization, throughout history, have been halted because of an andocentric, or male-dominated, culture (Perkins Gilman, 1935). It is because of this view that Gilman encouraged women to re-examine their role in society. She believed that the female race was the half of humanity that was underdeveloped, that they should have the same opportunities for economic advancement and independence as men, and that this improvement was necessary in order to prevent stagnation eventual deterioration of the human race. Gilman categorized women as both individually and collectively economically dependent, stating that economic progress was almost exclusively masculine (Perkins Gilman, 1898). What this essentially meant was that while men could do the jobs performed by women, such as cook and clean, women were not as easily able to do the work performed by men and receive fair and equitable compensation for it. This was largely due to societal constraints and values. As a result, women would by default remain economically disadvantaged. Although women were not producers of wealth, they did in fact work, often much longer and harder than men. Their work was predominantly household labor and childrearing, and although this contribution had economic value, it was not viewed this way by society. Gilman emphasized the need for self-development in women and believed that they had to be released from some of the household labor in order to become more economically independent (Perkins Gilman, 1935). According to Gilman, only economic independence could bring true freedom for women and make them equal partners to their husbands. She argued that men and women should share the responsibility of housework, and that women should be encouraged at a very young age to work for themselves. Another example of Gilman’s progressive views was that she advocated professionalizing domestic services, such as cooking and childrearing (Perkins Gilman, 1898). In the past, only affluent housewives would be able to afford having their domestic work done by others. However, Gilman proposed that ordinary women in society should be able to do the same. For example, housewives could take the husbands shirts to a public laundry or a tailor to mend a shirt. The potential conundrum here was that if a woman paid to have these things done, it was often disdainfully regarded by society, because the woman was viewed to be blatantly neglecting domestic duties that should have fallen under her purview. Nevertheless, Gilman argued that a woman could do it all -- be a wife, mother and an economically contributing member of society. This would bring her fulfillment and foster personal growth and help her feel better about her position in society. Although many women were encouraged by Gilman’s message, her critics found her to be an unusual creature because of her liberal ideas. For instance, Gilman believed that women should specialize in learning a musical instrument, or have an interest in the arts or crafts, in order to potentially utilize these skills to earn a wage (Perkins Gilman, 1935). She believed that “the ever-growing human impulse to create the power and will to make, to do, to express one’s new spirit in new forms was in her, as much as in man (Degler, 1956).” The feminine character itself, defined for so long as weakness of mind as well as body, were imposed upon women by men as a result of their wholly different outlooks based on their experiences. She argued that if men had been confined to the home and repressed economically as women had been thus far, they themselves would not likely “manifest a higher order of political intelligence (Degler, 1956).” She also advocated the use of nurseries where small children could be taken to and taught to in a group setting by women specially trained in this wisdom, and recognized the need for discipline in order for children to develop properly (Golden & Zangrando, 2000). Gilman placed great importance on the potential of children to change society and inspire human growth. She believed that many children were for the most part misunderstood and inhibited by parents and frequently lied to, repressed by the terrible examples set by well-meaning yet ignorant adults. She felt that the majority of children would inevitably grow up stunted and flawed as the previous generation due to the lack of child-rearing experience, which was often veiled under the guise of misguided parental love (Golden & Zangrando, 2000). Consequently, Gilman believed that the children should be nurtured by women specializing and trained in child development. She received much criticism from women who believed her ideas about child rearing were distastefully unconventional. Gilman believed that “the most important fact about the sexes, men and women, was the common humanity we share, not the differences that distinguish us (Perkins Gilman, 1898).” By the nineteenth century, man alone could not advance human civilization; the contribution of woman was required to continue the progress of humanity in all its endeavors, from science to art, to all normal amusements and recreations (Degler, 1956). Gilman referred to herself as a humanist and not strictly a feminist because her views on the re-examination of feminine roles did not hold any venomous sub-text against men per se. She was interested in human development in general, in which women were the marginalized party. Her theories were meant to inspire gradual change, not incite radical reform. She stated that the gainful employment of women would have beneficial effects upon men as well as the family unit, not the least of which would be greater opportunities for intimacy, significantly more income, and a partnership based on mutual need and satisfaction. She was a socialist and a pragmatist who believed in re-examining gender roles in order to improve the quality of life for all. Her most unifying message to the world was that all people should have the right to develop themselves intellectually and economically. She was an anachronism, a woman ahead of her time, a figure in history who offered new and exciting perspectives on issues of gender equality. She promoted working towards a structurally equitable society in which all work had value, and described new strategies for educating future generations to create a more humane and nurturing environment. Gilman’s writings empowered women by highlighting this struggle in her personal philosophy, and delineated a path towards achieving true freedom for all humanity. References: Degler, C. N. (1956). Charlotte Perkins Gilman on the Theory and Practice of Feminism. American Quarterly, 8(1), 21-39. Golden, C., & Zangrando, J. (2000). The Mixed Legacy of Charlotte Perkins Gilman. Newark: University of Delaware Press. Perkins Gilman, C. (1898). Women and Economics: A study of the economic relation between men and woman as a factor in social evolution (pp. 4). Perkins Gilman, C. (1935). The Living of Charlotte Perkins Gilman: An Autobiography. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press. Turksma, R. (2001). Feminist Classic Philosophers and the Other Women. Economic and Political Weekly, 36(17), 1413-1424.