|
|
Post by fionabyrne on Jan 5, 2014 22:33:34 GMT
It makes sense to me that there be some deeply ingrained, natural instinct in men that takes a different form in women. I don't feel, however, like I could have any idea what exactly it is based upon this story. I tried out the idea that men just want things to go smoothly, and that the surface image is more important than any unsavory detail, but that is cruel to say of men and however true it may be for Torvald I know that it is false for so many other men. I cooked up other theories based on evidence from this story but each was very insulting to the nature of man and none held true outside of the story. Ibsen writes,
I believe that anyone who loves another person would be happy to forgive them, but not all would respond in so chauvinistic a way. I can't seem to break the story down in a way that does not make men look bad, and I think it may be because Torvald is a flat character. From the beginning of the play it was clear that Nora had such more depth than his character, and as much as I enjoyed the ending of the final act (I would get a tattoo of the phrase "duties to myself" if it were any less likely to elicit giggles) I cannot use it to discern what the spiritual laws are.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjharris on Jan 5, 2014 23:29:51 GMT
The first part of the quote kind of puts me off. I am disinclined to believe that anyone is unable to understand another human being based off of gender alone. I am more prone to the belief that anyone can think or act however they want regardless of gender. However, there are certain biological palpability such as brain chemistry that would cause different emotions to be more or less present in the population of gender, as well as influence from the society that an individual would grow up in that would tailor men and women's general thinking to be toward one stereotype or another.
Still on the topic of the first half, it shed a sort of light on Ibsen for me. It makes me see he may not have been as forward of a thinker for his time as the twist ending of Nora's revelation would paint him out to be. This part of the quote does not say that he believes one gender role, neither men's nor women's, belongs under the servitude or influence of another but simply that they have their own places to be in. Almost that there is some line between the two that can never in any way be crossed. I do not know if that is exactly what Ibsen thought, nor what he meant in the context of the quote because far be it from me to judge a man and his work based on a two sentence quote without hearing the rest of the conversation or even the thought for that matter. After all, I believe Rachel(‘s father) was right when they said, “humans have a tendency to judge based on incomplete information.”
Like some of my class mates Ibsen’s quote threw me through a loop and caused me to re-think what the end of the play was about. I thought, as a modern reader stained by much exposure to feminist thought and equality speeches, it was about Nora breaking free from the oppressive house hold, representing the society in which she lived, to take charge of her own life and live how she, as an individual and not as a woman, saw fit, “I interpreted the play to mean that men and women are much more similar than society expects them to be” (Steve). That is how I would like to portray the message on a surface glance. But as I read other posts I began to see how if you hypothetically pulled the gender names of pronouns out and just replace them with Spouse A and Spouse B (or whatever you like) the blame would not be on a gender, but on a person for claiming an oppressive hold over their spouse. And in retaliation the other spouse taking that as reason to abandon any chance of their relationship getting better and leaving their children who, with the exception of a brief scene, have been shoved in a side room the whole play, “Ibsen’s quote reveals that… Ibsen’s work is not as feminist as readers like me might think, and in fact portray Nora in a negative light for leaving” (Amy).
This interpretation satisfies the other side of me that wants to examine individual human beings for their actions and thoughts alone, and not for their biological makeup and how people are or have been pre-disposed to believe they should act.
|
|
|
|
Post by cassiecumberland on Jan 5, 2014 23:46:28 GMT
I, too, am troubled by the notion of this quote because even today we have a lot of issues defining the role of the man and the woman. I find that this quote is extremely relevant to the play though.
Today, men are thought of the provider still. Although I know that many women are working and a lot of families rely on female income, in a traditional sense this ideal for women still deems true. Not only is it because of the historical interpretation of gender roles, but also because of the pride of the individual. This means that the notion of women being judged by men's standards is completely relevant today.
The pride of the individual is brought up in the play when Torvald is agitated by what others will think of him in the climax of act 3. This troubled thought within Torvald's head comes down to gender roles and pride-how dare Nora provide for her man! Torvald, however, is a complex character by saying that Nora is ever lovely for saving his life. Torvald has a plus and a minus in this sense but he forgets entirely the fact that these two things can coexist. He is rash and says mean things because he's worried about what others think, but then treats Nora better when he finds out that Krogstad won't be implementing any sort of IOU. It seems that his priorities are out of place. Therefore, this quote is relevant to the play. And certainly.... Plausible? YES!
|
|
alice
New Member
Posts: 30 
|
Post by alice on Jan 6, 2014 0:14:54 GMT
I think this idea is totally plausible since Torvald continually makes statements like, "No, no; only lean on me; I will advise you and direct you. I should not be a man if this womanly helplessness did not just give you a double attractiveness in my eyes" (pg ? I read it online). He's definitely INSTRUCTING Nora what she needs to do as a woman that is "his". Nora seemed to have a better and stronger grip on the type of spiritual laws that her father and husband lived by but the men of the play rarely saw the spiritual laws of the women. This may be this way since the men, taking the position of a sort of doll house manager only see what they create and play out in the world they have built while the women or "dolls" see everything they have been thrown into.
