|
Post by garygates on Jan 5, 2014 5:40:40 GMT
After reading several responses to this interesting quote and question I have picked up on the idea that we, as a class, are struggling mostly with Ibsen's idea that man and woman have different spiritual laws and a different conscience. While some have argued that Ibsen's gendered dichotomy of spiritual law and conscience is contrary to our modern interpretation of gender dynamics that states we are all the same and equal, I would like to kindly dissent. I believe that a dichotomy between male and female conscience is not necessarily a negative and stereotypical idea, just a realistic observation of history's effect on the gender issue of thought.
The notion that I believe we are toying with is that to be equal, we must all be the same. I understand that this is a bit of a generalization because not a single human on this earth is the same as another. We are all different, but we believe that it is just that we all be treated with the same expectations, rules, and fairness. I would like to contemplate, instead, a fairly foreign idea that may initially seem to fight our modern understanding of equality. I believe, like Ibsen quoted, that we all, especially men and women, have a different conscience and set of spiritual laws guiding us. Now, the flaw that we have seen in this argument is that if we develop and proclaim a noticeable difference between two parties, especially genders, it will turn into an all out power struggle for which group has the better conscience, or better set of guiding spiritual laws. This, however, does not have to be. We are separate but equal, and in my opinion, history has made it impossible to be otherwise. Yes, things are less complicated if we say, "We are all the same and should thus be treated that way." And I of course believe standards for each and every human, no matter one's origin, should be the same, but our consciences and minds do not have to function in an identical fashion.
The ideas of man have dominated history for far too long to go unrecognized and have had too dramatic of an effect on civilization today, one that cannot be ignored. I do not think it is realistic, after a timeline burdened by male-dominated standards and rules, to say that men have not created and do not coincide more with the law with which both genders are judged today. It is far too optimistic to say that as a society we have erased the wrongs of men before us and created a neutral system. Man's law has been the template off of which we have historically judged ideas, and although today our template is not homogeneously consisting of men's standards, I believe that men still have the upper hand in societal judgment. This is not just, but I cannot say realistically that men and women are treated equally today. The same gender division that was present through the course of history plagues our modern society and creates deviations in conscience and spiritual law in modern society. Sure we are drawing or trying to draw closer to this idea of a combined equality , but I do not think we have achieved such a thing. Men and women still have differences in conscience and spiritual law as Ibsen argues, even if it is not practical or ideal. But this does not mean we are not equal. Equality does not depend upon similarity of conscience and spiritual laws. That would not be a fair way to judge people. Equality just means that we are all human beings who have the right to think in our own separate ways and should be treated as the same. Ibsen, however, observes this gender division and finds the injustice in it: men still have more societal power.
This interpretation of law and conscience division appear in Ibsen's text just as they do in his quote. When Torvald asks Nora if they will ever be able to get back together, if he can ever "be anything more to [her] than a stranger," (1734), Nora tells him that it will take a "miracle of miracles." She says that their lives would need to change to the point "where we could make a real marriage of our lives together" (1734). Like Ibsen, Nora notices the obvious difference in Torvald and her conscience and spiritual laws. Torvald sees a world full of independence and honor and Nora envisions a world where people give their lives to others before selflessly helping themselves. These two separate worlds to not fit together. They are two totally unrelated puzzle pieces that only create an illusion of an image after forcefully crammed together. The only way that the two's lives could ever work in perfect harmony is if they were on the same page, if the ideal happened in society and the two were judged the same and were the same.
|
|
|
Post by natalieskowlund on Jan 5, 2014 5:48:13 GMT
I think Ibsen was spot on in his assertion that women and men live by very different "spiritual laws." While the fundamental aspects of human nature trump any gender differences, males and females do have some evident disparities. I once read in a psychology book that males and females' eyes are biologically wired differently, and hence it is likely that men and women may not actually view the world in the same colors. That notion could also be taken figuratively: while women and men see the same objects, their perception (the color) of these things is largely determined by their gender.
