Did anyone else absolutely loathe Anna?

[Kallie]

Samsara Voile wrote: Our 'present era' is hardly a panacea for all human struggles. Yes, some barriers to personal fulfillment have been removed, but new ones, of a different nature, have been added.

What you say about barriers is obviously true, but women are not so constrained to marry, or to remain in an unhappy marriage, as women of previous eras were. (Nor are we as likely to give birth to a dozen or so children and likely die in the process.) Barriers exist, but despite some people's 'best efforts' to curtail women's choices, we are far better off in that regard than an Anna Karenina or Emma Bovary, and judging them according to the choices we are free to make seems simple-minded at best.

[Samsara Voile]

Indeed, modern women no longer deal with the constraints of the past. They deal with the constraints of the present. Different kinds. :) It is beyond the scope of my post here to compare the magnitude of women's past constraints with women's present constraints, or those of men, in general. My point was that constraints of all sorts will always exist - for men and women alike. People never make choices in a vacuum. What many don't want to accept is that 'structure' can be quite the little b**ch. Pretending it's not there so we can make things simple and only judge an individual trajectory by the "choices" that person made, is intellectually obtuse, if not downright hostile. We do the best we can, given a set of genes, a timetable, and a nexus of circumstances. Sometimes, that 'best' doesn't fit the pretty picture of social convention. So I hedge my bets per "Revenge is mine, I will repay."

[Kallie]

Samsara Voile wrote: "Indeed, modern women no longer deal with the constraints of the past. They deal with the constraints of the present. Different kinds. :) It is beyond the scope of my post here to compare the magnit..."
Yes, I am aware that constraints still exist and always will. I still choose the 'woman constraints' that exist now over those that existed then and refrain from judging women characters of past eras by contemporary lights as, for example: "not feminist enough" (to paraphrase a comment about Austen characters). I don't read novels looking for character models anyway, and don't understand why anyone would.

[Samsara Voile]

Kallie wrote: "Samsara Voile wrote: "Indeed, modern women no longer deal with the constraints of the past. They deal with the constraints of the present. Different kinds. :) It is beyond the scope of my post here..."

As a non-feminist, I'd say "yeah, that's good."

[Kallie]

Samsara Voile wrote: "As a non-feminist, I'd say "yeah, that's good."."

As a feminist, I would say the movement was an absolute social necessity, and the novels we have discussed offer evidence that supports that necessity. Contemporary novels with women protagonists deal with new constraints and that's good too.

[Samsara Voile]

We will agree to disagree on the movement's 'absolute necessity.' In retrospect, unreasonable structural constraints such as the kind Anna faced could have been addressed with a variey of micro-level approaches. An absurd, totalitarian, and ultimately life-subversive movement that altered the natural rapport between the sexes is not my idea of 'absolute necessity.' One does not throw the baby out with the bath water - but I do understand this is other people's vision of a 'good life.'
What Anna needed was not a feminist revolution but a good match from the start. Humanity has barely scratched the surface when it comes to the art of excellent matchmaking. Neither the past nor the present have this supreme aspect of human existence figured out and feminist revolutions are hardly the solution in this area.

Traditional marriages were transactional, but most modern unions are just as worthless when it comes to personal fulfillment, only for different reasons. Most moderns step impulsively into clueless, immature, socially photogenic unions with people they have no business being with. They call that 'freedom of choice' or 'being in love'- only for time to prove them wrong. When men and women are set up to come in contact with the right pools of eligibles and fall in love with someone they truly belong with, feminist revolutions are not needed. I'd rather live in a gender-unequal world where a woman has good reasons to adore her husband (and vice-versa) than in a gender-equal one where the sexes compete with each other in eternal navel-gazing and they secretly find each other more or less repulsive.
Again, Anna was married to cardboard and cardboard needs cardboardette as a wife.

[Kallie]

Samsara Voile wrote: "We will agree to disagree on the movement's 'absolute necessity.' In retrospect, unreasonable structural constraints such as the kind Anna faced could have been addressed with a variey of micro-lev..."