Now moving to the second part of Ibsen's conversation, since they are the controllers (for the most part) men set a sort of precedent that all must follow including women. This is seen when men say women are too emotional. The media, however, has blown these precedents up and they have backfired on males. While women are expected to be demure, quiet, and obedient, men are expected to be strong, borderline mean, and powerful. Unsurprisingly, this does not fit all people from one gender. Whodathunkit? So now in today's society of precedents and boxes people are built in, everyone is judged based on pre-conceived notions and ideas that we trap them with. It is no longer just women that have to fit these ideas, but men as well. Granted the women's "boxes" have been established for a longer amount of time, but we mustn't ignore the other side.
|
|
|
|
Post by gracepark on Jan 6, 2014 2:37:07 GMT
There’s definitely a sense of validity in Ibsen’s statement regarding the contrasting orientations of men and women. It’s always been a rather stereotypical view to categorize females as more oriented towards emotion and care while men lean more towards autonomy and ethical judgment. While females are more concerned with an individual’s emotion, connection, and responsiveness, males have stuck with ideas that resonate with societal judgment and individual power. Of course in today’s society where it seems to be a concoction of both, it’s virtually impossible to decipher which one outweighs the other. But it’s true that these two patterns clash in a variety of ways that reflects Ibsen’s idea of “two kinds of spiritual laws.”
Considering the historical background in which this play was written, it’s a valid hypothesis that somewhat generalized the pattern of society’s view towards gender equality. Beginning from Act I, there wasn’t much effort made by both genders to understand the other’s perspective. And ultimately, in some ways, as readers, we were steered toward viewing some of the females in the play through the eyes of the men’s law. Ibsen definitely makes a point in doing so. But, kind of connecting to the previous post, that was then… so what about now?
Reading through the play the past two weeks and connecting the main themes to today’s culture, I find that we’ve kind of overcome the barrier that separates the two conscious orientations. We’ve head-butted these two different ideas to such an extent that we’re able to see this thin lining that holds the two together. And that is moral behavior and moral judgment. We may look at things and interpret them in different ways but ultimately everything is grounded on moral judgment. Of course the remnants of the two different kinds of laws still exist, but I think at this point in history, we’ve kind of embraced both sides to accept and realize the greater reward that is morality. So to answer the question directly, I’d say yes-and-no. Ibsen’s comment applied then but not so perfectly today. The conscious of women and men do clash and too often are viewed according to the man’s law, yet I think today we’ve discovered an important pattern that can bring together both spiritual laws and both characteristics to yield a distinct approach to moral judgment.
|
|
|
|
Post by danyhong55 on Jan 6, 2014 3:59:07 GMT
Though in modern times I am loathe to say that the spiritual laws that guide women and men are completely separate, I would, for the most part, agree with Ibsen…
Ibsen’s theory implies that women and men, though governed by different sets rules, are judged by one, the men’s. It’s hardly fair to give two people different tasks and expect the same outcome. And yet here we are doing the same. And what I love about Ibsen is the timelessness of his statement. Over a century after he makes his claim, we find ourselves to fall into the same patterns. Society as a whole may have come a long way, but there are still places where this rule setting is more systematic and prominent ever before.
I think that Nora’s storming off when Helmer rebukes her is her ultimately saying that the rules by which she are judged are not fair to her. She is given such little resources so she of course cannot succeed as much as her husband and that’s partially why he is so condescending to her.
|
|
|
|
Post by coreybrown on Jan 6, 2014 3:59:45 GMT
I see the quote as two parted. The first part states that there are two distinct mindsets or morals, one from men and another from women. If we take this to be true, then the second part of the quote is also true in A Doll's House. In this play, we see men (mainly Torvald) judging Women based on their mindset (as if they were men) and deeming them inferior based on that. There are other parts of the play, however, that contradict the assertion that women are judged as if they were men. Instead, they are judged by what men expect of women. Torvald thinks of Nora as his little song-bird, his doll, his possession. He expects her to be docile and follow him in what he does. His perfection is hers. Her ideas don't really matter. In short, she has been objectified from man's perspective which is slightly different (though occurs in parallel with) than the judgement as if they were men.