This relates to the plot of "A Doll's House" in that Nora--representing women at large--spends most of her life acting submissive, like a doll, to the men in her life. She allows them to decide who she is and what she does, and she never really gives it a second thought because it's what is socially acceptable. She is living in the man's world, by the man's rules. Yet in the end, she realizes that women need not live to serve men. They, just like men, should have the opportunity to discover who they are as individuals and determine what they want to do with their lives.
Nora and Torvald's unfortunate ending contrasts very interestingly with the beginning of Ms. Linde and Krogstad's relationship. It seems that Ibsen was trying to demonstrate that men and women will only find true happiness with one another when neither feels trapped within the confines of gender. Nora eventually leaves Torvald because she realizes that she had not been true to herself the whole time she was with him; rather, she had been what was expected of women in her time, and Torvald had acted as the man of the house should act. Perhaps at the end it is not so much that Nora has realized she is not compatible with Torvald, but that after they had been living lies for so long together that to try and start anew would be futile. Both needed to reconsider who they were and whether or not they could continue living as society expected them to. On the other hand, Ms. Linde and Krogstad appear to have completely broken the gender barriers when they enter into their relationship. In fact, Ms. Linde--who holds a steady job--suggests to Krogstad--jobless and needing a way to support his children--that she wants someone to take care of, especially because she is earning money by herself. Ms. Linde assumes the role of the stereotypical male in the relationship, with Krogstad being more of the needy wife stereotype.
Lastly, as for relevance today, I believe this notion of gender differences and women living under men's laws is still very true. We have come a long way towards gender equality--especially in westernized nations--but there is no denying that we have not yet achieved full equality. Men still far outnumber women in governmental leadership positions, a fact which leaves us with a definite disparity in terms of viewpoints. We live in a society largely structured by the laws of men, and in some societies, laws are only structured by men. I believe that having equal representation gender-wise is crucial to further any society, so I hope that we continue to encourage that in the future.
On a sort of separate point, I was wondering if anyone had any insights about Dr. Rank's purpose in the play? How did his interactions with Nora and Helmer help emphasize Ibsen's focus on the gender divide in the play? I'd love to read some thoughts!
|
|
|
Post by jennyxu on Jan 5, 2014 5:56:56 GMT
To separate men and women in society through the two kinds of conscience may be unfair, but it does lend insight to my appreciation for this play. I feel that his idea really does relate to Helmer and Nora's relationship, though I cannot say that it applies to reality as I know it. As an example of the significance of Ibsen's idea in "A Doll's House", I will examine the exchange between Helmer and Nora at the end of Act III. Helmer: "I would gladly toil day and night for you, Nora, enduring all manner of sorrow and distress. But nobody sacrifices his honor for the one he loves." Nora: "Hundreds and thousands of women have" (1733).
As a reader, I initially find Torvald at fault for the end of the marriage, simply because he cares about his reputation way too much, more than he cares about Nora. But if we think about the play in connection with Ibsen's quote, we may also fault Nora for her unrealistic expectations of Torvald. According to Ibsen, men cannot be expected to understand and react to situations in the same way as women. Torvald simply is lost in his "man" brain. So, therefore, the end of the marriage results from a mutual lack of understanding between Helmer and Nora.
To complicate things, however, Ibsen also claims that women are judged by "the man's law". Then, I feel that it is justified for me to dislike Torvald, since he represents the society that fails to understand women's views and needs, as well as limits Nora's options through his own ideas of acceptable actions. When his family almost falls into deep trouble, he worries about himself: "Now you have ruined my entire happiness, jeopardized my whole future" (1727). But then when Nora starts to think about her own feelings, he tells her: "First and foremost, you are a wife and mother" (1731). So yes, even though I am not convinced of his idea that separate "consciences" differ between men and women, his idea that double standards exist for men and women in society is true, especially in certain relationship dynamics, like Helmer and Nora's, which also may exist today.
