she has no identity of her own, no social capital, unless she is married

the false promise of "having it all" -- that women can enter the public sphere while doing everything they once did to maintain the domestic sphere, without any help from men; the idea that liberation does not require men's contribution -- ultimately this just means that women take on more work, and the reality is that that is exactly what poor women and women of color have done for ages. Are they any more liberated than their white, middle-class counterparts?

This man hates when woman have no intelligence -- something they have historically been discouraged from cultivating -- but turns on her when she suggests that he/men might be partially responsible. The reality of womanhood is that even if women act exactly as they are supposed to, they will still be hated, because misogyny is built into manhood -- that is, hatred of women is not due to women's identities but to men's identities, creating a Catch-22 where regardless of what a woman does, she is never good enough. She's either a prude or a slut, a bimbo or a bossy bitch, etc.

He says to the grown woman in her 30s

Why is this a good quality?

Even as infants, children already receive messages about gender roles (and who to respect). Studies have shown that children as young as 4, whose vocal tracts are still the same size, will artificially raise or lower the pitch of their voices in order to perform their male or female gender identities.

see "Jeannine's brother takes his son's hand..."

Like Jeannine, Mrs. Dadier does not live for herself; she lives in service of others

This section seems to clearly contrast what is required socially of a woman versus the fullness of humanity that her inner self desires. But who is narrating this section? It seems too self-aware for Jeannine, yet is kind of reflected in her later struggles...

see "Jeannine is not available to Jeannine"

Jeannine is not under her own control -- she is not allowed to live for herself, to enjoy her own life on her own terms, but rather can only achieve personhood through her relationship with a man (her future husband)

Here Mr. Frosty seems to be a painful allegory for Jeannine's own life -- in a few minutes, she'll forget she's confined, take her confinement for granted and daydream about decorating her house with nice furniture...

This special knowledge of the interior (like the domestic, emotions, etc.) is perhaps another side of the pernicious "feminine mystique"

Is this another example of Jeannine's learned helplessness? Or an indication of a deeper, growing discontent, "the problem that has no name" (in the words of Betty Friedan)?

Jeannine and her mother are two of many women throughout history who have been unwittingly complicit in their own oppression, passing down patriarchal values from mother to daughter.

"Care" is not demonstrated through assistance but through dominion, intrusion

In contrast to her learned helplessness -- a social ideal for women -- is the reality that women are not really helpless at all; rather, she and her female compatriots are in fact solely responsible for most domestic work. Yet this labor is not appreciated as real "work," because it is women's work, and unpaid. Is it unpaid because it's women's work, or is it women's work because it's unpaid?

Jeannine has a kind of learned helplessness that she really leans into in the next few chapters -- she really digs into the social message that she needs a man to take care of her, in order to be a full woman, although she starts to acknowledge some internal resistance to that message later on.

The way into Whileaway -- I'm reminded that Whileaway is the future, but not our future. Maybe the way into Whileaway is what we would would have to change as a society to get there? And in this case, the "I" who has never been to Whileaway may be Russ? But in that case.... what are the talking gnats that stand in our way?

Notice that God is female

The second time we see this, we can recognize it as patently untrue, and it takes on an ironic tone

Also reminiscent of "The Yellow Wallpaper"

This intense descriptor I think is meant to shock the reader with it's blase-ness and draw attention to the issues of gender/misogyny/patriarchy that will be developed further later in the narrative.

This section stuck out to me as I was first reading it as almost sarcastic. Of course, as we read on later, taking care of her family and the house most certainly does NOT keep her happy -- her mental entrapment reminds me a lot of Gilman's short story, "The Yellow Wallpaper".