The Miracle of Miracles!

Throughout the first two Acts of this play I had remained faithful, in a sense, to both Nora and Torvald because I could understand the motives and reasoning behind their actions and ideas. This loyalty soon drifted in the final conversation between Torvald and Nora when I found a slow disconnect forming between Torvald and me. Nora’s need to find out who she is on her own was a journey I could completely relate to; not only have I had many moments like that on my own but I have heard countless stories of my mom and sister’s friends quitting jobs or breaking up with significant others because they realize they were living a life and didn’t feel completely satisfied with where they were. The fact that Torvald didn’t see Nora’s desires on the same level frustrated me and I just couldn’t imagine how he didn’t see why she needed to leave this life of hers.

After reading this commentary from Ibsen I can now see these subconscious judgment calls that I have made based on the spiritual laws that I too follow as woman. This is isn’t to say that I completely agree that women and men fall into completely separate spiritual categories, but I can see how it is often that humans see the world and their spiritual journeys on different planes and this is where fallouts, like the one between Torvald and Nora, occur. Different people have different priorities in life and some are keener on pursuing them at all costs than others. I wouldn’t necessarily say that women are always these free spirited creatures, such as Nora, whereas men are more grounded and less spontaneous, like Torvald, I think it has to do with a different in priorities and limitations than it does with gender. In this play, A Doll’s House, I understand that it might be simpler and accurate to put it in terms of men and women but more universally I would say that there is some gray area in these limitations placed on the two spiritual laws. This idea wasn’t vital to my appreciation of the play but it helps put into words the relationship between Torvald and Nora that was frustrating me as I read Act 3.

Also, this commentary by Ibsen, specifically the line, “the woman is judged in practical life according to the man's law, as if she were not a woman but a man,” reminded me of was the discussion that we had in A2 English about how girls are often the more sympathetic and understanding sex because we are forced to relate to boys our entire lives. The books and stories that we read in school rarely ever relate to the trials and tribulations of women and thus women have an easier time of being more sympathetic because they have more practice with practicing compassion for those that are not similar to them. I can’t say whether this seems to be unfair for women because I have always just thought of it as the natural order of things, for women to be the more compassionate “species” relative to men and it is odd to pinpoint the reasoning for this. It does seem to be unfair for women to be forced to understand men and be judged with the standards held for men when the reverse is rarely ever practiced, but maybe it is important for this overlap to be present between men and women. I can’t imagine a world where both genders were always kept completely separate of each other, I worry it would result in a world of apathetic and self-assured humans. When looking at the relationship between men and women, treatment of women seems rather unfair, but when looking at the world, besides some inequalities between men and women, I don’t know how the human race would exist if neither men nor women took on the compassionate role.

It seems to me that Ibsen's idea has some merit, even in the modern world. Humans have long considered men and women to be fundamentally different beings, and while we see much less disparity between them today, we have seen recent studies showing that the brains of women and men are wired differently. We can also observe that males will generally tend to associate with males, while females will typically associate with other females. People choose their friends for several reasons; similar interests, personalities, and values are some of the criteria that influence their decisions. Looking at this, it can seem like men have one set of common values and women have another. It does seem that women seem to be more focused on social interaction, while men tend to value people based on self-regarding virtues and vices (like diligence). Even though it's a gross oversimplification, the first part of Ibsen's idea does hold water, both when he posited it and in the modern age. 

The second part of the idea is trickier: it seems to be more valid now than it was when Ibsen wrote it. Going off my thoughts on the first part of the argument, the "female law" would involve being kind and sympathetic to others, while the "male law" would be more along the lines of "work hard, be honest, get rich"--things that are more self-centered. It's true that in Ibsen's time (and even to some extent now) the spiritual laws of society were generally male-centered. However, wouldn't that mean that women and men were judged according to different sets of law? A virtuous woman was caring, sympathetic, and obedient to her husband; a virtuous man was identified by bravery, leadership, and diligence. This would indicate that women were not judged "according to the man's law" but according to a set of virtues all their own. Now, however, Ibsen's point is more plausible since we now evaluate men and women based on similar moral standards. Think about the women we look up to today, women like Oprah Winfrey, Michelle Obama, and Angela Merkel. These are individuals who have worked their way to the top of their respective fields and are now well-regarded leaders in them--ideal people according to "male law." We judge everyone in society nowadays not by the quality of their interpersonal relationships but by what they have done on their own. In other words, we are now evaluating women by the virtues traditionally belonging to men, while the former "model women" (like Nora is during most of A Doll's House) are characterized as weak-willed waifs. Therefore, the second part of Ibsen's idea holds more legitimacy now than when it was originally written.