|
|
|
Post by racheladele on Jan 5, 2014 7:01:21 GMT
Recently, in conversation, my dad mentioned that “humans have a tendency to judge based on incomplete information.” This stuck with me because of its relevance and truth in my life today, as well as in A Doll’s House. In the play, the most prominent and two-sided example of this unfortunate situation is when Torvald yells at Nora after reading Krogstad’s letters. Torvald’s incomplete judgment is shown in his initial outburst, as he does not give Nora a moment to defend herself, while Nora finds that she has incorrectly judged Torvald for the entirety of their relationship, after she sees his mercurial and selfish core. Ibsen seems to think similarly to my dad, because both imply the unintentional tendency to unfairly judge others. While I agree with pieces of Ibsen’s idea, what his quote is missing is the other side of the situation. I believe that Ibsen is generalizing by a long shot while not looking beyond his own (male) mind. I do not see women as judging other women by “man’s law,” for example. Also, it may be true that men judge women by the “man’s law,” but I see no reason that women do not do the opposite for men, at least subconsciously. Or even, perhaps, women are not judged to the same standards as men, but to the men’s standards of women. I find this last idea the most plausible because of Torvald’s expectations of Nora, such as maintaining the home and children, and dancing the tarantella at the party.
As much as it may not please everyone, equality between the sexes can only go so far because of two things: history and instinct. As Patrick and Morgan have said, male/female brains are wired differently, so there is certainly some truth in the discrepancy between the “consciences,” as Ibsen put it. Also, a long history of male dominance creates a certain dynamic that could allow capability of men to outwardly judge women in Ibsen’s way (but women would have to contain their feelings on the matter). A Doll’s House portrays a difference between males and females, supported by Ibsen’s quote. The female characters, until the end, are submissive and generally unselfish. I love the quote that Jenny used, because it has a powerful impact and truly shows the separation that Ibsen creates in his play. To reiterate: Helmer: "I would gladly toil day and night for you, Nora, enduring all manner of sorrow and distress. But nobody sacrifices his honor for the one he loves.” Nora: "Hundreds and thousands of women have" (1733). As much as Ibsen’s work supports his idea, I think his quote should be altered for accuracy purposes, especially in today’s society. Removing everything after the semicolon is one option, but I also think that his idea of judgment is overly absolute. If one judges people by separating them by gender, understanding will never be achieved, but it is, in fact, possible. Although it may not be mutual, at the end of the play, Nora understands her own gender as well as the other because of Torvald’s final actions, so perhaps Ibsen even proves himself wrong.
|
|
|
Post by davidqin on Jan 5, 2014 7:07:04 GMT
I think Ibsen's musings on male/female conscience are somewhat valid, but they ultimately are difficult to resolve in A Doll's House. Act I portrays the two opposing sides: the responsible and competent (if not a little overbearing) breadwinner male of the family, and the naive and irresponsible female wife. Both Torvald and Krogstad embody the business aspect of life, and things such as letters, bank business, promotions, and money are associated with them. Their conscience is focused on working hard to make ends meet. Nora, on the other hand, initially seems to be preoccupied with material satisfaction, as evidenced by her simple view of family finances: "You are getting quite a good salary now, and you are going to earn lots and lots of money" (1681). Ostensibly, that money is used to buy items such as toys to keep the children happy and the family satisfied. As of Act I and Act II, Ibsen's view of the two consciences holds some truth, as neither can understand the other, and they seem mutually inclusive yet exclusive (like a yin-yang symbol). My only gripe with that is that minor characters such as Rank and Mrs. Linde seem to understand quite well the other sex, and that really puts the Torvald-Nora conflict at the forefront. I can understand the purpose of this juxtaposition because it is a play, though ultimately it ends up clashing with Ibsen's own interpretation of male/female consciousness relations.
