Toward a Better Society: Rethinking Gender Inequality through Gilman’s Challenge

In the 19th century, American society underwent a fundamental transformation in the wake of the industrial revolution. Since industrialization impacted every aspect of life, including economic and political structures, population distribution, and values of individuals, new social phenomena emerged. Accordingly, individuals started to discuss how to make society a better place. As a part of this movement, Andrew Carnegie and Charlotte Perkins Gilman proposed ideas for social advancement in their articles, The Gospel of Wealth (1889) and Women and Economics “Cupid in the Kitchen” (1898). In The Gospel of Wealth, Carnegie argues that the rich’s alleviation of economic inequality through philanthropy is necessary. On the other hand, Gilman emphasizes the need for structural reformation, attributing the traditional role of women as the factor that hinders the progression of humanity. Despite the fact that they aim for the same goal, Gilman challenges Carnegie’s position, arguing that women’s social status should be equal with men’s. This notion has implications for the 21st century; even though women’s social status is somewhat elevated, gender inequality is still a social issue that needs to be resolved.

One of the primary ways in which Gilman’s position challenges “Gospel of Wealth” is the role of women as economic agents. Gilman and Carnegie both acknowledge the distinction between primitive and advanced civilizations and hope to guide society towards a more civilized form. However, their ideas exhibit differences in terms of whether they consider the impact of gender on society.

“As society develops, its functions specialize; and the reason why this great race function of cooking has been so retarded in its natural growth is that the economic dependence of women has kept them back from their share in human progress. When women stand free as economic agents, they will lift and free their arrested functions, to the much better fulfillment of their duties as wives and mothers and to the vast improvement in health and happiness of the human kind” (Gilman, 311).

Gilman argues it is more effective for the development of society that household chores are handled by experts instead of women who are innocently ignorant of these matters. She views conventional household chores as an obstacle to women’s personal development, thus hindering the progression of the gender as a whole. The reason for this is that women’s freedom from these duties would enable them to engage in economic activities, and that would accordingly help them to perform their responsibility as a wives and mothers faithfully. Since she mentions how conventional sex function stifles social progression and how the new role of women as economic agents can bring a positive influence on society, she clearly considers the influence of role of women on society.

On the other hand, Carnegie argues that social advancement achieved by judicious wealth distribution driven by those who accumulated substantial wealth can bring happiness and advancement to the community. In his point of view, wealth itself is a means that should be used to benefit this community. Therefore, he believes it is righteous for the rich to aid people who strive to improve themselves by forging educational systems and providing public resources that would help them to thrive. However, although his ideas are established for the sake of society’s advancement just as Gilman’s, he only refers to men in his language use, excluding the role of women in this matter. Throughout The Gospel of Wealth, words such as “man of wealth”, “wealthy man”, “brotherhood”, and “brethren” are used very frequently, but there isn’t a single word referring to women. This clearly demonstrates that he excludes the possibility that women could play a role in social progression. There might be counterarguments to this notion that Carnegie is including the role of women in his arguments, viewing the word “man” as a gender inclusive word. However, it is certain that he is only referring to men, considering the historical context where women were not able to accumulate wealth or get as proper an education as men due to their lower status. With this in mind, the separation of gender roles, which Gilman places heavy emphasis on throughout her article, challenges Carnegie’s position which only considers the role and conduct of men.

Another point that Gilman’s idea contradicts The Gospel of Wealth is whether societal change should happen from top social classes or fundamentally bottom to top. In The Gospel of Wealth, Carnegie explains the importance of the rich distributing their wealth during their lifetime, hoping his statements would someday become ‘the gospel of wealth’ that every wealthy man follows unquestioningly. In contrast, in Women and Economics: “Cupid in the Kitchen,” Gilman believes that advancing to more civilized society relies on broader structural changes that enable people from all social classes and genders to contribute to societal development. Carnegie mentions “[t]he wealthy men should become a trustee for his poor brethren” (Carnegie, 298). A trustee is an individual that is responsible for managing trust assets. Therefore, in the process of wealth administration, Carnegie argues that the rich should be the ones who decide how to distribute their wealth to lower classes, not the government or a third person. In other words, he believes that progression of our race is dependent on the decisions and actions of rich people. In Gilman’s perspective, although it is the change in women’s social role and their social status that is crucial in increasing the productive power of the world, the effort of a single gender or class doesn’t lead society to a new realm as Carnegie proposed. Rather, she viewed society as a whole to be the main agent of change.

“Cooperation is not what is required for this, but trained professional service and such arrangement of our methods of living as shall allow us to benefit by such service...The change must come through natural functional development in society…Attempts to cooperation so far have endeavored to lessen the existing labors of women without recognizing their need for other occupation, and this is one reason for their repeated failure.” (Gilman, 313)

In this excerpt, it is clear that she believes our fundamental way of living should change, and that it is only society’s functional development that could lead to this shift. Considering the context, “cooperation” in this excerpt refers to individuals’ utmost effort while maintaining the current system. However, it is obvious that she finds this futile, stating that it is one reason for society’s repeated failure. Gilman argues for alleviating the difference in social hierarchy between men and women by refining the structure of 19th century society. This idea effectively represents the contrast with Carnegie’s notion which solely relies on the elite class’s behavior, and challenges Carnegie’s point of view that hierarchical social structure is evidence of advanced civilization.