For this reason, I don't think Ibsen's hypothesis is very prevalent in A Doll's House. At the start of the play, we can see two very different consciences being formed by the main characters, but I'm not certain that this pattern applies to all the other female and male characters in the play. Nora's primary concerns seem to be with her kids and the brutal challenge of keeping Torvald happy (Corrupt my children...! Poison my home? It's not true! It could never, never be true!" (1702)); Torvald seems mostly focused on honor ("If it ever got around that the new manager had been talked over by his wife..." (1706)) and business affairs. But not all the characters' consciences fall into these stereotypes. Mrs. Linde seems fairly focused on her career, and Dr. Rank isn't portrayed as particularly "masculine" as per these criteria. In addition, Torvald definitely doesn't hold Nora to his manly moral standards. If he did, he would actually be happy for Nora at the end of the play. The new Nora shows ambition and courage, but Torvald still criticizes her because she no longer meets the standards of a "good wife" that he lays out for her. In the play, Nora isn't judged by the same rules as the men. Even though Ibsen has a point about real life, especially in current times, his idea is not as relevant in A Doll's House.

I think Ibsen proposes a very relevant and real point. Despite our modern efforts to blur the line between the male and the female, like others have said above, boys and girls are fundamentally different. Girls tend to hold themselves to a certain code, as do males. However, the world has long thought to be dominated by males. As a result, despite differences, women are judged by men according to the male code.
I think all of Ibsen's hypothesis holds true in "A Doll's House." Nora does not hold herself to the same standards or roles as her husband, although that becomes questionable in Act 3. Similarly, Torvald certainly does not expect the same things from Nora as he does from himself. For instance, Nora is the caretaker of the family; she is not to worry herself with a real job. Following Ibsen's statement, however, Torvald does judge Nora based on his "manly" laws. For instance, Torvald compares Nora's financial abilities to his own, rather than compare them to another woman's.
Ibsen also speaks the truth when he states that men and women do not understand each other. This becomes extremely evident in the third act when Nora finally stands up for herself. Torvald does not understand what Nora wants or how she feels. He can't relate to her emotions because men at that time were not suppressed like women.
This misunderstanding between boys and girls still holds true today...which is why Ibsen's statement is still relevant. Generally speaking, boys do not understand why girls like Barbie Dolls and girls do not understand how hitting each other can be fun. Or, instead, boys do not understand why girls get upset over little things and girls do not understand why boys can't "just cuddle" (how are those for examples...?)
To summarize: Yes, Ibsen's statement is plausible. It holds true in the story, specifically for Nora and Torvald. They are different, and have different "laws." However, Nora is judged by Torvald as if she is a man, despite it being very clear that her role in the home is very "female." Lastly, Ibsen's hypothesis is still valid today. Although men and women possibly have more in common than they did years before, the inherent differences between the two genders are quite clear.

I think Ibsen is right; to a certain extent, the degree depending upon culture and setting, women are expected by other women to be a certain way, yet criticized or judged by the greater world depending on the standards that men set for themselves, and this is probably because we still live in a predominantly male-dominated world and society. So if we as a women are expected to "keep up" with men, we must exceed them based upon their standards.

To be fair though, men in relationships such as Nora and Torvald's are judged based upon the standards that women set. In their private lives, the ideal man will encompass both the "manly" traits that are perhaps needed in the professional world, and the traits valued by females that make him capable of relating to his female significant other. 