Nora's frivolous pursuits in Act I can be contrasted with her performance in Act III as she stands up to Torvald. Torvald's intense emotional swings from "Miserable woman... what is this you have done" (1727) to "I forgive you everything. I know you did what you did because you loved me" (1728) and finally ending in "Nora, how unreasonable... how ungrateful you are! Haven't you been happy here?" (1730) detail three different phases that change our interpretation of him into what we initially thought should have been applied to women. Doesn't Torvald's emotional immaturity and lack of any care in choosing his words properly match what I earlier defined as the conscience of a female: naivete and irresponsibility? On the other hand, Nora transforms from a frightened doll/bird/squirrel into a fully-responsible individual, who states "I must take steps to educate myself. You are not the man to help me there. That's something I must do on my own. That's why I'm leaving you" (1731). With this, Nora begins to display what Ibsen has associated with males in Act I, namely responsibility and foresight. Therefore, Ibsen's assessment of the two kinds of conscience is problematic because women and men can switch into the other conscience, as he has defined them. Furthermore, Nora seems to be judged as if she were male, as Ibsen says, but more from the traditional perspective of her duty to the household. In other words, this perspective is unfair because it still holds some of the basic societal notions at the time, and it fails to analyze Nora's actions as if she were actually male.
I find Ibsen's "hypothesis" somewhat relevant for the earlier portions of the play, although they break down for the entirety of the work. To me, it seems like a gross oversimplification of what A Doll's House tries to explore. As for today, I think there still is definitely a gap between how the two genders understand each other. In fact, maybe Ibsen's idea may be more plausible in today's world as we apply a double standard to women. Today, I think men and women are encouraged to think similarly (in contrast to 18th century when they were expected to think and behave differently) but unfortunately, women are pushed over to the man's perspective. When do men ever look from the perspective of women? For the most part, the burden rests with women to make the switch, to become breadwinners and responsible leaders for the family, and from the male-dominated perspective of our society that seems most appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by Lacey Doby on Jan 5, 2014 7:26:49 GMT
I think Ibsen is right about there being two types of conscience, one in men and one in women, and I think those two types of consciences arose from a world that pressures males and females to be different. Boys are told to “be a man” and avoid being feminine in any way, while girls are pressured to also fit into a previously established niche involving dolls, jewelry, and the color pink. However, I feel as though men and women alike are judged based on the idea of the ideal man we discussed in A2. Women are just farther from it because they do not have the physicality of a man and are taught to be anything but manly from a young age upwards. In A Doll’s House, Nora claims that all of the men in her life have been controlling her and keeping her from truly making herself into what she wants and needs to be. This definitely ties into the idea of a woman being judged based on an ideal man while her own conscience is squandered. Nowadays, I think this idea of women being judged as men is not favored by the majority, but it is still very present. Women are still viewed as being weak and foolish by many people simply because they are so when compared to the ideal man, that being a big strong dude who puts logic in front of emotion. However, the feminist movement has altered the picture people have of women to be less settled in their niche and a bit more capable than the traditional view of women was. People have made it to the point of considering adjusting their views, and many have, but there are still a few stragglers who cling to their original views. In my optimistic view, in a few years, the ideal man will be gone and men and women will dispose of their niches resulting in less variation in the two consciousnesses.
|
|
|
Post by naomiporter on Jan 5, 2014 7:40:31 GMT
I think this quote does change my understanding of the story in that it makes me unsure of how much of Torvald's behavior Ibsen is criticizing. While I was reading, I thought that Ibsen was condemning Torvald's sexist views of Nora's capabilities just as much as his condescending tone and controlling behavior. After reading the quote, however, I think it seems that Ibsen is not criticizing Torvald for ignoring what Nora is capable of, but that he is only criticizing sexism when it holds women to a man's standard and expects too much of her. This is the opposite issue as Torvald demonstrates, however, and it surprises me that Ibsen's quote did not address the under-appreciation of Nora's potential.