I'm troubled, however, by the first half of the quote. I'd love to say that there is only one perspective, that the divides are breaking down, but that's not completely the case. Sure strides have been made since the time of this play that have leveled the playing field quite a bit, but many antiquated perceptions still linger. I'm not sure what this means for the validity of the quote in modern times, as I think it still has some (if less) relevance, but I'm hopeful that, at some point, it will no longer ring true.
|
|
|
|
Post by mitralebuhn on Jan 6, 2014 4:13:21 GMT
To begin, I just have to say: Nora, you go girl! Way to have that epiphany of self-awareness! Yes, you go soul search. Okay, as for the prompt: I think it is plausible that women are very different from men, and but I don't believe women are judged to man's law in either real life or "A Doll's House," unless they pose as a threat to a man. If women were judged in the same way of men, the world would appear more equal. As a real-world example, women would be drafted for the military. "A Doll's House" does not support Ibsen's quote, because this story seems to support the idea that women are different from men, but should be treated as less than. Torvald considers his wife his property, horribly noticeable when he says, "It's as though it made her his property in a double sense: he has, as it were, given her a new life, and she comes in a way both his wife and at the same time his child" (1729). For almost all of the story Nora is not judged like a man, and she is not respected as a woman, but is looked at as a tool to boost Torvald's power. But, I think it is important to note that when Torvald discovers Nora's crime he does treat her like a man, shouting and raging with a lack of compassion and understanding for her as a woman, as his wife, and as a person with separate values and ideals. I am all for equality between men and women, but I do believe that they are different and should be treated as so. I think "A Doll's House" does a good job of showing that all people are different and should be respected, mostly through Nora's growth in the last act and her decision to leave and discover her self. Then at the end, when it describes that the miracle of miracles would be for both Torvald and her to change enough that they could have a real marriage, we see this concept of men and women being different and that we do not treat one another as such. I think the healthiest of heterosexual marriages would be where there is an understanding that each person may be very different, and each should be treated based on who they are deep in their core, not from their sex. Men and women are very different, but in the end I think sex can be ignored and what matters is who the person is deep inside, what they like and what hurts them, and they should be judged off of that and only that. And now, a beautiful piece of spoken word that comments on how women are perceived by men and learn to perceive themselves: www.youtube.com/watch?v=kU_k1l2oPuk |
|
|
|
Post by keelycorrigan on Jan 6, 2014 4:21:02 GMT
Oh hell to the yeah! Ibsen comment about the control that the heteronormative cisgendered man has over society is overwhelmingly relevant in today’s society. It manifests itself in our “real life” experiences as it does in the play.
(In my last post I compared this play to a rom-com. How horribly mistaken I was.) This play is such a complex work than it initially appears because of the gender roles at play. We are led to believe that the central issue is that of the loans and lies but really it is a problem with Torvald and Nora’s marriage. Quelle suprise!
So, I definitely feel that Ibsen’s theory is plausible (if not fact-- but my views tend to be a bit radical in that respect) and that it is very, very relevant to modern, twenty first century westernized culture. It is, however, more interesting to use his statement as a lens with which to examine his own play. Despite the validity of Nora’s reasons to take out the loan, she was consistently judged by her husband according to his levels of morality, or whatever, which ironically would have killed him, if he were her. She is held up to his standards, but he never considers hers or her reasoning. He dismisses her out of hand and blames her for the ruination of his sense of value and his reputation even when five seconds before he was holding her and praising her. Wha??? But, in reality, he is not expected to treat her as an equal contributor to the relationship or the household because of the strict gender dynamics of the day. He is the husband, the man, and therefore the brains, money, and controller of the household. She is just his little skylark, his little doll.
|
|
|
|
Post by amysohlberg on Jan 6, 2014 4:24:18 GMT
I agree that woman is "judged in practical life according to the man's law," but I don't think it's as if she "were not a woman but a man." It's easy to see that our society is ruled by men. Men hold powerful, decision-making positions and the foundations of law and government in the United States were developed only by men. As we talked about in class, men are the "heroes" of our society, as you can see by the literature we read in the LOHS curriculum. What I think this means, however, is that men have decided what men should be and what women should be; I don't think they judge women as if they are men. I think men have created an image of "women" that they judge women by, even if it isn't entirely realistic. I see this in A Doll's House, when Torvald invents an image of what he believes his wife should be. He thinks of her as a submissive, pretty little object ("Now my little skylark is speaking reasonably") and judges her by the law that he has created for her. When she tries to express her own opinion about Krogstad, he condemns her for stepping over the boundaries he set for her: "This is simply incredible obstinacy!"