Feminism is not a one-size-fits-all movement. Not all women would throw out the baby; that is a straw woman argument. And there is no reason not to pass the Equal Rights Amendment except that men (who outnumber us in Congress; now, why would that be?) don't want to do that. Passing the ERA would not throw out the baby either.

[Samsara Voile]

I'll just say this: NO.

This is not a place where I would explain all the long-term negative consequences of ratifying ERA. I will only say that I, personally, would not support it and many traditionalist women like myself would not either; so opposition would not come only from the men in Congress. It could also come from traditional women, assuming such would be elected to represent people like myself. But see, traditional women typically don't seek to enter politics. They are fine being represented by men they elect and trust. Some truly traditional women do go into politics (see Margaret Thatcher), but most don't. This is why you see more men than women in politics. This is perfectly fine for people like myself, but I do understand and respect the fact that this is not fine for people like you. I am just explaining why. Many women simply do not care to make their way into the public sphere, least of all in politics. They are happy in the private sphere - the best and most meaningful sphere there is ;-) - and are grateful to the men in their life for giving them the chance to focus on what is meaningful and important to them. This doesn't mean they are ignorant of what happens outside their house or "uneducated." In fact, the private sphere allows a whole lot more time for reading, learning, and self-development than the public sphere does, which can make life miserable these days with incessant deadlines, meaningless, bureaucratic make-work, and distasteful office politics.

Conclusion: there is nothing wrong with a world led by great men. You make the mistake of assuming ALL women must support Feminism just because they are ... females. Hence your 50-50 mandate. You forget that women like myself are part of that 50% you demand and are fine being represented by men. A good Patriarchy is heavily underrated. In a bad Patriarchy, you just need to change the Patriarchs. That's all.
PS: Oh, and what you accused me of ...I call a straw man argument. :) It wasn't.

[Kallie]

Samsara Voile wrote: "I'll just say this: NO.

This is not a place where I would explain all the long-term negative consequences of ratifying ERA. I will only say that I, personally, would not support it and many tradi..."

Again, you make a straw woman argument. I do not "make the mistake of assuming ALL women yadayada." Obviously, many of you put forth your reductive arguments about men being the best leaders, despite evidence that many women are better than many men at governing. So I know too well that many of you do not support feminism. A straw woman argument, by the way, means that you put forth a feminist stereotype laden with your own presumptuous attributions, which you have done twice now.

[Samsara Voile]

Kallie wrote:
... evidence that many women are better than many men at governing


So what? What's "many"? Overall, there are still more men than women better at governing, never mind more interested in doing so. How else would you explain your '50/50 representation' mandate than with a failure to accept that the sexes, on average, naturally gravitate towards different spheres of life?
There's no straw man argument here, least of all straw woman. :)
Clinging to irrelevant symbolisms is not a favorite pass time of mine.

Back to Anna, 'governing' is the last thing a woman like her would have needed or wanted. Her life would have been good with a man suited to her needs, from the start. I'd rather talk about match-making than women in politics. How boring.

[Julianna]

It's difficult but important to take into account the prevailing attitudes, thoughts etc. of the time of the book. Judging Anna by today's standards misses the point. The point being: how did she do in HER time? Remember she was ostracized. No TV , nowhere to go , no one to talk to, while Vronsky does what he wants and goes where he wants. Yes, Tolstoy painted her as a whiny , weak women ( some would say) but was she? Picture yourself, if you can, in that time . Might give you another perspective.

[Cedricsmom]

Julianna wrote: "It's difficult but important to take into account the prevailing attitudes, thoughts etc. of the time of the book. Judging Anna by today's standards misses the point. The point being: how did she d..."

Right on! For me, putting classic works into context is the only way to truly understand them. I often find I have to go outside the original text to gain insight and understanding. Your comment is very well spoken and spot on.