I think this quote is doubly relevant today, as both sides of it apply to our society. As a society, we need to be aware of both aspects of sexism: one, of course, being under-appreciating the abilities of women, but also the one that Ibsen's quote brought up, that is failing to recognize and understand the differences between men and women.
|
|
|
Post by robertxu on Jan 5, 2014 9:49:38 GMT
This quote basically says that men and women have inherently different values and it is very hard for them to understand where the other one is coming from. Additionally, men ultimately decide how women should act. I believe that "A Doll's House" definitely supports both aspects of this statement. Steve talked about how the final scene was evidence that Nora and Torvald shared the same values, however, I disagree. Torvald says to Nora, "First and foremost, you are a wife and mother" (Ibsen 1731). Nora responds to Torvald, "I believe that first and foremost I am an individual, as much as you are..." (Ibsen 1731). In the microcosm of this play, Torvald's values involve forcing Nora into her societal role and oppressing her. Nora, on the other hand, simply wants to be treated a an individual capable of making her own decisions. Clearly, their spiritual laws differ.
Nora's final interaction with Torvald says a lot about gender roles in the real world. Men have traditionally oppressed women, while it has rarely been the other way around. So perhaps the only real gender difference involves men being more violent or controlling than women. This quote is incredibly relevant today because it is important to examine current and past examples of patriarchy in order to shift to more society where gender roles are no longer forced on individuals. I think that women and men are very different, but I think that it is very possible to move towards a society where gender is not as much of an issue.
To address the second part of the quote, the idea of women having to work around the laws of men is also brought up in A Doll's House. Nora says to Torvald, "Oh, everything you do is right" (Ibsen 1723) in order to placate his arrogance. Nora's sarcastic statement shows how often she has to walk on eggshells to not offend Torvald's sensitive ego. As a woman, Nora is expected to accept all of her husband's words as law. Additionally, Torvald has unreasonable standards for her that involve her pretending to be helpless, which she has to follow. The unreasonable standards that men put onto women to accept their traditional gender roles is very relevant today. A few months ago, I read an article on how to be happy, "we" must admit that women and men are not equal. It basically implied that the status quo of unhappy marriages and divorces was caused by gender confusion, which in turn was the result of the independent working woman movement.
|
|
amychen
New Member
“But the wild things cried, “Oh please don’t go—we’ll eat you up—we love you so!”
Posts: 47
|
Post by amychen on Jan 5, 2014 11:39:35 GMT
As a forewarning, I recently read this thing that showed up on my Facebook news feed. This was shared by one of my former Laker Crew Leaders. It’s called “An open letter to women: What men REALLY want”: dernierevie.com/an-open-letter-to-women-what-men-really-want/A few cringe-worthy moments: “I think that submissive, caring, driven women are so sexy! I love it when I look at a woman’s page (on social media) and it’s nice and sweet. No club pics, no pictures of her in the mirror, no vulgar, drama filled updates… just her." “Ladies, take pride in being a WOMAN. Take pride in the fact that you are the backbone of mankind. The power, majesty and beauty of civilization comes from your womb! We (men) recognize that. We long for the woman that understands that as well.” “Allow us to take the lead. Not to control you, but to protect you. Let us clear the path so that your walk will be made easy.” “Submit to us. Not for us to stand over you, but so that we can extend our hand to lift you up, over our heads.” Thank you for painting us as somewhat helpless baby-makers. The anger I feel towards this letter will likely show up in my response. ONWARD! I had the same reaction to Ibsen’s statement as Steve. I thought the ending of A Doll’s House painted Nora in a positive light—a woman finally breaking free from the system that had held her back (although the abandonment of her children is less-than-ideal). This might, however, be my response as a modern reader. Looking back at Ibsen’s statement, he seems to mean that women and men have different roles, but that by degrading the role of women we hold the standards of man as the ideal for both women and men. In other words, we promote the breadwinners and degrade the homemaker. In this way, the ending of A Doll’s House does not paint Nora as a revolutionary, but rather, it paints both Nora and Torvald as victims, as Jenny explains with her commentary on the quote: Helmer: "I would gladly toil day and night for you, Nora, enduring all manner of sorrow and distress. But nobody sacrifices his honor for the one he loves." Nora: "Hundreds and thousands of women have." (1733) To summarize her commentary, Jenny explains how Helmer and Nora’s interaction shows how Nora judges Helmer on female standards while Helmer judges himself on male standards. This makes