A Country of Their Own Politics of Space in Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s Herland

Iva Balic

The name of Charlotte Perkins Gilman is often linked with the women’s movement of the turn of the twentieth century even though she viewed suffrage as just one of many issues that needed consideration. She believed that “‘the ballot [was] not an end—it [was] a means’”, and in her frequent lectures she addressed various topics that burdened women at the time, such as marriage, motherhood, wage discrimination, economic disability of women, factory work, and domestic strain and isolation.1 Today, Gilman’s name is usually associated with her feminist short story, “The Yellow Wall-Paper”2, a classic frequently taught in literature courses around the United States. During her lifetime, however, she was best known for her work Women and Economics3, which was translated into seven languages and used as a college textbook in the 1920s. In this book, Gilman reacted to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by arguing that women’s inferior position in society hindered the evolutionary process. Gilman claimed that women’s position in society was anti-evolutionary because, isolated in their husbands’ homes and confined to household chores and child rearing, women could not develop their potentials to the fullest, thus holding back the progress of society as a whole. Gilman says:

It is not that women are really smaller-minded, weaker-minded, more timid and vacillating; but that whosoever, man or woman, lives always in a small, dark place, is always guarded, protected,

1 Mary A. HILL, Charlotte Perkins Gilman: The Making of a Radical Feminist, 1860–1896, Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1980, 253. 2 Charlotte PERKINS GILMAN, “The Yellow Wall-Paper”, The New England Magazine, May (1892). 3 Charlotte PERKINS GILMAN, Women and Economics: A Study of the Economic Relation Between Men and Women as a Factor in Social Evolution, Boston: Small, Maynard & Co., 1899. Variations 13 (2005) 104 Iva Balic

directed and restrained, will become inevitably narrowed and weakened by it. The woman is narrowed by the home and the man is narrowed by the woman.4

Gilman did not see the situation as hopeless, though. She believed that women, under right conditions, could contribute tremen- dously to the process of social evolution and help accelerate it. Her utopian novels, which combine Gilman’s convictions about socialism and feminism, are crucial to her legacy.5 Although Gilman never viewed herself as a fiction writer and never truly aspired to be one, she realized that fiction would provide her with space to develop further and more freely the thoughts she strived to materialize so fervently in her everyday life. Through fiction, she could reach wider audience and become more efficient in presenting her ideas. In her best-known utopia, Herland (1915)6, Gilman created an alternative social vision, placing women outside the restricting reach of patriarchy to enable them to exist without limitations and impositions. Although Gilman placed a great importance on social relations and considered them a determining factor in social evolution, this utopia stresses space and spatial design as shaping tools of human behavior. Such shift in focus suggests a spatial reaction to Darwin’s mostly temporal theories of human progress as Gilman goes beyond the biological aspects and beyond the ideologically often-abused notion of the survival of the fittest7, which she viewed as detrimental to society as a whole. In

4 Dolores HAYDEN, The Grand Domestic Revolution: A History of Feminist Designs for American Homes, Neighborhoods, and Cities, Cambridge: MIT Press, 1982, 183. 5 A Woman’s Utopia (1907; utopian fragment), What Diantha Did (1910), Moving the Mountain (1911), Herland (1915), and With Her in Ourland (1916). 6 Charlotte PERKINS GILMAN, Herland, New York: Pantheon Books, 1979. Hereafter referred to parenthetically in the text. 7 In 1859 the arrival of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection; or, The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life virtually changed the world as Darwin’s theory strongly influenced religious, economic, social, and physiological beliefs of the time. Various social sciences, which started developing at around the same time, felt Darwin’s tremendous influence, and researchers in these fields adopted principles of biology in their methodology. Eventually, the phrase “social Darwinism” was coined, and its followers argued that the same laws that applied to nature were also at work in society. Although the proponents of social Darwinism may have had some legitimate claims, the notion also served as a great tool for justifying widely varying ideologies and convictions. Some used A Country of Their Own 105

