The Gate to Women's Country by Sheri S. Tepper

“Lively, thought-provoking . . . the plot is ingenious, packing a wallop of a surprise . . . Tepper knows how to write a well-made, on-moving story with strong characters. . . . She takes the mental risks that are the lifeblood of science fiction and all imaginative narrative.”—Ursula K. LeGuin, Los Angeles Times Since the flames died three hundred years ago, human civilization has evolved into a dual society: Women’s Country, where walled towns enclose what’s left of past civilization, nurtured by women and a few nonviolent men; and the adjacent garrisons where warrior men live—the lost brothers, sons, and lovers of those in Women’s Country. Two societies. Two competing dreams. Two ways of life, kept apart by walls stronger than stone. And yet there is a gate between them. . . . “Tepper not only keeps us reading . . . she provokes a new look at the old issues.”—The Washington Post “Tepper’s cast of both ordinary and extraordinary people play out a powerful drama whose significance goes beyond sex to deal with the toughest problem of all, the challenge of surmounting humanity’s most dangerous flaws so we can survive—despite ourselves.”—Locus

This book was full of hate, liberally spread throughout the characters toward the opposite gender. I finished the book angry, but not sure where that anger should be directed.

Tepper's world is post-apocalyptic, after a world war which has caused society to revert back to village life. However, this society is different than the one we know - it's a matriarchy where the women are the scholars and leaders, and the men have the choice to either live as warriors outside the village walls excluded from society, or to live with the women subserviently.

It was really interesting to see the traditional roles of men and women reversed in the household. Some of the household men were just as intelligent, brave, and dedicated as some of the women. Some of the men and women were silly and useless. Yet, even the best men seemed to be... lesser. I have been trying to figure out why. Was it simply the flat characterization of those men? Was it the structure of society itself, and the assumption that women would lead? Was it something inherent in the “helper” role that the household men had?

As a thought experiment, the book does an excellent job. I didn't see the book as an accurate mirror of society however, and the level of animosity in the book seems unnecessary.