sense. The problem I have here, however, is that I don’t follow the idea that these standards are distinctly male or female—or rather, that I don’t believe they should be distinctly male or female. This is perhaps why I hate the “open letter to women”—aside from the Helmer-worthy language (“submissive” is described as a positive trait)—the author, E. Mackey, states that women and men have distinct roles. That in exchange for supporting and being submissive to a man, a woman will be protected by said man and idolized as a “GOOD woman!” What I think he tries to paint is a picture of a relationship in which two people treat each other as equals and support each other through each other’s endeavors. What I hear is “make me a sandwich, and I will tell my friends how great you are at making sandwiches.” Sandwich-making is not something that is distinctly male or female. This is why I don’t agree with Ibsen’s quote—because now, these laws are not so much tied to gender as they are to people. I have male teachers who cook for their families every day. This is not the role of the woman, but the role of the homemaker. Taking into account the time period of Ibsen’s quote, it seems more plausible that he is trying to give more dignity to the homemaker, making his quote much more valuable to my appreciation of the play and much more relevant to today. Suddenly, taking A Doll’s House out of the context of modern, feminist views turns Ibsen’s piece into a commentary on the degradation of the homemaker—about how by making the homemaker appear submissive and powerless, we underestimate the value of the homemaker. This is all the more valuable in a modern context. The dynamic illustrated in A Doll’s House becomes relevant to our culture. As a culture, we value wealth and honor over the ability to care for family. We find it irrelevant as to whether the CEO of BigCompanyNumberFive spends any time at all with his children or even comes back home on Christmas, as long as he makes “this big amount of money.” In a way, Ibsen’s quote reveals that (1) some readers—including myself, despite my dislike for the word “feminist” itself— impose feminist views on Ibsen’s work, (2) Ibsen’s work is not as feminist as readers like me might think, and in fact portray Nora in a negative light for leaving, and (3) that in replacing “men” and “women” with the connotations of his time—“breadwinner” and “homemaker”—readers like myself can remove the gender connotation and bias to A Doll’s House and see a meaning within the work that resonates with modern problems.
|
|
|
Post by emilybrinkmann on Jan 5, 2014 18:54:48 GMT
I think Ibsen does a good job of illustrating and justifying his statement in this play, at least in the first two acts. Men and women are never treated equal-not even today. As much as we like to believe we have changed and we have, the line between men and women still remains. In the first two acts of the play Nora is always a Torvalds disposal, and she does nothing about it. She is very manipulative and brings on a lot of trouble but she is constantly doing everything around what she thinks is right for her husband and what her husband wants. Then the shift appears, Ibsen illustrates the power that Torvald feels he has (and he does because Nora gives it to him). When Torvald first reads the letter he reacts just as we all expected him to, he is furious and only concern with himself and his career. But what surprised me is how quickly it all changed, when the IOU was returned and Torvald felt everything could go back to normal. Throughout the play I have never blamed Torvald for being a sexist pig, I felt that Nora was just as much to blame because it was all her fault. Torvald said, "But you will not be allowed to bring up the children, I can't trust you with them..." (1728). This changed everything for me because I couldn't believe that Torvald had the audacity to take away Nora's own children, he thought/believed he had all the power in the world. (The fact that Nora was willing to leave them at the drop of a pin 10 minutes earlier and after isn't relevant to the point). The fact is Torvald thought he had all the power and control which really bothers me. He played that he truly cared for Nora and that she was the love of his life, but when it came down to it, he dumped her without a second thought. Although the dynamic between men and women has changed a lot today there is still a very evident line between the sex's. The men still have the upper hand in so many ways. They have more power, it is just a fact and even when women fight the power it is never really theirs. When Nora finally stood up for herself it was a big step, one that society took a long time ago. "'That I don't believe any more. I believe that first and foremost I am an individual, just as much as you are" ( 1731). Women and men are making progress today to equality but I don't think it will ever be gone. There are three doors; door one, men will still have the upper hand because women are responsible for raising children and domestic life. Door two, women will get the upper hand; they will manipulate and work their way to the top and the roles will be reversed. Or door three, just like we are today. We are aware of the problem but even in our attempts to show equality we are being prejudice.
