The Humiliation of Elizabeth Bennet

I think Susan Fraiman makes an interesting point in saying that Mr. Bennet holds some power over the suspense in the novel. He has a lot of power in making the choices and, like Susan said, withholds plenty of information, like when we see his thoughts on Elizabeth's rejection of Mr. Collins' proposal. Elizabeth is assumed to be Mr. Bennet's favorite as he sides with her on the proposal and is relieved when she returns home. I agree that Elizabeth seems almost like a "son" to him- but in female form, of course. The son he never had. But I don't think that Elizabeth is so manly as the author claims but that her character traits that she shows in the book-her refusal to marry Mr. Collins and Darcy and her speaking her honest opinion quite frequently-are things that were more associated with the men of that time than of the women who were supposed to be quiet, agreeable wives.
Before the letter from Darcy, Elizabeth was suspicious or opposed to most of the men in the novel, but reading the letter and realizing Darcy wasn't so evil changed her perspective on everything and almost changes her entirely.

Dangly Dingle Dongles

You know, I like to consider myself to be a relatively smart man. But I did not really see those sexual undertones coming. I could easily see the business angle, the whole strengthening of family bonds and dowry thing (that and Mr. Bennet running the world of Pride and Prejudice in the same manner as a Templar is a pretty neat-o idea). The psychological analysis of Elizabeth having penis envy and Mr. Bennet subconsciously wanting wang-ram his daughter proved to be fascinating in a weird Freudian kind of way.
Any-who, I wonder, am I the only one who thought that it was perfectly reasonable for Elizabeth to be kind of freaked out when she was taken down a peg or two when she received Darcy's letter? I might be in the minority here, but I kind of sympathize with Darcy.... Like from day one... he is the same kind of anti-social misanthrope I look up to (next to Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw). The fact that he had to kick himself in the pants to pluck up the courage to ask Elizabeth to marry him, even willing to over look the fact that if she were any other person, he probably wouldn't have given them the time of day.
It's understandable for Elizabeth to be out of whack after she's been disillusioned so thoroughly, not just because she wishes she had a crank to yank till she wanked. Who knows, maybe I'm prideful or maybe even prejudiced.

The idea that Mr. Bennett is somehow producing, in Elizabeth, all the trappings of a son he would have preferred to have despite having 5 daughters, is not supported by the text.  This is why Ms. Fraiman must look to another, Ms. Rich, to draw her point home. Ms. Fraiman seems to be in some internal disagreement with the author she quotes to make her point. The idea that Mr. Bennett is making Lizzy into a son is a weak argument on its face. Other than the idea that Elizabeth tends to have more in common with her father leads only one to believe that Mr. Bennett shares more femininity with Lizzy than Lizzy shares masculinity with her dad. As I mentioned before, this idea rings most true in the very beginning, even Ms. Fraiman points this out in her critique, when Mr. Bennett keeps the secret the fact that he will be visiting the newly arrived Mr. Darcy with the purpose of marrying off his daughters, most importantly Lizzy. Here it is clear that Mr. Bennett wants his girls happy and taken care of, and wishes them to be proper girls and not silly little girls. None of the actions taken by Mr. Bennett in anyway resemble that of a man wanting or preferring a son. He is a reader and fancies himself well educated and mature. These are not traits of young men. Reading is a trait of women during this time.

Questions

1.     Do you think Mr. Bennett is reading into Lizzy’s personality a son he never had?

2.     Is it a problem for Mr. Bennett to engage in favoritism when it comes to his daugters?

Humiliation

Fraiman’s argument seemed to over exemplify the "daddy’s girl” relationship between Elizabeth and her father. Mr. Bennett has a very close relationship with his daughter, favoring her over all others and at most times, even his wife. But as soon as she “grows up”, or finds a love interest (even if Mr. Darcy isn’t really an interest at this point, but more of a disinterest), she is no longer under her father’s wing. Being at the alter or just on the cusp of it, is what Fraiman states as “withdrawing his protection and empowerment” which ultimately ends the daddy’s girl persona and severs it between Mr. Bennett and Elizabeth. Fraiman uses a close reading of a text as a whole to come to this conclusion, but when she further applies it to the “trade” of women between men and families as one does with goods and money, she lost me from believing her argument. While marrying off into another rich family does help, the relationship between Mr. Bennett and Elizabeth doesn’t concern many others when she is being applied to an economical “theory” so to say, thus making me feel like there are valid points in her argument but none that necessarily tie together like she makes them do. 