Herland, Gilman allots considerable agency to the humankind in controlling and manipulating their destinies and suggests that the right re-design of a lived environment can serve as a corrective for the problems of the past and positively shape the future. Juxtaposing the society of her time and the utopian land of women, Gilman reshapes and challenges our notions of city, community, and progress. She provides an alternative version to the patriarchal space designed for inequality and, consequently, highlights the restrictive spatial practices that need to be reworked in order for society to evolve. Yet, Gilman’s attempt to undo the contradictions of masculine design that relate improvement and progress with domination, violence, and waste produces other contradictions, which ultimately indicate her inability to escape the invasiveness and stealth of patriarchal ideology. The utopian genre, toward which Gilman leaned most often in her fiction, helps accentuate the innovatory character of her ideas. Since the word utopia can mean both “no place” and “good place”, it allows for various interpretations. We can view utopian texts as presenting us with a non-existent but ideal arrangement of possibilities that we should desire to reach. Or, to borrow Ernst Bloch’s definition, we can approach utopian narratives as presenting the “‘Not-Yet-Conscious’” but “‘real and concrete final state which can be achieved politically’”.8 Of course, utopias can also be taken as mere flights of fancy aimed at entertaining the reader. Whichever role of utopian literature we decide to accept, though, it is certain that utopias, as overt constructs of imagination, have the power to defamiliarize the world around us, thus helping us see more clearly what we did not, could not, or would not see the ideas of social Darwinism to support their beliefs in a general progressive trend, others to defend extreme laissez-faire economics, and yet others to argue for state control and militancy. The followers of the English theorist Herbert Spencer argued that society’s laws were imbedded in the evolutionary process and could not be changed; while the followers of the American sociologist Lester Frank Ward claimed that, because of their minds and culture, humans could shape their social laws. Gilman identified herself with Ward’s followers. 8 Duangrudi SUKSANG, “A World of Their Own: The Separatist Utopian Vision of Mary E. Bradley Lane’s Mizora”, in: Sharon M. Harris, ed. Redefining the Political Novel: American Women Writers, 1797–1901, Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1995, 128–148, 130. 106 Iva Balic before. Being critical and constructive at the same time, the genre’s fluidity and ambiguity challenge the conventional thought while raising doubts and provoking inquiries about the established order. The genre’s conventions stress Gilman’s critique of patriarchy. As the French philosopher Henri Lefebvre proposes, “a new space cannot be born (produced) unless it accentuates differences”; the narrative approach of utopia highlights the differences between the nature of the new space and the environment with which we are familiar.9 According to the convention of the genre, we encounter the utopian architecture and social design through its visitors. The three visitors to Herland are extremely fitting to this task because, different in their natures, each is symbolic of a particular patriarchal approach toward women: romantic, sexist, and scientific. Observing the land of women through their eyes and experiencing Herland only by the means of their reactions, we are constantly forced to compare our world with the utopian community and evaluate the differences. Furthermore, Herland’s history makes the utopian community immediately close to our historical experience while accentuating differences between our society and Herland. Just like us, Herlanders had gone through wars, slavery, invasions, revolts, and natural disasters. This context of historical conflicts and misfortunes is universally familiar, which makes the possibility of change seem possible and probable since Herlanders have managed to alter their lives dramatically despite their tortuous past. And, the fact that the negative course of history changes its direction only after the women take charge accentuates the violent and oppressive nature of patriarchal government and societal organization. With this gesture, Gilman brings our attention to the power she believed the humankind had in influencing their circumstances and, therefore, their behavior and character. Finally, the geographical location makes the most pronounced point in Gilman’s attack on patriarchy. While it is usually necessary for any utopia to be separated from the rest of

9 Henri LEFEBVRE, The Production of Space, trans. Donald Nicholson Smith, Oxford: Blackwell, 1991, 52. A Country of Their Own 107 the world either in time or space in order to develop and exist, Herlanders have to be separated twice — not only from the rest of the world but also from their male population. When all of the free men are either killed in battles or by revolting slaves, the women decide to rise and seize control of the country by slaying their conquerors. The mountain range towering around Herland holds these women captive, which initiates this act of “sheer desperation” (55), but the mountains also mark safe space, thus providing a chance for a new beginning. This strategic detail once again draws our attention to the damaging effects of patriarchal control since the women in this narrative can begin to function fully in society only under such radically altered circumstances. It is important to mention, however, as Libby Falk Jones perceptively argues, that Gilman’s goal was not to offer “a viable alternative to twentieth-century patriarchy” and to suggest that men be eliminated. Instead, Jones explains, by “explod[ing] our patriar- chally conditioned assumptions about women”, Gilman wanted to indict male-dominated society for holding women back.10 Gilman writes against a capitalist, male-dominated society when she offers her vision of the space more favorable to the progress of human race. Since Herland is a small country of about 10 000 – 12 000 square miles with the population of three million women, space and its maximum use are always on Herlanders’ minds. Their space is limited but it is theirs, and for the first time they have the opportunity to organize it for their purposes. A capitalist society usually strives on prohibition; many of such prohibitions are invisible, but some most apparent demonstrations are gates, ditches, and other material barriers. The invisible obstructions include the divisions between sexes as well as the gap between the rich and poor in terms of neighborhoods, social access, and opportunity. Having experienced such prohibitions in the past and having lived isolated in their homes for centuries, the women know how suffocating to the body and confining to the mind small