|
|
|
Post by jessicalee on Jan 5, 2014 20:26:41 GMT
Ibsen's separation of men and women rang true throughout history and continues to ring true today. There are two spiritual laws that govern men and women separately, and these laws are enforced in our lives through society. For example, take a seven year old boy who falls on the ground and starts to cry. In a completely non-ideal, yet prevalent situation, we may hear the parents telling the kid to get up and "be a man". Yet, if we take the same situation and replace the boy with a girl, we may see the parents rushing to the girls side and making sure there isn't a single scratch on her. Now, realistically this cannot be deemed a standard for every situation similar to the one posed above, but we cannot deny that the notions of "being a man" and "acting like a lady" are two extremely common ideas that shape our societal gender dichotomy.
In regards to the play, I find that the outcome of A Doll's House is almost the opposite of what Ibsen claims. Ibsen states, "but the woman is judged in practical life according to the man's law, as if she were not a woman but a man." While this is extremely noticeable in the beginning and middle of the play, the ending seems to shroud Ibsen's claim. It is evident that Torvald sees Nora as a lesser being, one who is subservient to him and acts merely as a doll. Yet in the final act, as Nora realizes that Torvald sees her as nothing more than a doll, she begins to judge Torvald for his lack of desire to take the blame for her- a responsibility that seems naturally justified in her eyes. Thus, the tables are turned and the ability for Nora to judge Torvald- just as he did to her- sets her free as an independent woman.
|
|
|
Post by sammywong on Jan 5, 2014 20:27:14 GMT
For the sake of not chiming into the repetition of "boys don't understand girls," I will focus on the other end. Ibsen states, "They do not understand each other." Some seem to think that Ibsen is focusing more on one gender's misinterpretation of the other. I do think that Ibsen is saying one gender tends to impose its way of thinking on the other more, and we can all deem as true drawing from a historical context, but I do not think that Ibsen is saying the lack of understanding is only present with males.
Maybe it's easier to pinpoint the lack of understanding from Torvald because we feel it is plain wrong. The name calling, the expectations. At every single dang word that comes out of his mouth, actually, I can feel myself get angry. I am not saying that what Torvald does isn't wrong. (I for one sure think it's wrong) But maybe our generation sees it instantaneously that way because we are wired, not in a biological sense but a social one, to be sensitive to female gender inequality situations. Which is a good thing in my opinion! Hypersensitivity is much needed in addressing any problem. So, if Ibsen is saying both genders do not understand each other, where is that portrayed in A Doll's House? Is it possible Nora is not understanding any of the men in the story?
I realized that I had to work more towards finding misunderstanding on Nora's part compared to instantly seeing Torvald's ignorance in his first line. Initially, the lack of understanding on Nora's part just seemed to take on a different feel. It wasn't ignorance but naivety. It just didn't feel as unjustifiable as Torvald's lack of understanding. Nora does not understand her husband's selfishness? His views of where she belonged triumphed over his emotional attachment and she just was not aware? Reading Ibsen's quote, I didn't think that was how Ibsen meant for things to be interpreted as. One gender's lack of understanding is ignorant while the other's is naive?
