|
|
Post by naomiporter on Jan 5, 2014 6:30:38 GMT
While Torvald's awfulness is certainly influenced by the culture of the time and the way the society saw women, I think it is also worth noting how Nora acts throughout their entire marriage. She effectively encourages him to see her as a child by acting like one. Of course, I do not mean to put all the blame on her because if Torvald can be excused to any extent by the sexist culture, then Nora should be excused much more on the same grounds. Really, I think that though they should both treat the other with more respect, we should understand that in the eyes of that society, they had a perfect marriage and both fulfilled their roles exactly as they should. It would be understandably difficult for them to change when they fit the cultural expectations so perfectly.
|
|
|
|
Post by jessicapollard on Jan 5, 2014 20:19:28 GMT
Firstly, I agree with Hannah that it's A-Okay to criticize those who've lived before us for not looking past the cultural norms of their time period. On one hand, Torvald's manner towards Norah was indeed normalized by society so it's easy to see why he's acting like so, on the other, if he really is so 'passionately' in love with her as has been mentioned multiple times, it seems like he'd behave more accordingly and transcend past belittling Norah. I agree with Steve that Norah is definitely an enabler, using Torvald's condescension for her advantage and doing a complete disservice to her gender. I feel that the action of both parties have a lot less to do with the time period and a lot more to do with the desperation they suffer. |
|
|
|
Post by madisonarmst on Jan 6, 2014 0:26:36 GMT
I feel enmity towards Torvald because of the way he treats Nora, but I almost feel bad for feeling this way because its clearly not Torvald's fault: He is simply treating Nora how he thinks she wants to be treated. Whenever he is condescending towards her (which occurs in nearly all of their exchanges), she responds in a playful way, acting as though she enjoys both the attention and the way he is treating her. Because she seems to enjoy it, he continues to treat her this way. I find it hard to sympathize with Nora and take the feminist approach of "he needs to treat her as his equal" in this case because she gives him no indication that the way he treats her is not acceptable. Its also important to consider that at this point in history, the man was seen as superior to his wife. Therefore, this type of condescension would be Torvald's "default setting" because it would have been how he saw other men treat their wives. I understand why some feel enmity towards Torvald, especially using the reader-response lens, but given the historical context and the fact that Nora seemed to enjoy these types of interactions, I can't blame Torvald for treating her this way.
|
|
|
|
Post by adamgrace on Jan 6, 2014 2:58:20 GMT
It may be difficult to read this play as a white upper middle class gentleman from the 1800s because, well simply put, I'm not one. I may be white and quite the gentleman, but to be honest I've been brainwashed by the social normalities of the 21st century. My beliefs happen to be radically different than that of a 19th century banker/family man. So the question rises, should I hate Torvald? The answer, personally, is no. Hate is a word reserved for people who have done immeasurably inhuman acts. Torvald is an average man of his time period. Noble, family oriented, and with a touch of sexism. I think treating a woman (or ANY other human being for that matter) like a lesser entity is disgusting. Yet at the same time I can't fault Torvald for conforming to his time periods norms because of how easy it is. I'd venture to imagine that Torvald wouldn't be nearly as successful if he didn't act like a "proper gentleman". Torvald's main focus seems to be to protect his family with money. Which is admirable in it's own sense, I guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by danyhong55 on Jan 6, 2014 3:58:45 GMT
Disclaimer: I was sure that all of these were due today (Sunday), so I didn’t bother to check online. Here they are.
What’s done is done. Shaking a finger at and tsk-tsk-ing those gone past seems useless and ,to be frank, condescending in our own right. What can we do but fix the future? We cannot change the past (it’s thermodynamically impossible), so what we can do is to use Torvald as an example of what not to do.
