One thing I hate about many books is that they often starts off with flying colors with amazing prose and plotting, making me think it's going to be my new favorite book. And then they usually glided, or stumbled, down into disappointments by the end of the story, when the author clearly ran out of ideas or got simply lazy.Not with this author.In fact, I hated the first 25 pages. The writing was too forced, too 'overwrought,' as Tepper attempted to set up the background and history of her story. But the story gradually grabbed a hold of me with its relevant feminist interpretation of the Iliad/Odysseus (and maybe Aeneid), juxtaposing it with a eco-feminism dystopian reality. She kept her best cards until near the end, and I enjoyed the overlapping of her ideas with the characters' struggles, and how it blended together quite seamlessly. The writing seemed to improve by the conclusion as the plot became more driven and the ideas much clearer.For thousands of years (and they still are), women have been raped, pillaged, murdered, objectified, and used as currency for men. Tapper imagines a walled city, a feminist utopia, where they are treated as equals and nothing of the aforementioned by the patriarchal hegemony will happen to them. However, outside the walls, the patriarchal flag still wave with all its ugliness. Basically, Women's Country is about a heroine, who remembers a terrible bildungsrowoman journey she had as a young woman that transformed her purview from a innocent girl's into a grown woman's. Along her journey, Tepper poses many problematic questions and themes arising from the two sexes - the ownership of women, the identity (or the lack thereof) behind the names, the nature of man, evolutionary biology, and the male gaze in literature. **SPOILER**It has been said the writer is guilty of essentialism, which means she reduces men into stereotypical evil beings. I think this is partially true, as she exhibits this somewhat with Chernon when he takes sides with the boys who kidnapped the heroine Stavia. But I am going to give Tepper some license on this, because of the simple enormity that men has done to women throughout history, and, besides, Tepper did write some male characters that does not reveal any ill-will or possessiveness towards women. What I didn't like out of her ideas was about eugenics - she posited the idea of trying to eliminate the combative and possessive nature of man through artificial selection by the women. Fascinating stuff, to be sure, and I enjoyed her radical ideas, but eugenics opens a can of worms that leads to a very slippery slope to more exclusion towards minorities (e.g.., Deaf people, people of color).**SPOILER**I read this book for a book club, and I groaned when this book was picked - I didn't want a sci-fi book about an apocalyptic future, but I am happy to say Tepper exceeded my expectations.
The Gloria Steinem of second-wave-inspired post-apocalyptic novels of gender separation? (making Walk to the End of the World Shulamith Firestone, perhaps, and The Shore of Women... Simone de Beauvoir? I don't know, I haven't actually read those two yet) Anyway my point is that this is the sort-of-essentialist (but maybe not?) liberal feminist version of the story, wherein men and women are fundamentally different and need to be mostly kept separate for their own good, except for those "womanish" men who have opted out of the warrior lifestyle and live among the women (no, not gay men-homosexuality has been medically eliminated... I know, I know), and where women are just better suited to lead because of their biological drive to nurture.Anyway 300 years after the "Convulsion" women live in towns while the male warriors are garrisoned outside of them, kept uneducated and without access to most tools or technology in order to prevent another war.* We explore this world through a Councilwoman's daughter, Stavia, whose main purpose appears to be making terrible choices in order to drive the narrative along. Not that there's that much narrative, anyway-this book is an exercise in social worldbuilding and little else. There's an "enemy" culture introduced like 2/3s of the way through to provide some conflict and a short adventure, but their whole episode feels rather tacked on, which is too bad, because if they had been developed from the beginning it would have strengthened the novel considerably.I remain, I must confess, a little mystified as to whether Tepper was trying to reinforce or deconstruct this essentialist society-although much of that might be my own disdain for such ideas rendering it a little difficult for me to take this stuff seriously. I guess it didn't help that the society didn't really make any sense at all anyway.* It must be noted too that a lot of negative reviews of this book on here center on Tepper's "unfair' characterization of men, which is great because A) turnabout is fair play, chumps, and B) these male characters are carbon copies of the heroes of most speculative novels.
Do You like book The Gate To Women's Country (1999)?
Issues of gender and the strange relationship dance between men and women have always interested me, so I picked this up with hope. The premise is the story: men and women live in divided societies and only occasionally meet to reproduce the next crop. Not surprisingly, the men's society is a military one, the women's society a quiet, peaceful, kinda gossipy haven. In a book like this, you expect the inevitable: that men and women are going to get it together in the end, like a sitcom where no matter how things change, by the end of the episode, things will have returned to the status-quo. This didn't bother me. I happen to be all for men and women enjoying each other's company. What did bother me is that Stepper's ending can be seen from almost page 1, or at least from the moment a specific character is introduced. Ultimately the screamingly obvious conclusion ruined the build-up and the decent characterization, making for a very boring read.
—Mara
What a let down. Sure, the plot kept me going, but I resent anyone, male or female, who confuses feminism with man-hating. As a woman, I found this book profoundly insulting to the men I love, and even many of the men I don't. The only men who aren't lying, raping, manipulative butchers are some sort of mutant freaks that the women are trying to breed for? What kind of equality is that? What kind of dialogue of mutual understanding will come out of reading this? Ursula Le Guin can not only write circles around Tepper, she can address issues of gender, war, and oppression in various forms without ever sliding into this simplistic female=good, male=bad thinking, with the few exceptions just proving the rule, Sheesh. Rush Limbaugh would adore this book, because it proves all the nasty things he's been saying about feminists for years. I loved the first few things I read by Tepper but the last three I've tried have gone from bad to worse. I haven't been this ticked off at a book in a long time. I did finish it, because as I said, some of the characters and their story were interesting enough, but the background was entirely offensive.
—Wendy
A friend sent me this knowing full well that I didn't like futuristic novels-he said I am sending this to one of the strongest women I know! I have probably read it 100 plus times (it is like comfort food-I found myself reading it along with the New Testament the week my sweet husband died ). I like the empowerment given to some women even though the men can't or don't want to understand. The empowered women see themselves as the damned as they manipulate the DNA and the numbers of their civilization remaining after the last big atomic war. As more men choose to return to women's country more of an Eden can be established. My daughter knew how much I love this story and went on-line and found me a first edition! I have given many copies of this book away and will continue to read and encourage others to read it. Couldn't get my church group to read it as it has the "F" word in it a few times! Get past it--A GREAT READ
—Gretchen
