I think its the first and the third
In William Golding's novel Lord of the Flies, the character of Jack represents the dark side of humanity. Unlike Ralph and Piggy, who deliberately seek to retain a sense of humanity, Jack and his followers quickly descend to the most vile, basic instincts of man. Jack becomes consumed with blood lust and leads his faction among the young boys in creating a violent tribal environment. When the effort to hunt down the pig and consume its meat becomes an obsession, he cries out in primal enthusiasm, "Kill the pig. Cut her throat. Spill her blood." In Chapter 5, Ralph and Piggy discuss their concerns about Jack and how the latter holds dangerous grudges against them for their role in controlling the fire and for the simple fact of their refusal to join Jack's group. Jack, in short, is a bad boy. He is capable of anything, and the boys with Ralph know it.
So it is established that Jack represents the dark side of man. Does that equate him, a twelve-year-old boy stranded on an island, with the most reprehensible figure in history? Probably not. Jack's circumstances and his youth clearly separate him from an adult who knowingly conceptualizes a theory of racial superiority, who maneuvers himself to the top of a government, and who proceeds to carry out the greatest crime against humanity in history. To the extent that Jack can be considered a microcosm of Hitler, even that comparison is weak. Again, the circumstances surrounding Hitler's rise to power, in the most technologically advanced nation in Europe, and the circumstances surrounding Jack's descent into inhumanity are so disparate that, again, the comparison is seriously weak. Yes, Jack creates a dysfunctional and brutal environment; no, he is not Hitler.
Answer: Writing about your feelings can help the brain overcome emotional upsets and leave you feeling happier, psychologists have found.
Explanation:
This is a very big guest I think A
The sentence of the OP suggests that women's level of 'feminine incompetence' is not
simply stated/determined, as we could if you asked, "Can the person count to three."
To such a question one can say, "Yes they have that competence." But in the case
at issue, women's abilities to deal with and overcome social obstacles, there are all kinds
of levels; further this issue is not intrinsic to the woman, but relates to her circumstances.
She is not really talking in our sense of 'competence', but rather whether women
will be able to suceed in the face of social complexities and difficulties.
The passage ends with
Here and there is born a Saint Theresa, foundress of nothing, whose loving heart-beats and sobs after an unattained goodness tremble off and are dispersed among hindrances, instead of centring in some long-recognizable deed.
"dispersed among hindrances" is related to this 'incompetence' which is, in other words
insufficient, luck, resources, and opportunities. Saint Theresa (Teresa) is one of those rare successes.
===
In my opinion, Joan's line suggests somewhat of a misunderstanding. (That's my impression at least.) The writer is NOT saying women lack a basic competence comparable to the ability to count three.
Joan in part (post #2):
If women were all equally incompetent (unable to count to three),