10 Libby FALK JONES, “Gilman, Bradley, Piercy and the Evolving Rhetoric of Feminist Utopias,” in: Libby Falk Jones and Sarah Webster Goodwin eds., Feminism, Utopia, and Narrative, Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1990, 118. 108 Iva Balic and enclosed spaces can be, so it comes as no surprise that they see spacious living and openness as their priorities, as the main factors in their lives. The very first thing that the men notice when they arrive in Herland is just that—the country’s open space. Except the mountain range, no visible barriers mar the view. The men also admire the clean, well-built roads that connect villages and cities. The roads are made of hard, manufactured material and are “sloped slightly to shed rain, with every curve and grade and gutter perfectly made” (18). Herlanders are very proud of their roads and consider them crucial to their lives. As Ellador, one of the Herlanders who marries Van, one of the three male visitors, comments, Herlanders consider having good connecting routes as one of the basis of a well-functioning society. The road, of course, has a greater significance than just its economic merit as the means of trade. In American context particularly, the road has been viewed as a symbol of independence and freedom, the means of escape, adventure, and a new beginning. While the women do not feel the need to escape because they already have their freedom and their new beginning, the road carries other, just as important significance for them. One of them is mobility, the possibility to travel freely through the open space, and the other is communi- cation, the possibility to share with and learn from others. In a patriarchal setting of Gilman’s time, mobility and communication as major forces of dissension were largely denied to women, who were in most cases unable to travel alone and unable to discuss their ideas and feelings because they were isolated from one another in their household settings. Consequently, the road and, more importantly, the ability to use it truly represent the basis of a free and open society not only from the economic but also from the communal and social points of view. Because their space is limited, Herlanders’ approach to the tending of nature is extremely utilitarian, but even in their practicality they do not forget the importance of aesthetics and relaxation in their lives. The elimination of the clash between consumption and leisure, needs and desires, is the first step in ensuring quality existence while saving space. The women do not A Country of Their Own 109 have to travel long distances to escape the ugliness of an industrial city because they live in a space that completely fulfills them. As Van comments, the villages, towns, and even cities “have a park- like beauty” (43), and, consequently, the women do not have to depend on a brief vacation time in a foreign location to temporarily replace the drabness of their everyday lives. The land is peaceful, safe, comfortable, and nurturing all at once. Neither purposeless artificial orderliness nor depleted resources scar the environment. Perhaps, the women were partially lucky because their country has incredibly fertile land and great climate, which are factors they could hardly influence, but it is important to note that the women tend the nature carefully rather than exploit its good qualities. The women follow a perfect system of “refeeding the soil with all that came out of it”, which results in “an increasingly valuable soil […] instead of the progressive impoverishment so often seen in the rest of the world” (80). The land has neither regions exhausted for the purpose of and by the means of production as it is common in a capitalist society, nor there are regions exploited by the excessive consumption of space so typical of dictatorial regimes. Indeed, no waste or excess is apparent anywhere. Furthermore, the women have not been at any point driven by the desire to invade, colonize, and dominate. Even though they live with the pressure of the lack of space, the measures the women have taken to resolve it do not include battling and overpowering nature or occupying and exploiting someone else’s territory. Instead, to avoid crowding, Herlanders practice cremation, plant only harvestable trees and plants, and experiment with crossbreeding. Their system of intensive agriculture ensures self-sufficiency while being friendly to the land on which they depend. Creating the land that “look[s] like an enormous park, only it [is] evidently an enormous garden” (11), Herlanders take care of their resources so that “the country [could] furnish plenty for the fullest, richest life for all of them” (71). Instead of exploitation, there is balance and symbiosis, which the women both maintain and enjoy. Herlanders also succeed in reestablishing unity between the private and the public spheres — the greatest dividers between 110 Iva Balic sexes in a patriarchal society. By melting the strictly imposed, male-designed boundaries between the private sphere (usually assigned to women) and the public sphere (usually attributed to men), Gilman offers a positive alternative. The women are no longer relegated to their individual homes where they have to spend their days in solitude busy with various chores. In fact, there is nothing called home in Herland. And, as Ellador tells Van when she visits the United States11, nothing important has been lost. Ellador says, “You think Home, you talk Home, you work Home, where you should from earliest childhood be seeing life in terms of the community”12, just like the women in Herland do. The notions of home and family have been thoroughly rethought and reworked as the women learned (over the span of two thousand years) how to rebuild their society. They take personal interest in the space around them, considering it their own and for all of them. Consequently, they create a public space that reveals some of the qualities of the private space, such as order, cleanliness, and even privacy when one desires it, without connoting confinement and isolation. There are no divisions, as everything becomes part of this common space. The women enjoy public nurseries, communal kitchens, and employment in which they can utilize their talents and interests. The living space is comfortable, practical, and full of air and light; moreover, it does not involve accumulation of unnecessary goods, excessive consumption, and exaggerated main- tenance. The living conditions do not vary in quality for different groups of women, education is accessible to everyone, and children are neither limited by obligations to certain groups of people (family) nor tied down by the expectations of any class or social status. In this environment, which merges public and private spheres successfully, the women are part of everything. Thus, they experience satisfaction and gratification by developing their natural talents and interests while they are useful to the well being