Discussion questions: 

When applied to today’s marriage construct, do women still seemed to be “traded” like they did in P&P’s timeframe?

If their father-daughter relationship was different, say they butted heads or he was out of the picture entirely, how much would still be applicable in the idea of women in a “monetary exchange”?

Humiliation

After reading the humiliation of Elizbeth Bennet I was more interested in the relationship her and her father had more so then the characters themselves.  Fraimans response to the book was nothing new, like most people examining the book they see it as a male dominated society where women had little to no say in anything and the fathers of families held all the power, which was all true at the time.  Her analysis of the book I feel is a good one and pointed out some things that not everyone may catch.  For example at the time women relied heavily on news and gossip and Mr.  Bennet realizes this so he with holds the information so that he stays in power.  He favors Elizibeth however because of their similarities in their personalities.  Fraiman also uses some examples of frauds theory in the development of Elizibeth.  We see that like most things money is whats really in charge, Mr. Bennet doesn't care for Darcy but because he is wealthy is willing to let his daughter marry him.

My question is what are some modern day examples of an indifferent father?

Losing intellectual confidence and authority

I agreed with very little Susan Fraiman had to say about Pride and Prejudice, mostly because she provided very little evidence from the book itself, preferring to take examples from other stories, as well as what other critics had to say about those stories. Also she took a few quotes from Pride and Prejudice, lines that Mr Bennet said, out of context with what she was trying to show. For example when she uses the quote "I will send a few lines by you, to assure [Bingley] of my hearty consent to his marrying which ever he chooses of the girls" to show his "cheerful readiness to bestow his daughters upon anyone who knocks at the door." (72) I believe that she takes Mr. Bennet's humor much too literally, obviously in the effort of showing that Mr. Bennet has been contriving to marry Elizabeth off to Mr Darcy the entire time, which simply doesn't make any sense considering the astonishment that he showed to Elizabeth when he heard the rumor about her marrying Mr. Darcy. That's not the main thing I have trouble agreeing with, as my title implies. She states early on that Elizabeth loses any of the intellectual strength she had as the story goes on due to the ending result being her marriage, but I just don't understand how she could make that claim (largely without evidence) when Pride and Prejudice clearly shows that throughout the story she learns a lot about herself and grows as a person. If anything it's the other way around and towards the end she had grown so much that she is more of a wholesome and intelligent person. She realizes, via the letter that Mr Darcy gives her after his first proposal, that she has been very silly and prejudiced before then in the way that she judged both Mr. Wickham, like assuming that he had a good character simply because she wanted to believe that Darcy was a bad man, and Darcy and realizes that she never knew herself before that moment. Also she begins to realize that the way he father has run his household has been detrimental to all of them, when before she had chosen to mostly ignore the evidence and so she learns a lot about both herself, because she knows that she and her father are similar, and about the affects that an attitude like her fathers can have when in a position of influence and power over his daughters. I could go on, but I shan't.

Questions:
Does Mr. Bennet actually have an "obvious interest in the Elizabeth-Darcy match" (75) as Fraiman says?
Does Elizabeth become less of an intellectual being and fade into the background of her life due to her marriage to Mr. Darcy?

