[طموح العلم]

The play in relation to the role of women in society is dated, at least in terms of American women. Nora's crisis results from the fact that she was unable to get a bank loan in her own name because she was not a man. Women, it was assumed, were not capable of making financial decisions, handling money, or dealing with financial transactions. Such weighty matters could only be managed by their fathers or husbands.

You asked your question in terms of North America. I am not familiar with Canadian law, but I'm sure Canadian women enjoy the same rights and privileges now enjoyed by American women. Unlike Nora, American women can pursue an education and have a career, if they wish. Statistically, they do not earn as much money as do their male counterparts doing the same work, but American women can handle their own financial affairs in all respects. They can save money, borrow money, and invest money--all in their own names. The social and financial freedoms enjoyed by American women were totally unknown to Nora.

There probably are women in the United States (I hope not many) who live in the kind of repressive marriage as did Nora. If so, at least their role in such a marriage is not dictated by civil law.