With that in mind, I dislike both Nora and Torvald equally in the final act of the play. Both fail to understand the other's perspective because they try to match the other to that gender-specific set of standards. Torvald doesn't understand Nora because he just sees her endeavor to help him as a financial and strategic failure, based upon his knowledge of a male-dominated business world. Nora, on the other hand, sees Torvald's response as a failure to be compassionate and sensitive and romantic, based upon how a woman should be in a moment of crisis. So both of them are matching each other to the wrong set of standards, like trying to fit a round peg in a square hole. It's not going to work for either of them.

So I was biking this morning in my living room in front of the TV, and I browsed through different movies to watch on Netflix while biking, because biking indoors is quite the mental challenge. I watched the first few minutes of several movies, and one of them was about a kingdom in which women hold all positions of power and all men are slaves. One of the women explained how it was so convenient to have men as slaves, for they are strong and can cook, clean, and farm all day; women can choose men as companions and child-caretakers. I stopped watching when people started pulling out love potions... it got strange.



If we were all raised in a world with gender roles like this, we'd be saying the opposite statement, that man is judged in practical life according to the woman's law, as if she were not a man but a woman. I agree with Claire on the notion that someone has to take the compassionate role. In the movie, it's somewhat the men, and in reality, it's generally the women. In reality, gender roles come from nature. Though I am no animal expert, the female animals of most species are judged by appearance and compatibility. Mothers are in charge of staying with the offspring while the fathers hunt. From the beginning of humanity, there have always been gender roles. Something that comes to mind is the concept of an arranged marriage. People were paired based on functional compatibility, not necessarily emotion. So yes, it's not only plausible, it exists. However, I don't think women are judged based on practicality nearly as much anymore. Guys have emotions now, right? While girls are still the compassionate ones in relationships, there is a significant amount of common ground. for me at least... _{i think...}

Ibsen’s quote is plausible and relevant to our lives, but not in the way he seems to intend.

Part of this idea seems to fit the play and reality, if we define what Ibsen means by “the woman is judged…according to the man’s law.” As Steve and Patrick pointed out, this doesn’t work if we assume this means that a woman is judged as one might judge a man, examining traits of independence, courage, ambition, etc. If, however, we take this quote and assume “man’s law” is law created by men—not just law governing personality traits of men—and the judge of the law is also a man, then men would judge women based on how well they fit a male stereotype.

This definition fits the play (which is no surprise, as Ibsen wrote both this and the play). For example, Helmer tells Nora, “First and foremost, you are a wife and mother” (Ibsen 1731). Helmer believes this because he holds Nora to his standards of what a woman should do—a standard/law created by a man (him).

The first part of this statement, however, does not seem to fit the play. Nora seems to have the same ambitions and individuality as any male character. As she tells Torvald, “I am an individual, just as much as you are—or at least I’m going to try to be” (Ibsen 1731). She directly states that she is, or is trying to be, the same as Torvald, suggesting that there is only one kind of spiritual law, and one kind of conscience.

With that in mind, this second type of law, or conscience, is the fictitious standard men create for women—and this is where I dance with Ibsen’s point. Essentially, the men create the second type of law; it isn’t a spiritual, mystical, or naturally occurring thing. When Nora is preparing to leave and Torvald tells her that she has a duty to her family, she says, “That’s also what it says in books. But I’m not content any more with what most people say, or with what it says in books. I have to think things out for myself” (1731). The books encapsulate the man-made second set of laws, whereas Nora wants to return to the law governing us all: the desire for autonomy. Looking at the other responses, it seems that those who agree women’s law exists base it on the idea that women are more caring or more sympathetic than men. What might men want from a woman? Sympathy and care. I don’t want to turn this thread into a debate about whether that’s due to evolutionary biology (“nature”) or societal expectations over each woman’s lifespan (“nurture”), but either way it seems that what we stereotypically think of as a woman’s conscience is also what is best for men—supporting the concept that this second law is man-made.

I think this concept is relevant to understanding the play, but perhaps not in the way Ibsen intended. I don’t think that the conflict between Nora and Torvald arises because Nora is governed by “woman’s law” and Torvald is governed by “man’s law” and they fail to “understand each other.” Rather, I think the conflict comes about because the second law, the one men use to judge women and the one Ibsen hints at, is not a real law. Nora and Torvald want similar things—love, a family, independence—and the conflict arises when Torvald believes in this second, artificial law.