Oh the Humilation

In this critical essay, Susan Fraiman examines the father and daughter relationship between Elizabeth and Mr. Bennet and the transition that occurs as Mr. Bennet relinquishes his paternal role when his daughter marries Mr. Darcy.
 The authority of Mr. Bennet’s role as a father and husband is characterized by his ability to “create suspense.”  This is the manner by which he reinforces his control over the Bennet household.  Since news and gossip is the staple in the everyday lives of women, Mr. Bennet intentionally withholds information so that the indulgence of his wife and daughters depend on his generosity.  However, Mr. Bennet does not have disdain for his favorite daughter, Elizabeth.  He respects and adores her because she is “unlike other girls.”  Mr. Bennet preference for Elizabeth above the other women stems from a similarity in their personalities, “the need and ability to frame a moral discourse and to judge characters accordingly.”  Fraiman also uses Freud’s ideas on female development to describe the relationship between Elizabeth and Mr. Bennet.  As a consequence of this father and daughter bond, Elizabeth breaks her ties with the mother.  Elizabeth’s strong character is a result of her “alliance and identification with her father.”  However, this relationship must cease at the event marriage.  As the father, Mr. Bennet’s primary role is to give her away.  At this point, the daughter becomes a form of “currency” as a means for men to create an alliance with another male.
Mr. Bennet, as everyone in the novel, finds Darcy’s wealth, authority, and power impressive.  It is a personal and economic benefit to have Darcy as a son-in-law.  And even if Mr. Bennet found him disagreeable, he would not disapprove of the marriage.  Bennet states, “He is the kind of man, indeed, to whom I should never dare refuse anything. . “  While Elizabeth’s marriage is an advantageous match for her middle-class family, it also proves beneficial to Darcy.  The sickly Miss De Bourgh, his betrothed represents the downgrade of the upper-class.  By marrying Elizabeth, a wife of “greater stamina,” she “pumps richer, more robust blood into the collapsing veins of the nobility, even as she boosts the social standing of her relatives in trade.”
 The main event that allows for the “changing in paternal guard” is the Lydia-Wickham scandal.  Elizabeth views her father’s excessive leniency as a consequence of Lydia’s disgrace. Darcy is able to rectify the family problems when Mr. Bennet could not.   As a result, Darcy becomes the new and capable male.

Pride and Prejudice Blog 2

Susan Fraiman's argument of Elizabeth as a "son" to Mr. Bennet is a very interesting and plausible argument. In many ways, Elizabeth is very close with and like her father. They both share a distaste for "women activities" such as gossiping and being unnecessarily social. He has made is clear that she is the favorite of all his daughters, and he clearly holds her in high regards. A prime example of his love for her was the scene in which Mr. Collins proposed to Elizabeth, and was very persistent only to be shot down by her multiple times. Mrs. Bennet then recruits Mr. Bennet to talk some sense into Elizabeth and make her marry Mr. Collins, but he then announces that if she marries him then he will never see her again. This goes against a lot of the values that their society holds. As a father of all daughters, Mr. Bennet should be frantically finding them husbands so that they do not have to tarnish the family name and join the work force after his death. Also, finding them husbands would make hin richer, and since Mr. Collins is inheriting their estate, then having one of his daughters marry him would be the most ideal situation. But I think that Mr. Bennet sees that Elizabeth doesn't like Mr. Collins at all, and Mr. Bennet doesn't like him either because he gossips and talks a lot while Mr. Bennet likes quiet. His soaring Lizzy to a lifetime of being married to the foolish Mr. Collins is a demonstration of his love and affection for her, especially because he was willing to deviate from social norms in order to do so. I think that the analysis of Elizabeth as a son to Mr. Bennet is very much valid.

Discussion questions: could the passage of Mr. Bennet's dislike for gossip and people eventually mean bad things for Elizabeth? Will her choosiness of who she marries mean bad things for her?

The Humiliation

After reading the Essay by Fraiman, I found myself questioning whether or not I want to continue reading the rest of this work and find out how it ends. Fraiman basically states that the traits that drew us in and made us want to learn more about these characters and watch their development through out the story. The fact that Elizabeth will lose the charm and the sensibility that makes her a remarkable character is something that disappoints me about this novel, but there are also good points about Fraiaman's words that I found to be particularly interesting. The first thing that caught my attention when it came to this essay was how she described Mr. Bennet's role and the power that his actions actually give him. While he may not seem like a good father by the town's standpoint, Fraiman states that he is more of a "modern one". Fraiman also states that Mr. Bennet has much more power than he give him credit for. The first thing that she points out that he chose his library that is filled with the works of female writers over the social interactions with the people of the town. This describes that he has in a sense lost his interest in the ridiculousness of the constant game of marriage and trying to out due each other. The second thing that caught my attention in this description of Mr. Bennet was that he always "has the upper hand by withholding information". An example of this that we see is in the very beginning of the book when he refuses to see the "new rich man" but actually does without his wife's knowledge despite her constant desire to marry off her daughters. This to me shows just how impressive Mr. Bennet is as a character and it also reinforces the idea that the world of this novel is completely stagnant without the presence of a male character somewhere.