11 In With Her in Ourland, Van takes his wife to Asia, Europe, and the United States. Ellador grows more and more disturbed as she witnesses human struggle, misery, inefficiency, and violence, and they both decide to return to Herland, where Ellador bears a child. 12 Charlotte PERKINS GILMAN, With Her in Ourland, Westport: Greenwood Press, 1997, 135. A Country of Their Own 111 of all. Herlanders’ clothes provide probably the most pronounced example of re-designed personal space, but they also bring out the contradictory character of some of Gilman’s ideas. Bustles and wasp waists are unknown in this community; the roomy and functional clothes allow more movement, which enables Her- landers to live active and satisfying lives. Herlanders’ wardrobe consists of a one-piece cotton undergarment that reaches over the knees and shoulders, half-hose with elastic tops, union suits, knee- length tunics, and long robes. The clothes are comfortable and practical at the same time—a perfect antithesis to the Victorian confinement and artificiality. The women wear union suits or tunics most of the time, and, because there is no shame associated with their bodies, they feel free to wear only the undergarment for fieldwork and exercise. Because the undergarment is soft and “absolutely free to move in” (31), the women can run and leap like dear, climb trees, and exercise at any time. Instead of the pale and sickly creatures of Victorian era, we encounter women who are lean, athletic, and healthy because they no longer have to suffocate in clothes designed to confirm to masculine ideas of femininity. This is a radical step on Gilman’s part since she does away with impractical hats, elaborate hairdos, and long skirts, whose designs conceal the body and keep women paralyzed. The large amount of pockets further accentuates Gilman’s intention to give women more space. The pockets are in all their garments, freeing women’s hands for work while providing space for personal belongings and necessities. The women’s mobility and self-sufficiency are thus further heightened because they can carry whatever they want without being hampered by numerous accessories or luggage. The uniformity of the clothing, however, problematizes Gilman’s otherwise practical suggestion. Although it is mentioned several times that the women dye the cloth they manufacture, therefore leading us to the conclusion that the color of the clothing provides at least partial variety, the clothes function as a sort of uniform — an immediate identification tool — and, therefore, also as a tool of exclusion. As it was mentioned earlier, Herland lacks 112 Iva Balic overt means of prohibition, but one can argue that it is only because the clothes provide the same service in a more covert way. An intruder in the community, for example, can be spotted immediately because of his or her different outfit and be under constant surveillance because of his or her easy identification. Moreover, as the lack of space does not allow for any spontaneity in nature, where nothing can grow wildly because it would take up space for harvestable plants, the clothes deny spontaneity in personal expression and, consequently, in free formation of one’s identity. The clothing represents some kind of collective pressure, the need to submit and identify, to be part of the assigned space because the only other option is to be an outsider. Finally, the androgynous character of the clothes may be at least partially responsible for the lack of sexual pleasure in Herland. Gilman often stressed the idea that “those ‘feminine charms’ [men] are so fond of are not feminine at all, but mere reflected masculinity—developed to please [men]” (59) so that a woman could secure a husband and through him a decent means of survival because her other options in life were tremendously limited. Thus, the “nondescript clothes” (22), as the three men call them, may be viewed as a desexualizing gesture, with which Gilman reacts to the patriarchal conception of the female body as a sexual object confined in a tightly fitting outfit. However, in her attempt to strip the female body of the signs and marks placed on it by the male gaze, Gilman robs the women of sexual agency. While they do find enjoyment in their bodies because of their strength, endurance, and athleticism, sexual feelings and pleasures are unknown to them. The women do not conceive of homoeroticism, and they perceive heterosexual sex only as “the miracle of union in life-giving” (119). This could be a revelation of Gilman’s deep-rooted conservatism13, or it could be her reaction to the contemporary demands for sexual liberation14; most likely, however, Gilman’s gesture of giving women more space and freeing their bodies but keeping their sexuality confined