Don’t get me wrong; I hate Torvald too. But I also realize that my hating Torvlad won’t do anything for me except to get me mad whenever I see him. Why on Earth would I want to get mad while reading a book? I’m not a masochistic reader. So I try to analyze, as objectively as I can, what Torvald’s condescension and obliviousness does to enhance the story. This way, I can satisfy my impulses to systematically analyze and not be angry all the time.
One of those time is, as Keely said, the mailbox scene, where Torvald’s condescension progresses the story is when his attitude starts to eat away at Nora’s love for him and our patience, but more importantly, Nora’s love. One of the lines he says is “The child must have her way” (pg. 1717) equating a full grown woman with a child. Little by little, the story reveals how little Helmer really cares for Nora.
Despicable as he may be, without Torvald, you better believe that the Helmers’ lives wouldn’t be so entertaining. That’s the objective truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisb on Jan 6, 2014 6:58:08 GMT
Seeing as I was supposed to respond to this question on December the 31st, I hope you're all having a great New Year's Eve!
So, Torvald...
Torvald's a chill bro. He's very prolific when it comes to demeaning, animal-related epithets for his wife. Although the reader should read with a keen awareness of the condescension projected towards his wife, censuring T-Vald would make us guilty of New Historicism. When Torvald refers to his wife as "both wife and child" in Act III, the reader is taken aback by his sense of possession for one who should considered equal in marriage. I cannot claim to have lived during the 1800s, but I would guess that it was much more common for a husband to view his wife as a child incapable of independent thought and action. T-Money is not exonerated, but he's more a product of his environment than he is individually oblivious and condescending.
|
|
|
|
Post by abbylyons on Jan 6, 2014 20:33:00 GMT
Sorry for the late reply! I ended up going on a last-minute trip to the Bay Area before I could answer the prompt. Anyway, here is my take:
Back in 18th-century America, slavery and racism were the norm. Hardly anyone gave a second thought to the fact that their beloved leader, George Washington, owned slaves. Today, even though we now condemn slavery, Washington is still seen as a hero because of his otherwise great accomplishments that contributed to the founding of the United States.
Similarly, most humans are at least somewhat influenced by their environment and the society they grow up in. For example, Americans may think that eating dog meat is unethical, while Chinese people think that fermented milk products (cheese) are revolting. It’s rare to see a person who truly rejects a societal standard, especially one that’s more deeply ingrained than food preferences. One such person is Indira Gandhi; whether you agree with her controversial political views or not, it is remarkable that she made decisions ethically in a system that was full of corruption. We would all like to think that in Gandhi’s position we would choose to act the same way she did, but in reality, a vast majority of the high-ranking government officials chose to act unethically because everyone else was. Using this reasoning, Torvald is not a despicable person because of the way he treats Nora, because that was the way many men treated women in the late 1800s. However, one could be justified in disliking him for another unrelated reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by shannonfender on Jan 17, 2014 22:41:22 GMT
With the Constitutional Law competition just around the corner, (and because my unit is predominantly concerned with philosophy), I will answer this question with consideration to Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperitive.
The Categorical Imperitive basically creates the standard for moral obligation. In his work "The Metaphysics of Morals", Kant asserts that morals derive from principles that are intrinsically valid. I'm not entirely sure who deems these principles as "valid" or "not valid", so this is obviously not a perfect science. These principles must be followed in all situations and circumstances if the moral itself is to be categorized as a higher moral law. With this Categorical Imperitive, all morals can be tested or created.
Now we can analyze women's equality with Kant's moral philosophy in mind. Is Torvald justified in degrading his wife? If you ignore historical context, the bare-bones analysis of Torvald's behaviour elicits the same conclusion every time: if you regard equality as a standard and believe that it is an intrinsic value of humankind, then Torvald is guilty of being a pompous and belittling jerk. I think it's O.K to wag your finger at people from different eras, because even if the social values of the time are very different, we need to acknowledge that what was done then is wrong and not justified. However, it is important that we take into consideration these differences, but in the grand scheme of things, morals are the most important!!
|
|