The Humiliation of Elizabeth Bennet

Something I found interesting about "The Humiliation of Elizabeth Bennet" was the way that it touched on who the characters' role models were. One part that was brought up was Elizabeth's unique relationship with her father. The author expanded upon this by talking about how Mr. Bennet's relationship with her was less of a father-daughter relationship and more of a surrogate-son relationship. I found this to be pretty accurate in that Elizabeth seemed to have less of the traditional lady-like characteristics than her sisters. The author's point about Elizabeth eventually drifting away from her father as a role model when she realized he wasn't helping her with her "marriage predicament" was kind of sad.

1. I didn't really understand what the author meant talking about Elizabeth being of "castrated gender" at the bottom of page 358?

Susan Fraiman "The Humiliation of Elizabeth Bennet"

In Susan Fraiman’s “The Humiliation of Elizabeth Bennet”, I found Fraiman’s comments on how Mr. Bennet’s speech grants him an authorial power in the novel was particularly intriguing. In the beginning, Fraiman seemed to be constructing more of a broad overview rather than any close readings, however, she later uses specific examples from the novel to back up her claims of speech and male power. One point that struck out to me was, “For as women talk in this novel, the flow of important words, of what counts as “intelligence”, is regulated largely by men; in this verbal economy, women get the trickle-down of news” (Fraiman 356). Initially, I disagreed with this argument, for personally I have regarded most of which Elizabeth says to have intelligence and reason; however, I realized that most of these “dialogues” were actually just an insight into her thoughts. For instance, although the readers know Elizabeth’s distaste with Mr. Collin’s proposal and that she will never accept it, it is not until Mr. Bennet states, “Your mother will never see you again if you do not marry Mr. Collings, and I will never see you again if you do. The her rejection was never solidified Mr. Bennet’s confirmation shows his power over her and altogether male’s dominance over women in this novel. It seems the more I read Pride and Prejudice, the more I realize how many different ways it can be analyzed. What was your favorite analysis by Susan Fraiman? Did you agree with all her statements? If you disagreed with any, why did you?

Humiliation of Elizabeth Bennet

After reading this article, I honestly don't know if I want to read on to see how this story concludes.  Lizzie Bennet is my favorite character from this book, mainly because of her strong-willed personality and intellect, with Mr. Darcy rounding second, as while he at first appears as a generally unlikeable character, he seems to try to redeem himself for Lizzie.  However, after reading the article and learning how these characters later on lose that which drew me to them, I can't say that I have much enthusiasm to continue. 
With regards to the title of the book, Pride and Prejudice, there is no doubt that Mr. Darcy is the Proud one, but, as Fraiman argues, is Lizzie really all that Prejudice?  Even if Mr. Darcy claims to have broken up the relation between Lizzie's sister, Jane, and Mr. Bingley for the sake of his friends happiness, Lizzie has every right to be mad at Mr. Darcy, as he had no right to decide if their affections were genuine or not.  I don't know if this is a culture thing and/or because of the times they lived in, but I still think that Mr. Darcy should have apologized genuinely for his actions while explaining his motives, instead of using them to justify his actions.
I myself do not read many romance novels, but I was genuinely enjoying the story, hoping for a story of redemption and a change of heart.  After reading this article, I lost some of my interest in knowing that neither desire would be fulfilled.          

The Humiliation of Elizabeth Bennet

            In Susan Fraiman’s essay The Humiliation of Elizabeth Bennet she elaborates on the male dominant themes within Pride and Prejudice and the indignity of Elizabeth Bennet being passed from one Paternal figure to another.  In the ceremony of marriage a Father hands over his daughter to her new care taker, or husband, for he will be the new figure within her life that will play the role of dictating the way she acts in society. We see Lizzy’s resistance to this institution throughout the novel in the way she refuses Mr. Collin’s, and how she scoffs at Jane for her rosy ideas of it. As we read further into the novel Lizzy’s independent and intelligent character becomes clearer and clearer. She has been raised by the dry, witty Mr. Bennet and has been taught by him to judge people by the observations made on their actions to determine how interact with them. So then after several interactions with Mr. Darcy Lizzy could determine that he was truly a pigheaded man. As the story continues we find that some of Mr. Darcy’s pride and rudeness is with reason, as with the case of Wickham. But this does not cover all the rudeness paid towards Lizzy and her family, and yet at the end of the novel we see Lizzy agree to marriage with Darcy. This was what was fairly disappointing to Fraiman, that such an independent and intelligent character could so easily forgive and forget Darcy.  So like a wilting rose we watch Elizabeth Bennet marry the source of her sister grief.