13 Angelika BAMMER, Partial Visions: Feminism and Utopianism in the 1970s, New York: Routledge, 1991, 42. 14 Frances BARTKOWSKI, Feminist Utopias, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1989, 33. A Country of Their Own 113 reflects her contradictory position on the subject. Lamenting “sexual sinfulness” but affirming “the joy of sex”, Gilman spoke on one hand of pervasive immorality and sex as the lowest form of love, but on the other hand she viewed sexual attraction as “the highest form of nature” and insisted that the facts of sex should not be concealed. While conflicted in her view on sexuality, it seems that, at least overtly, she subscribed only to conventional heterosexual terms since she discussed in her lectures and non- fiction the “happy human intercourse between men and women”15. Despite its seeming comfort and lack of restrictions, the imprisonment of the three male visitors is another example of Gilman’s partial succumbing to patriarchal ideology. Unlike a regular prison cell, the room, in which the men are held, offers absolute comfort and reflects the women’s standards when it comes to living space. There are broad and firmly soft beds, simple but eye-pleasing furniture, wide windows, high ceilings, and a lot of air and light. The chamber is found in a castle that looks more like a fortress and stands on the periphery of the country. Standing on a steep rock, the castle is surrounded by high walls, and although the blinds in the room open easily and there are no bars, escape seems close to impossible. The castle’s architecture makes it apparent that the building was built long before the women came to power. Although the building’s structure goes against their principles of architecture, the women continue to use it, and they use it for the most restricting and space denying activity — imprisonment. After initial violence on both sides when the men’s rebellious behavior is answered by the women’s capturing, stripping, and drugging them in the fashion of the women’s old male masters, the men are given tunics, food, and notebooks to learn the women’s language and to teach them their own. Certain reciprocity and mutual respect are shown in the fact that soon after their arrival the men are allowed movement and later they are even taken through different cities to get to know the country and to lecture about theirs. They are constantly supervised, however, and