But I also saw Nora's continuity in being a person she knew she wasn't as ignorant. She expected Torvald to do a 180 for her while she showed no signs of transition to begin with. Not considering the fact that gender inequality to our generation is a pretty large and obvious no-no, that doesn't seem very fair to me. Nora underestimated the amount of pressure Torvald felt being this "manly man." Can we say that Torvald feeling this is unjustifiable, maybe so. It does seem like Torvald feels this more than the doctor does and we cannot blame the pressure due to status difference because as we learn from the reading, Torvald is just recently aquiring a high paying job and wasn't well off before. But nevertheless, Torvald does seem to suffer from pressure, whether it is created by external or internal forces. Nora does not seem to realize this until Torvald does not act in the way she pictures him to.
Just a more neutral approach to Ibsen's quote I myself am unsure whether I agree on.
|
|
|
Post by allegra on Jan 5, 2014 20:59:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jessicapollard on Jan 5, 2014 21:03:27 GMT
A few summers ago, I spent the night in a friend of my sister's apartment where I was shoved into a random room to be sheltered from college-kid activities. It was here that I found Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus by John Gray. I didn't bother reading too much of it, but I read up on the emotional differences behind men and women. The book claims that when men listen to other people's issues, they try to fix them with advice. Women, Gray conjectured, preferred to just talk about the issue to release emotions rather than to fix things. Personally, I sway both ways, not completely identifying with one way of handling issues or another. The case was the same last night when I watched The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, where the subject matter was somewhat gender-specific and yet I related to the central character Walter. These two encounters, along with many others, cause me to dislike what Ibsen has to say about the differences between men and women, which of course exist biologically, sexually and emotionally, but don't really mean much to me in the end. Especially because within the context of humanity, gender and all other defining qualities aside, every single person has a different 'spiritual law'. Yeah, some dudes are super outwardly emotional and some ladies are stone-cold. It can go the other way too. Spirituality and emotions are defined by experience, and perhaps if someone is raised in the context of solid 'gender ideals' then yes they may reside under some stereotypical spiritual law.
The more niches we create within humanity, the further away we get from equality which I believe is achieved by holding everyone to the same standard.
|
|
|
Post by sheridanf on Jan 5, 2014 22:21:45 GMT
I'm struggling a bit with the idea that in the entirety of the human race, according to Ibsen, there are only two present kinds of conscience or spiritual laws, and this seems a but contradictory of Ibsen. In A Doll's House, we find that although both Mrs. Linde and Nora supposedly share the same kind of conscience, since they are both women, Mrs. Linde goes with Krogstad because she desires the traditional duties of a woman (she says, "There's no pleasure in working only for yourself. Nils, give me somebody and something to work for" (pg. 1720), which might make someone like Nora cringe, because she is basically pleading to become submissive) while Nora leaves Torvald to escape those traditional duties (she finds her duty to herself to be just as important as those traditional duties, which might confuse someone like Mrs. Linde). Despite supposedly sharing the same kind of conscience, the two of them take completely opposite paths.
I still think that Ibsen's idea can hold more truth in it if it were more generalized: if men and women "do not understand each other" became "people do not understand each other." Men might not be able to understand men, and women might not be able to understand women. As human beings, we tend to judge others based on our own values and ideas. Isn't that basically what's happening in the play? Nora thinks Torvald to be one thing and is shocked to find that he is something else entirely- a stranger. Torvald thinks Nora to be pleased with her role as a mother and wife but never imagines that she might not be completely content with her life. Nora considers Dr. Rank to be one of her best friends who she can confide in but is surprised to learn that Dr. Rank thinks she loves him, and that he loves her back. These people aren't just misunderstanding each other because of their gender- they are misunderstanding each other because they are judging others based on themselves as individuals. This interpretation of Ibsen's idea makes it more plausible and possibly more relevant today in a world where we try to soften the traditionally thick and dark line drawn between men and women.
|
|