Introduction
Gender relationships have never been simple and clear in human society because of inevitable inequalities and the intention to identify power sources between men and women. Many attempts were made to explain the quality of these relationships and their impact on interpersonal and economic development. Charlotte Perkins Gilman (or Stetson by her first marriage) was a well-known humanist and feminist writer who advocated social reforms and progressive political movements. Her book Women and Economics was published at the end of the 19th century and touched upon such issues as family, marriage, and “economic independence among human beings” when “the individual pays for what he gets” (Stetson 10). The phenomenon of the “sexuo-economic relation” was new for her period, and her goal was to prove that “women are obliged to seek their economic good through the exchange of their sexual services” (Egan 118). This paper focuses on Gilman’s views on gender relationships from the perspectives of human societies in general and her society in particular. Gilman’s theory of socioeconomic relations affects female development and the connection between a man and woman by proving excessive and usually unnatural sex distinctions.
Main body
For a long period, women could not achieve equal rights and freedoms in a society ruled by men. Offensive treatment and inferior opportunities were currently observed in various spheres of human life. Charlotte Perkins Gilman was one of those women who found it necessary to resist the already established system and develop a new way of thinking about women-men relationships. Her theory was well-developed in Women and Economics, underlying the worth of the sexuo-economic relation between two genders. The author describes this condition as “began in those unrecorded ages back of tradition even, which obtains in varying degree among every people on earth, and which begins to act upon the individual at birth” (Stetson 79). It means that even the most experienced individuals are not able to recognize the roots of gender inequality and have nothing to do but follow the already imposed rules and regulations. Her position was not to eradicate sex differentiation but to help women understand their rights and strive for independence.
The relationships between males and females can be treated differently in human societies. Many authors continue analyzing Gilman’s opinion about the socioeconomic relation to identifying if sex differentiation is based on activities and attitudes, provoking inequality and oppression. According to Egan, some of Gilman’s ideas are outmoded because of “a rather naïve meliorism as regards the processes of biological and social evolution” (113). At the same time, Egan does not want to reject all characteristics of the offered theory of social development and sexual relations. She finds the explanation of human behavior through “excessive reliance upon the description of male experience as normative” rather provocative and urgent today (Egan 113). There was a moment when women were liberated from “arbitrary restrictions” to underline the value of their labor compared to regular domestic services (Sheth and Prasch 331). Thus, modern people do not accept doing homework, parenthood, or caregiving as an obligation for women only. It seems that there is a great portion of Gilman’s impact on establishing such new opportunities through the prism of equal socioeconomic relationships between men and women.
Comparing general living conditions in today’s human societies, the world in which Gilman lived differed in terms of social expectations and requirements. Charlotte was the third of four children (two died at birth and in infancy) in a family with severe financial problems because the father abandoned them (Appelrouth and Edles 411). From an early age, the girl demonstrated negative attitudes toward traditional gender roles and marriage. She was obsessed with independence until she met Charles Stetson and agreed to marry him. However, even those experiences proved that Charlotte was not a family person, and the couple divorced in ten years, while they began living separately even earlier (Appelrouth and Edles 413). The expectations of her society were rather limited and predictable: women had to keep the house, respect their men, and rely on their husbands as the only source of financial stability. She wanted to break those beliefs and explained that women had to be respected as meaningful “economic factors in society” because their home assistance allowed men to produce wealth (Stetson 13). This statement was a solid foundation for her sexuo-economic relation theory.
Among a variety of approaches and ideas, Gilman’s rationale for instituting and perpetuating excessive sex distinction deserves recognition. According to Hill, Gilman’s attempts to “expose the ubiquitous effects of sex-based inequalities and the sources of female strength” emerged from her endless life conflicts and agony (503). Therefore, the author decided to address science and consider the impact of evolution. He investigated the field to conclude that the increased distinction of sex was provoked by the evolution of species and caused evident excessive sex indulgence (Stetson 29-30). As a result, all-natural functions were changed by an imperative human desire and unnatural features like marriage or labor explained those instituting and perpetuating distinctions (Stetson 30). Although most of her ideas for confrontational to the men’s society, she found support among other feminist reformers and activists like Florence Kelly and Jane Adams (Hill 503). There was a connection between sexual and economic relationships, and it was necessary to distribute knowledge about the effects of sexual oppression and the possibility of resisting male control.
Focusing on the findings by Gilman, the differentiation of individuals and their beliefs by sex can become a cause and an outcome of inequality and oppression based on sex category. There is a mutual effect of these characteristics because most sex functions are occasionally used in society. Gilman (Stetson) could not get rid of contradictions in her discussions: “Differ as they [people] may in sex, they must remain alike in species, equal in race-development” (36). Her idea of the excessive sex distinction explains an unbalanced socio-economic relationship between men and women, where the latter deny their desires and search for a true value of their existence by supporting the former.
Conclusion
In general, Gilman’s views on the socioeconomic relationship between men and women in human society are associated with ambiguity and the desire to find a consensus at the same time. Her arguments about instituting and perpetuating excessive sex distinction are strong enough to prove the unnaturalness of human relationships. Instead of analyzing what caused gender inequality and oppression, beliefs, or natural differentiation, Gilman proposed to combine material and ideological aspects of human life. Her theories made it possible to liberate women and demonstrate a new way of thinking about their roles in family and marriage. A woman is no longer a victim of male oppression but a strong economic factor in the social development and prosperity of populations through centuries.
Works Cited
Appelrouth, Scott, and Laura D. Edles. Classical and Contemporary Sociological Theory: Text and Readings. 4th ed. SAGE, 2020.
Egan, Maureen L. “Evolutionary Theory in the Social Philosophy of Charlotte Perkins Gilman.” Hypatia, vol. 4, no. 1, 1989, pp. 102-119.
Hill, Mary A. “Charlotte Perkins Gilman: A Feminist’s Struggle with Womanhood.” The Massachusetts Review, vol. 21, no. 3, 1980, pp. 503-526.
Sheth, Falguni A., and Robert E. Prasch. “Charlotte Perkins Gilman: Reassessing Her Significance for Feminism and Social Economics.” Review of Social Economy, vol 54, no. 3, 1996, pp. 323-335.
Stetson, Charlotte Perkin. Women and Economics: A Study of the Economic Relation Between Men and Women as a Factor in Social Evolution. Small, Maynard & Company, 1898.