15 Hill, Charlotte Perkins Gilman, 183. 114 Iva Balic even though the men acknowledge that this form of imprisonment is better than physical restriction, the methods of surveillance and brainwashing resemble the tactics of Orwell’s Big Brother. All of the men must continue to learn about the country even when Terry shows signs of fading interest: “I am sick and tired of being educated […] I want to Get Out!” (32). And even as the men are finally leaving Herland, the threat of surveillance is upon them. Although it is understandable that the women do not wish their visitors to reveal their location until Ellador returns and reports on the situation in the “Other World”, they threaten Terry with absolute imprisonment and even anesthesia to keep him silent. It can be argued that the violent and resentful behavior on Terry’s part can only reap the same response from the other side, but it also shows that despite all of their re-education and re-design, in certain situations the women readily reach for the tools of patriarchal oppression. Reproduction and motherhood create the greatest contradictions in this work because they continue to function, even though slightly differently than in a capitalist, patriarchal society, as instruments of women’s repression. The issues of reproduction and space are closely connected, and Gilman is probably the only author of utopia who confronts the logical problem of any utopian society—the lack of space—heads on. The work thus resonates even today, as readers around the globe become increasingly aware of problems that a growing population may bring, but the startling solution Gilman offers to the rising population of Herland foresees the 1979 one-child rule of the communist China. Because Herlanders procreate parthenogenetically and can control the time of conception with their minds, they do not have to undergo abortions or adopt such radical measures as sterilization or infanticide. Since they can bear only female babies, they also do not have to fear and deal with the most terrible outcome of the one- child rule: male-infant preference and extreme disdain for female infants. The contradictory pairing of gratification with fertility is still present, however. While the women enjoy their work and cherish the feeling of contribution to the community, motherhood A Country of Their Own 115 is considered “the highest social service — a sacrament, really” (69) absolutely incomparable with any other work that the women might do. Maternity is valued above anything else; it is “a crowning honor” (83), and those who are granted the privilege to bear more than one child16 consider it “the very highest reward and honor in the power of the state” (69). As it was previously mentioned, the women value their living space and recognize the value it has for the quality of their lives. They are ready to make sacrifices in order to keep their spatial arrangements, but as a consequence they find themselves in a position comparable to the one available to women in a patriarchal society: they are not in control of the means of reproduction because they are dictated how many children to have. Moreover, they are valued by their ability to bear children because infertility falls only upon “the few worst types” (82), which, in the eyes of the society, makes a woman’s morality and character depend on her reproductive abilities. While some women are infertile, others are prohibited from having children. Such prohibition becomes a very serious limitation especially if we consider the value that motherhood is assigned in Herland. The women who carry some “bad” or criminal genes are asked to renounce motherhood altogether as their social duty. Since motherhood is raised to a form of religion, “some sort of Maternal Pantheism” (59), the women who are not allowed to become mothers immediately find themselves on the margin of the society (thus clearly indicating a margin where there is not to be any), demoted to the status of social and religious outcasts. Motherhood thus serves as a tool of prohibition that is deeply rooted in the spatial organization of Herland and brings a hierarchical structure to this otherwise egalitarian society.

Despite the contradictions that Gilman creates, her novel presents several crucial suggestions, forcing us to reevaluate our surroundings and societal organization. By juxtaposing Ellador’s expectations with the anticipated reality of the United States

16 These women are called “Over Mothers“ and their status in society is comparable with aristocracy. 116 Iva Balic

(which we can well imagine), Gilman goes full circle in her narrative, making us anticipate Ellador’s surprise when her expectations are confronted by reality. Yet, besides its tongue-in- cheek quality, the ending also suggests Gilman’s faith in the power of education and altered social conditions, which can bring a possible rearrangement of relationships between sexes and re- evaluation of their roles in society. Gilman’s utopia presents a different space built mostly on equality and cooperation of its citizens, who choose their occupations freely, specializing in their tasks and responsibilities. She attacks with fervor the stereotypes about women propagated by patriarchy and presents females who are intelligent, strong, brave, and independent. She suggests that humans can influence and manipulate their own evolution through the organization of their social environment and relationships. We should not overlook the problems that the text poses, namely the women’s uniformity as well as their exaggerated stress on mother- hood and its control. Even these issues, though, help us define more clearly the real conditions of our own lives and living spaces, especially if we do not consider utopia as a final and rigid ideal but rather as a mirror reflecting back at us our own situation. If that is the case, then Gilman’s Herland becomes an “old space”, one that is put on page and, therefore, granted existence. And, since every old space “carries within itself the seeds of a new kind of space”17, the contradictions propel a continuous movement forward toward better visions and better spaces.

Iva Balic is a full doctoral candidate (A.B.D.) at the English department of the University of North Texas.

17 Lefebvre, The Production, 52. A Country of Their Own 117

Abstract Gilman’s Herland provides an alternative version to the patriarchal space designed for inequality and, consequently, highlights the restrictive spatial practices that need to be reworked in order for society to evolve. As Gilman attempts to undo the contradictions of masculine design, which relate progress and improvement with domination, violence, and waste, she produces contradictions of her own. The women’s uniformity, their confined sexuality, and their occasional intrusive ways of control are some of them. Motherhood, however, presents the most glaring contradiction, as it is, in reaction to the lack of space, turned into an instrument of privileging and distinction on a social ladder.