The double standard: critique or endorsement?

Ah, the eternal question of hypocrisy, is it not? It seems clear to me that Tolstoy is indeed exposing the terrible double standard of our society. Stiva, with his easy charm and careless disregard, is forgiven because he is a man. But a woman? A woman who dares to love openly, to defy the conventions that bind her? She is condemned, ostracized, destroyed. Whether Tolstoy *unconsciously* reproduces it is a matter for debate, but his awareness of this injustice, I believe, is undeniable.

While I respect Levin's point about genuine values, I believe the professor comes closer to the heart of the matter. It is a devilish knot of societal expectations and personal choices. Was Anna merely a plaything of fate? *Peut-être*. But her heart, once awakened, yearned for a truth absent in her marriage. One cannot deny that society offers men like Stiva a *carte blanche* while simultaneously binding women in a web of impossible expectations. The tragedy, *mes amis*, is not merely in the act but in the chasm between what is permitted and what is truly felt.

While Anna Arkadyevna eloquently describes the disparity in judgment, I find myself wondering if the true tragedy lies not merely in societal hypocrisy, but in the characters' detachment from genuine, simple values. Stiva's charm is but a veneer masking a profound emptiness, and Anna's pursuit of passion, while understandable, leads her further from the grounding and fulfillment that a connection to the land and family might have provided. Is it society alone that destroys them, or is it their own choices, born of a deeper spiritual malaise?

It is plain as day, is it not? Tolstoy is *absolutely* critiquing this double standard. Anna and Vronsky are ostracized, while Karenin, despite his own failings, is pitied and even respected. This, I believe, is not endorsement, but rather a stark portrayal of the hypocrisy that pervades our society. The fact that Karenin, with his coldness and adherence to social norms, is seen as a victim, while Anna, who dares to follow her heart, is condemned, speaks volumes about Tolstoy's view of the matter. The consequences they face are not a sign of approval, but rather a damning indictment of the world in which they live.

You raise an interesting point. I agree with Levin's assessment that society's hypocrisy is exposed through the contrasting fates of Anna and Karenin. However, I also believe it's too simplistic to state that Tolstoy necessarily *endorses* those societal views, even subtly. Instead, he presents the raw, agonizing consequences of defying social norms for a woman in our time. It's a chilling portrait, not an endorsement. Karenin's pity, while perhaps undeserved, is merely another symptom of that same skewed system. The punishment Anna receives is excessively cruel, a reflection of what society *allows* to occur, and Tolstoy presents the reality of this terrible, unequal equation.

While I concur with the good doctor that Tolstoy provokes introspection, I am not so certain he offers Karenin "redemption." Is pity truly redemption? As for an endorsement of the double standard, *jamais de la vie!* Tolstoy is far too astute to blindly endorse such inequity. Rather, he holds a mirror to our flawed society, revealing its prejudices in their ugliest form. Whether he offers a solution is another matter entirely. The consequences, tragic as they are, serve as a brutal commentary on the constraints placed upon the fairer sex.

Ah, you strike at the very heart of the matter! It is, indeed, a dance between societal pressures and personal will. While Anna's choices certainly contribute to her fate, it is the suffocating constraints of our society that truly seal her doom. Had she been a man, her transgressions would have been met with a shrug, a raised eyebrow perhaps, but not the utter devastation she experienced. So yes, while we all bear responsibility for our actions, the scales are tilted unfairly against women, and Tolstoy masterfully portrays this tragic imbalance.

While I find myself in agreement with the esteemed professor regarding Tolstoy's keen awareness, I must also interject that the narrative's consequences are not merely an exposure of societal hypocrisy, but an exploration of the complex interplay between individual desire and societal obligation. One cannot ignore the power of love, its capacity to elevate and destroy, as it does so profoundly in the novel. I do not believe that Tolstoy implicitly sanctions the standards of society. Rather, as he held a mirror to it, he is exposing the human price of defying convention.

An astute observation. While Levin speaks of "spiritual malaise," I see it more as a yearning for authenticity, a rebellion against the gilded cage. And the professor's description of a "devilish knot" is quite apt. We are all entangled in a web of expectations, but some threads are far more binding than others. Tolstoy, in his wisdom, lays bare the consequences of daring to cut oneself free. Whether it is a triumph or a tragedy is, perhaps, a question each reader must answer for themselves.