RELATIONS OF DOMINANCE AND EQUALITY IN D. H. LAWRENCE

8
mother.
All she does in relation to her sons is done, the critic
says, with ‘vicarious joy'.
In short, the mother is almost
treated as a 'saint'. The same quotation Millet uses to express
her point about the mother's non-possessiveness proves in fact
exactly the contrary: "Now she had two sons in the world.
She
could think of two places... and feel she put a man into each of
them, that these men would work out what she wanted...” (Sons
and Lovers, p.101 - My underlining).
If Millet had been more
careful she certainly would not have quoted the last sentence.
It proves the high degree of possessiveness in the mother.
In relation to The Rainbow Millet's ideas are weaker. She
claims (without evidence) that Lawrence's theory of education
matches
school.
Mr Harby's, Ursula's superior in Brinsley Street
The critic also says that the idea of the new woman in
Lawrence's novel is the one of the woman-castrator.
According
to Millet, the role of women in this novel is to destroy men.
Ursula's main quest is what the critic calls "big want", i.e., a
husband.
As Skrebensky is only an empty shell, Ursula destroys
him and will wait for the real 'son of God' personified by
Birkin, the protagonist of Women in Love.
Millet also considers
Ursula's initiation into the 'man's world' as repellent and says
that
Lawrence can only sympathize provisionally,
stipulating that the moment Ursula "proves
herself" (he will allow her to survive but
not to succeed), she must consent to withdraw
from his territory on the instant she has
satisfied her perverse little desire to try
the water (p.261).
And this occurs, says the critic, because Ursula is not looking
for her independence as a woman. Her "want", as I pointed out
before, is a husband.