Do you think Lizzy should so easily forgive Darcy?

If Darcy hadn’t messed with Jane’s love life, do you think Lizzy would have married him?

Do you think Darcy was right to intervene between Jane and Bingley?

The Humiliation of Elizabeth Bennet

In her critical essay on Pride and Prejudice, author Susan Fraiman analyzes the relationship between Mr. Bennet and Elizabeth (as well as the other sisters) and the effect that Elizabeth's marriage to Mr. Darcy has on their relationship. The author argues that Mr. Bennet's "business" is to marry off his daughters. Fraiman writes, "This ceremony--posing father as giver, daughter as gift--could be said to underlie and ultimately belie the relation of fathers to daughters in Pride and Prejudice." To support her argument, Fraiman using the example of Lydia and Mr. Bennet's inability to "...protect Lydia from ruinous male designs..." The author believes that Mr. Bennet's "profligacy" in his dealing with Lydia is, "...an extreme instance of a general, cheerful readiness to bestow his daughters upon anyone who knocks at the door." The author goes on to argue how she believes Mr. Bennet loses some of his authority following Lydia's elopement with Mr. Wickam. I would disagree with argument because I think it is after Lydia's scandalous marriage to Wickam that Mr. Bennet begins to become more involved in his daughters' lives especially when it comes to their romantic endeavors. Yes, he still pails in comparison to Mrs. Bennet but it is a step up compared to how he behaved at the beginning of the novel. The biggest example we see of Mr. Bennet's decision to become involved in his daughter's lives comes when Kitty mentions the idea of going away not unlike Lydia only to be turned down by Mr. Bennet who tells Kitty that he has learned from his past mistakes (that mistake being Lydia.)

Fraiman made mention of how women were essentially "currency" in the novel. Do you think this is a fair assessment?

Waiting Together: Pride and Prejudice

This article did a good job pointing out underlying themes about gender in Pride and Prejudice.On one hand it made me realize some things about the story that I hadn't really thought of before. The main points that it makes about the women often just sitting around waiting for the men, and thus the men really driving the plot forward, made a lot of sense. I thought there was a lot of good analysis of the Bennet family house. The author writes about how the Bennet house is barely described at all, it's the opposite of a warm family home, instead it is an emotionless place that everyone would rather leave. There are a lot of good examples that show how their home is nothing more than a place to be until they can go and get married, I had never really noticed this but after reading this article it makes perfect sense.

On the other hand I feel like this article didn't have much to say. Overall it was making points about the role of women in the society at the time, and how male dominated it was. I was thinking to myself, yeah everyone knows that society then was really male dominated and all, so what else is she trying to say? She also reads into a lot of the text of the story, finding meaning in all sorts of passages. I think it's true there is some information of the subtext, even when it is unintentional by the author it can reflect the author's culture and background. However, Jane Austen was twenty or something when she wrote this and ultimately it feels like a story about love and relationships. There is some deep meaning and cultural relevance in the story, but I doubt the author was trying to create all these statements with her book. So when I read articles like this sometimes it feels like they try too hard to find deep meaning in the text of stories when there aren't any.

Questions: 1. Was Jane Austen concerned with presenting any of the issues mentioned in the article in her book Pride and Prejudice as she wrote it? How much subtext of the story is intentional?
2. Does the author of the article assume Jane Austen wrote with these issues in mind, or did they arise simply from the setting and context of the story? (The way the author writes the article I can't tell if she thinks Jane Austen willfully wrote in a way to present these issues or if she just wrote a story that people can now analyze and read into.)

Men are the Life Force

The Bennett daughters are leaving the fate of the family and lineage up in the air, or more specifically up in Mr. Collins’ air, by not being married. Yes, this is problematic. Yes, a man is needed in order to be married (there was no proposition whatever being proposed at this time for women to marry women), but Auerbach’s claim that a man is the substance for which a woman lives and dies for is largely correlational, especially in accordance to the application of it in Pride and Prejudice.

Auerbach’s point of the Bennett’s not being seen eating until an eligible man can come to dinner can be made, but only at a coincidental stance at best. Sure, that dinner is special, but the they have obviously had to do other things without a man present. They have made it this far, twenty something years with none of their daughters having met a fair suitor, so something is working for them, regardless of a male presence other than Mr. Bennett. 