I’d extend those points to our present time: the quote is relevant, but not in the way Ibsen intended. I think it’s clear—even on just this thread—that the conflict we have today is not that women and men are different and we can’t reconcile those differences, but rather the conflict between those who believe men and women are different and those who don’t. I think it’s possible to find a marriage between a man and a woman who believe in the conservative, traditional “spheres” and ways of life, as well as a marriage where both believe that women and men are equals. The conflict arises, in our society and in the play, when you combine a woman who doesn’t believe in the difference—a Nora—with a man who does—a Torvald.

(Now, for anyone taking the logical next step and saying, “But wait, switch those roles. What about a man who believe women are equals and a woman who is content to be more subservient? That doesn't sound like it'd end badly unless the man tried to force the woman to be independent. Doesn’t that illustrate that men and women are truly different: that when you switch the roles but still have 1 of each type of thinker, the marriage could function? If the gender of the role matters, aren't the genders different?”

I’d say you’re right, initially, until you consider that in a marriage like Torvald and Nora, both directly contradict each other. Nora wants independence, Torvald wants her to be a domestic sky-lark. In the opposite case, the husband allows the wife independence, and the wife simply believes what she wants independently, so there is no direct contradiction.)

In short, judging women based on man’s law is problematic, but the bigger conflict is whether or not you believe that there are two types of laws to begin with.

Ibsen's idea that men and women have different kinds of conscience seems valid both today and in the 19th century, when Ibsen wrote A Doll's House.

As Patrick pointed out (and as Matt referenced), the brains of males and females are chemically different, so scientifically, men and women do have different kinds of conscience. However, when we analyze the similarities and differences between genders in a broader perspective, we can see that science alone might not be entirely responsible for a disparity in conscience. And by "broader," I mean examining environmental aspects such as culture and tradition. During the 19th century, there were obvious differences between the roles of men and the roles of women in society. From domestic roles to social interactions, there were so many differences. Some of these differences are illustrated in the conversations between Helmer and Nora. Helmer, who embodies the conscience of a man, seems to concern himself with his work and his morality (lol). When Nora, recalling what happened to her father, suggests that Krogstad might respond to his firing by defaming Helmer in the newspaper, Helmer replies, "Your father's professional conduct was not entirely above suspicion. Mine is. And I hope it's going to stay that way as long as I hold this position" (1706). Helmer is clearly proud of his professional conduct and his profession itself. These are important to him, and he is able to use them as justification for his firing of Krogstad. Conversely, Nora seems to hold reputation at a higher regard as she tries to use Helmer's potentially disparaged reputation to her advantage. She also flirts and refers to herself as "a little squirrel" (1706) in an attempt to prevent Helmer from firing Krogstad.

We can see that men and women in A Doll's House attempt to get what they want in different ways, and this demonstrates Ibsen's idea of distinct consciences. The idea seems valid during the time period of the story, and even though gender differences have lessened over the past few hundred years, it still seems valid today. Like Patrick mentioned, "We can also observe that males will generally tend to associate with males, while females will typically associate with other females." Ibsen's idea is absolutely plausible, both scientifically, and environmentally.

Ibsen's idea is fittingly relevant to his play and our interpretations of it. In the previous threads about A Doll's House, we discussed Helmer's condescending attitude towards Nora, especially when he addresses her as his "skylark" or "little squirrel." We don't hear Nora calling Helmer any "affectionate" terms. Additionally, Helmer considers Nora's most important duty her husband and children. He rhetorically questions, "Isn't it your duty to your husband and your children?" (1731). Nora responds asserting, "I have another duty equally sacred....My duty to myself" (1731). Like Ibsen stated in his conversation about A Doll's House, men judge women according to "man's law." That is certainly the case here, so Ibsen's "two kinds of conscience" seems relevant to his story. Ultimately, the differences in conscience, the ways of thinking, between men and women demonstrate that the two main characters do not really understand each other. They cannot be straightforward with each other, especially Nora during Act II, and this creates one of the major conflicts in the story.