The Catholic Book Club discussion

5. The relationship between Roger and Dolly is obviously very different from most modern relationships. Do you think it better or worse? If better, is there anyway to return to that world?

It mystifies me. What does she see in him? At first he is gentle and respectful (because he hasn't "learned the ways of love/women") and she refuses him, which he takes as an "insult" rather than a free choice. He only "wins" her consent by bullying her, showing his "manly" strength and concern for her well-being. I don't understand her father's opposition to their engagement, nor do I understand why courting is seen as setting both father and suitor against the intended fiancee.
She doesn't seem at all a typical woman of her time, definitely has a mind of her own.

Jill wrote: "nor do I understand why courting is seen as setting both father and suitor against the intended fiancee."

I didn't understand this either, which is stated since the beginning of their relation.

Manuel wrote: "Jill wrote: "nor do I understand why courting is seen as setting both father and suitor against the intended fiancee."

I didn't understand this either, which is stated since the beginning of their..."

I took this as a reflection of who her father was, a greedy man most interested in Roger's wealth. Roger was offended at first by her father's obvious intent to manipulate a marriage for financial considerations, but he is attracted to her. When she rejects him, I was puzzled why he doesn't make his case directly at that point and disabuse her of her assumptions about a scheme between him and her father, but his pride takes over.

I noticed that the narrator and protagonist says several times in the first two parts of the novel that he didn't understand women well at the time. And then, suddenly, after just one year, he appears to understand women quite well! And what he seems to understand, is that women must be bullied to be beaten! (sic).

I'm wondering if the problem can be that Benson, rather than his fictional character, didn't understand women well.

Is it bullying to rescue someone from a dangerous situation which they don't perceive, even against their own uninformed will?

When we rescue someone from a dangerous situation which they don't perceive, precisely because their will is uninformed, it should not be called "bullying". Word choice in language plays a huge role in muzzling the well meaning rescuer. This is seen in the erosion of parental rights, for example. Feminism also demands that nobody "bullies" them into "submission" (pro-choice movement is a glaring example). It is women who bully men into giving way to their feminist whims.

It's not I who calls it bullying. It's Benson:

Part III Chapter IV: ...you have told me that I was very good at bullying. For that I thank God and gladly plead guilty. If a maid is bent on her own destruction, if nothing else will serve she must be bullied out of it.

And in chapter V he adds: Well; I had beaten her at last.

Oh yes, I know. You were wondering "if the problem can be that Benson, rather than his fictional character, didn't understand women well", and if it should be called "bullying" to redress someone and put them on the right path. Therefore, why does Benson call it "bullying" ?? In fact, maybe he was ahead of his time, because the word "bullying" has been very popular in the last decade or so. All in all, I find Benson rather hard to understand.

Marie wrote: "Oh yes, I know. You were wondering "if the problem can be that Benson, rather than his fictional character, didn't understand women well", and if it should be called "bullying" to redress someone a..."

Right! That's what I meant.

Manuel wrote: "It's not I who calls it bullying. It's Benson:

Part III Chapter IV: ...you have told me that I was very good at bullying. For that I thank God and gladly plead guilty. If a maid is bent on her own..."

I suspect Benson is using the word somewhat differently than how we use it today. There is no sense today in which a bully would be understood to be using coercion for the benefit of his or her target. Does any of us think Dorothy would have been better left in the palace?

John wrote: "I suspect Benson is using the word somewhat differently than how we use it today. There is no sense today in which a bully would be understood to be using coercion for the benefit of his or her target. Does any of us think Dorothy would have been better left in the palace?"

I don't think any of us thinks that. But Benson probably was using the word in the same sense we use it today. After all, Dolly meant it as an insult.

Manuel wrote: "I don't think any of us thinks that. But Benson probably was using the word in the same sense we use it today. After all, Dolly meant it as an insult."

Yes, but Dolly was wrong, unless we accept the idea of bullying as something done for the benefit of the recipient and the cost of the actor.

John wrote: "Yes, but Dolly was wrong, unless we accept the idea of bullying as something done for the benefit of the recipient and the cost of the actor."

Yes, I agree that Dolly was wrong. What I meant is that the fact that Benson makes Dolly use the word as an insult indicates that it had the same meaning then as it has now.

Manuel wrote: "Yes, I agree that Dolly was wrong. What I meant is that the fact that Benson makes Dolly use the word as an insult indicates that it had the same meaning then as it has now.."

Fair point, and I guess what I am trying to say is that he actually was not a bully.

John wrote: "Fair point, and I guess what I am trying to say is that he actually was not a bully."

Agreed, although Roger actually accepts Dolly's insult and says, more or less, this: Even if I am a bully, my being a bully is justified, which is, I think, what all of us are saying.

But my original point was different. Roger says in the first two parts that at that point he didn't understand women, and that's the reason why he was rejected by Dolly.

I think this means that later he came to the conclusion that women should be forced to do what their man thinks is right, as Roger did (rightly in that case) to save her from Whitehall, a consequence of which is Dolly's final acceptance of his love.

I found this sudden acceptance too fast and unsupported.

This is the reason why I said at first that perhaps it's Benson who didn't understand women. It's as if he were saying: The way to win a woman's heart is to "bully her".

From Part IV, Chapter 5:
It is wonderful how a woman - in spite of her foolishness at other times - can read the heart of a man.

Women of this group: what do you think about this quote? Doesn't it prove what I was asserting? That Benson didn't understand women?

I'm not sure. Women have often been linked with the phrase: "A women's intuition". Women have been known to have an innate sense when it comes to perception, perhaps because of the maternal instinct. Who knows? Even though my husband grew up with more sisters than brothers, he often says that he does not understand women. Does any man? When Benson says that a woman can read the heart of a man, he might not be wrong. It is Roger who misunderstood Dolly. Do we assert therefore that Benson misunderstood women? If yes, he seems to have at least understood that a woman is apt to understand men more than men think. In any event, does Benson put his own thoughts in Roger's mouth?

But I was referring to the other sentence: in spite of her foolishness at other times.

Both men and women are prone to misunderstand the opposite sex unless we consciously remember that there are significant broad differences in thinking, noticing, valuing, etc.

Marie wrote: "When Benson says that a woman can read the heart of a man, he might not be wrong. It is Roger who misunderstood Dolly. Do we assert therefore that Benson misunderstood women? If yes, he seems to have at least understood that a woman is apt to understand men more than men think."

Didn't Dolly also misunderstand Roger when he first, admittedly clumsily, proposed? As Jill notes, there are, in general, differences in the way men and women think, notice, value, etc. These likely arise from their different natural roles; nurturer vs protector.

Have you noticed that what Benson says is this?

Even though women are foolish, it's wonderful how sometimes they can read the heart of a man.

I was reacting to the first part, and that's what makes me say that Benson didn't understand women.

Manuel wrote: "Have you noticed that what Benson says is this?

Even though women are foolish, it's wonderful how sometimes they can read the heart of a man.

I was reacting to the first part, and that's what mak..."

At the time this was written, I hazard to guess that was a fairly common view.

John wrote: "At the time this was written, I hazard to guess that was a fairly common view."

Then I'll change my wording and say that Benson, as many of his contemporaries, didn't understand women.

Manuel wrote: "John wrote: "At the time this was written, I hazard to guess that was a fairly common view."

Then I'll change my wording and say that Benson, as many of his contemporaries, didn't understand women."

And though the specific manner, perhaps is different, that hasn't changed.