Waiting for these men to come into their lives is all a woman needs to do. She grows up, learns skills that men will find redeeming, then find said man and her life goals, dreams, and aspirations all all completed, other than procreating to produce a male offspring so the whole cycle can start again. While this is a major theme across all of Pride and Prejudice, I feel like this is more causality than a predetermined gender induced life force. 

Discussion question:

When applied in today’s culture, could this claim still be made?

 

Why Worry About the "Invisible Home"?

    Nina Auerbach seems to believe that men are the only things capable of bringing life and space to an "invisible home" and a "nonfamily." Although she does correctly argue that, in many instances throughout the novel, we do not have a true description of setting, it seems to me that she avoids one of the main purposes for such an act: such a description really is not very important.
     That may seem a strange thing to say, as setting can play a very important part in any tale, but with the circumstances the characters of Pride and Prejudice are in, with their estate being completely entailed away upon Mr. Bennet's death, a long, lengthy description of a house that could be left at any moment really isn't necessary. Auerbach states herself that Longbourn is "an inherently lost and already half-vanished mirage." This may be true, but to make it seem as though a new man passing through the door is the only thing that gives it spatial reasoning and makes it a "home" instead of an "invisible home" is only seeing half the story: the half that argues one needs to have a clear picture of "home" to understand a story.
     For much of the book we may not be able to close our eyes and picture exactly where Elizabeth and Jane are talking, but we have numerous lines of the conversations themselves. That is more of a strength than a weakness as it makes the reader focus in on the dialogue more. These conversations reveal scads of information about the characters, their relationships, and the story--more than a lengthy description of a room we may never see the inside of again ever could.
     This is a book based entirely upon relationships, as established by the first line, the first chapter, and every single scene Austen writes; not all of these relationships are male/female, either. There are many scenes written where it is exclusively Jane and Elizabeth, and their conversations establish their relationship as sisters as well as referencing their relationships to others (the Bingley sisters, Mr. Bingley, Mr. Darcy, etc.). Here, flowery descriptions of place would only get in the way by forcing the reader to picture where they are at instead of imagining their faces and understanding their emotions as they converse.
    Although there is no denying the male influence on this novel, to say that they bring in something the novel was lacking by providing a description of setting seems a rather forced view when dealing with a book based on character relationships.

Discussion Questions:
Going off of this, does the lack of  clear setting make it more difficult to read for anyone? Did anyone even notice? Or did the mind create places as the story went along?
   

My thoughts on, Waiting Together: Pride and Prejudice Bye Nina Auerbach.

My thoughts on, Waiting Together: Pride and Prejudice Bye Nina Auerbach. The two parts of the article I would like to spend most of this blog post discussing the Bennett estate and the point made here about it not really existing. As I pointed out in class, I believe this was done on purpose, unlike some other the points that are read into this text. I think this is very practical to Ms. Austin and, while it was probably done on purpose, it may be merely a comment on the times her and the story existed in. The idea of a house full of women and an old man really has n master. For were Mr. Bennett to die the women would be moved, unless Mr. Collins stepped in with other arrangements, and the property, well that would be up to Collins. The house then is like a ghost waiting for some mortal body that may take hold and make it real.

The second point made by Ms. Auerbach is that, of the titles name, waiting. The women are waiting for their fate, their future, their, whatever. The text from the book that I will use here to make this point a bit better is that of, “that men are the domestic presence in a home”. For both Ms. Austin and Ms. Auerbach make clear, men run the show here and women are left to wait until the pieces fall where they may. We have the perspective of hindsight, so we seemed to have moved from women have no place until men deem it so and men are the home maker and chose a wife to provide filler for it. To women are the home makers and often choose their men. The women are for all intents and purpose in charge of the home, it finances and child rearing and so on. To now where women can be completely independent and may chose any one of these roles. And men, well men are still men with the responsibities they had since well before this book was written. They shall make a living and provide for wife and family. My how we have progressed. This is an interesting look at how the women here are going about there lot waiting for men to chose them. But, as a woman who simply is waiting to be chosen doesn’t seem half bad.

Questions for the class.

1. Have we progressed in a positive direction for women.

2. Also are men better off than they where in this book.