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”?