[Samsara Voile]

Julianna wrote: "Yes, Tolstoy painted her as a whiny , weak women ( some would say) but was she? "

I read Anna as a relatively bright, sensitive, passionate woman, capable of deep insight but also emotional spiraling. Unfortunately, these enthralling traits manifested as weaknesses in the end. In my view, she was more likeble and intriguing, overall, than the perfectly pious but bland Kitty, who probably ended up boring Levin to death over the long term. (See Tolstoy's life). Kitty was no match for Levin's caliber, but that's what dude wanted and that's what dude got. In a parallel Universe, Levin and Anna might have saved the world together.

[Phil]

At the beginning, I loved Anna. In my mind, I pictured her like the character Astrid, in Crazy Rich Asians. She seemed to have a magnetic charming personality just like Stiva, she was beautiful and flawless and floated into the room making everyone love her. I pictured her and Stiva being the life of every party, but there is also something genetic that makes these two a slave to their passions, and society being what it was, Stiva could get away with it, whereas Anna couldn't.

I really think that Tolstoy wanted us to love Anna and then be disappointed by her.

After Anna was with Vronsky for a while we start to see her uglier side which is the result of loneliness, jealousy, depression (maybe even post-partum depression), guilt, regret, ostracization, and drug addiction (morphine and opium daily). She becomes coquettish, contradictory, and sometimes just batshit crazy and impossible. But she wasn't herself, and even she acknowledged this. The "real Anna" was the girl in the beginning of the book, not the one who threw herself in front of the train.

I think if we had the chance to know the innermost thoughts of even the most likable people and characters, or see them at their worst as we do in Tolstoy's book with Anna we would find something we loathe. Especially those ugly traits that we hate within ourselves when they come out. Good on Tolstoy for not making her as one-dimensional as he could have.

I went from being mad at Anna for not living up to my expectations at the beginning of the book to feeling sorry for her. I think with some proper therapy and rehab, she could have worked through her issues and became herself again.

tldr: The insufferable Anna that we loathe is not the real Anna, but a result of depression, drugs, and society.

[Charles]

I hated the book. Everyone thinks I'm nuts. I too found Anna insufferable...and selfish.

[Kallie]

Phil wrote: "At the beginning, I loved Anna. In my mind, I pictured her like the character Astrid, in Crazy Rich Asians. She seemed to have a magnetic charming personality just like Stiva, she was beautiful and..."

Well said and compassionate, start to finish.

[SoulSurvivor]

. In @Anna Karenina her Facebook timeline would detail her affair with Count Vronsky along with the negative social comments. Soon many Memes would be posted. Most people would ‘like’ her tale , with many offering their support via Twitter . Anna could then provide the Linkedin info on Dolly , Kitty and Stiva in case their aptitudes might fit employment needs . Obviously Anna would post Instagram pictures of St. Petersburg : Winter & Summer Palaces , Kazan Cathedral and Primorsky Park . When Anna finally throws herself on the tracks before a speeding train , followers could then set up a ‘GoFundMe’ site to help cover the cost of an elaborate funeral .

[Linda]

SoulSurvivor wrote: ". In @Anna Karenina her Facebook timeline would detail her affair with Count Vronsky along with the negative social comments. Soon many Memes would be posted. Most people would ‘like’ her tale , wi..."

🤣

[Kallie]

SoulSurvivor wrote: ". In @Anna Karenina her Facebook timeline would detail her affair with Count Vronsky along with the negative social comments. Soon many Memes would be posted. Most people would ‘like’ her tale , wi..." . . . and some would hate her and say she got the fate she deserved as though they were omniscient and perfect.

[Rachel]

Samsara Voile wrote: "Beyond feminist narratives, I find the relentless Anna-Levin juxtapositions rather uncomfortable and more than a tad unfair.
I recently read one where the author sketched a customary contrast betwe..."

You hit the nail right on the head!

[SoulSurvivor]

Rachel wrote: "Samsara Voile wrote: "Beyond feminist narratives, I find the relentless Anna-Levin juxtapositions rather uncomfortable and more than a tad unfair.
I recently read one where the author sketched a cu..."

Right, if you want intellectual material read the 'Billionaire Boy's Club' series.