As both challenges reflect women’s social status in the 19th century, I believe this poses questions to the current generation as to what extent gender role dynamics have changed and how the current state of society should be evaluated. In my point of view, there has certainly been progress in terms of gender inequality compared to the 19th century. However, the gap in status between men and women still exists, and it seems like gender equality is still far away. According to Gilman and Carnegie’s 19th century point of view, there were few women in the workforce, and even the concept of women engaging in work was unfamiliar. In comparison, American society now has a greater number of women in any career field than in the 19th century, and people have grown much accustomed to the idea of women working. Undoubtedly, the conditions women face in society nowadays are improved in this aspect. However, I still do not think our society has the same perception towards men and women in terms of work and family life, and there is room for further development.

In our society, the perception that household chores and childcare are considered closer to women’s duties than men’s still exists. When a woman and a man who have their professional occupations marry and have children, it is far more common for women to forgo their careers than men. There are some cases where men chose to take care of housework, but we can see that husbands generally take charge of the house income. The fact that there is a word referring to dads who take care of housework instead of their wives (i.e., stay-at-home-dad) proves their scarcity, as this word was coined in the first place as a way to distinguish these fathers from the majority. If society had completely broken away from traditional gender role perceptions, there would be families where the husband takes care of the home and the wife works as much as the traditional form of families where the wife takes care of the house and the husband works. However, current society is far from this ideal. Therefore, the conventional role distribution system and the scarcity implied in the word “stay-at-home-dads” shows how women’s freedom from housework, which Gilman wanted, hasn’t been achieved yet.

Along with this, the wage gap and difference in promotion opportunities between men and women demonstrate that there is a certain expectation of women that they are responsible for childcare. In reality, the tendency that women workers are paid less than male workers or companies’ preferences for male workers when it comes to promotion stems from the perception that moms are more responsible for childcare. This is due to the higher chance of women taking maternity leave than men taking paternity leave when their child is born, and often mothers are the ones to resolve the issue when a child urgently needs a parent. In other words, companies assume that for mothers, the mere existence of children could impact work. In Netflix’s special “Why women are paid less”, Hilary Clinton mentions an anecdote that shows the different perception towards male and female workers, saying that somebody said to a person who was just promoted and got their own workspace: “if you are a man, and you have a family, plaster your office with family pictures because people will think you’re a very good provider. If you are a woman, and you have children, don’t put pictures up in your office of your family. Because people will think you can’t keep your mind on your work”. Although this statement emphasizes the importance of being different than others to achieve, it ironically shows the perception rooted in society that generally fathers are indifferent to child-rearing compared to mothers, and that parenting is more of a mother’s job. In my perspective, the fact that this social sentiment exists serves as evidence that this society hasn’t achieved gender equality, and the childcare system has not reached the level that can give working mothers a complete freedom from childcare. It is clear that society does not take for granted that working mothers’ husbands can be taking care of their child full-time, or fathers can leave work in the cases where their children urgently need a parent. Additionally, if they leave their children at a childcare facility when they work, this implies that the childcare system is not reliable enough to allow working mothers to entirely focus on their work without concerning about their children. With all in mind, what Gilman argued was not only having a communal kitchen where professional chefs cook but also taking advantage of shared childcare facilities so that women can be free from domestic labors. However, it’s clear that our society hasn’t reached her ideals yet.

Although society has achieved improvements so that people are now able to work regardless of gender, as a woman myself living in the 21st century, it doesn’t feel that there is much difference from the 19th century in the sense that the perception that housework is women’s job exists. Women are still not in the same social hierarchy as men. Wage and promotion opportunities represent how valuable an employee is to the company or society. However, as women are not acknowledged as much as men despite their capacity being never inferior, the discrimination that women are facing feels irrational. As mentioned above, the traditional concept of motherhood and fatherhood are being used as a tool for the companies to justify the difference in the compensation between women and men that they offer, and also acts as a reason that makes women give up their career. I believe these concepts stem from a conventional way of thinking, and do not benefit the child’s education or the growth of society. Therefore, the reconsideration of child-rearing that both parents share the equal responsibility will have a positive effect on equality and also the progression of the gender.

Works Cited

“Explained | Why Women Are Paid Less | FULL EPISODE | Netflix.” YouTube, 17 Apr. 2020, www.youtube.com/watch?v=hP8dLUxBfsU

Jacobus, Lee A. Approaching Great Ideas: Critical Readings for College Writers. 1st ed., vol. 1, 2016