That being said, I'm still struggling with the idea of two opposing spiritual laws, one of women and one of men. Ibsen has a point, and I think that in general, women and men view the world in different ways. I wonder, however, if that's simply the result of men holding power over women for so long. When women's opinions were repressed, did they drift away from the same "spiritual law" of men? I wonder if men and women were made completely equal, whether their worldviews might merge together until they become something like one being. There will always be parts of man's experience that women don't understand and vice versa, but I think that for the most part, these opposing "spiritual laws" could be reconciled. Gender equality is a fairly recent concept, and it will be interesting to see how genders will interact in the future in places like the United States and Sweden.
|
|
|
|
Post by elizabethmeyer on Jan 6, 2014 4:43:53 GMT
While I quite agree with Ibsen that men and women have different kinds of conscience, and they don't [always] understand each other, I also quite object to the last part of that quote about women being judged by men's standards. Oh it's true alright, but I don't like it.
As for the first part; just from my own experiences I think that women and men have very different consciences, but then again everybody has a different conscience. No two people are going to have exactly the same conscience, just like they're not going to look exactly alike, or act exactly alike, or anything else. A conscience is just as individual as anything else. Therefore, of course men and women have different consciences. Now, to specify men having one type of conscience and women having another isn't incorrect, but it's also too specific. If everybody has a different conscience, then how can you organize all those consciences into two categories? I definitely agree that in terms of conscience men often agree with each other and women do the same. But does that mean that there are only two types of conscience? I think my problem here, and why I'm just going in circles, is because in today's world I'd like to think that with social equality would come the coinciding of consciences (try saying that three times fast) and yet it still doesn't. Does it have something to do with "girl toys and boy toys", meaning societal expectations, or is it just something that's ingrained in our heads and always has been, meaning that time and place don't matter? Certainly in Ibsen's day men's consciences saw nothing wrong with belittling women, and women's consciences saw nothing wrong with being housewives. But that's a generalization, and it certainly doesn't apply to all people at this time. In our day and age, however, I'm not sure whether people's consciences are more simplified or not. Since now women do plenty of the same jobs as the men and men do many jobs that women do, and those jobs and roles affect people's consciences, I find myself wondering whether the crossover confuses one's conscience or makes it more straightforward?
As for the second part, now that I've worked myself in more circles than I care to count, I think that women are indeed judged by men's standards in "practical life". On the surface, this could be fine; women being judged by men's standards and men being judged by women's standards. It sounds like it could describe normal society; yes, people do judge each other. But Ibsen only points out that women are judged by "the man's law", and not the other way round. This is why I object to it. Women being judged by "the man's law" is why it took so long for women to get any real rights in this country. "The man's law" told women to be demure and obedient and pretty, instead of being themselves. Nora doesn't know anything about anything because of this "man's law", and when she comes to realize this, the only way that she knows that she'll be able to learn things is to leave behind the man with the "law". She has to be completely free of Torvald in order to be herself, because by living with him she's going to naturally obey his "law", and not be herself. Her whole life she's been ruled by men - either her father or her husband - and she knows without either of them to control her she can come into her own. I think that's a rather forward-thinking frame of mind and a rather brave thing to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by samwerner on Jan 6, 2014 5:18:00 GMT
Not only is Ibsen's idea plausible and relevant to the play, but relevant throughout history. Whether we like it or not, men have always had the power to set the laws and standards for spiritual and moral grounds. Even as society becomes more progressive, and feminism heightens its societal position, it isn't as if Ibsen's idea becomes less applicable. Instead, the men are simply changing, thus making it easier for the women. To some, men are finally 'coming around,' and to others there may simply appear a wholly shift in ideals. It doesn't, however, appear that men and women actually understand each other much better than they did while living in caves. The disconnect isn't fatal, but it nevertheless affects how males and females interact, and has also played a part in creating somewhat of a gender hierarchy, or, as Keely would say, "reinforcing the patriarchy."
One part may be missing from Ibsen's quote. Women have a unique lens just as men do, and reciprocate the judgement through their own eyes. That makes my last argument, about men (whom may be the leaders, but are still being judged just as much as they judge others) that are adapting to more progressive times less relevant because the men might not have the power to change, but are prompted to by women. Therefore, there is a power shift that alters the "old balance," one might call it, of society. Ibsen's idea may only set the stage for a more recognizable dichotomy of spiritual ideals and conscience. In this way, it's important to realize the potential existence of his idea in society, but dangerous to simply accept it. As women's roles continue to expand, both genders need to not only adapt, but begin to make more of a duality in standards from which may stem judgement on a more equal level.
|
|
|
|
Post by carolinedorman on Jan 6, 2014 5:22:27 GMT
Ibsen’s quote definitely rings true for me. The conflict in the story relies heavily on dramatic irony. The plot develops as Nora gets deeper and deeper into her deception. Yet, the deception is complicated. Nora would not have to keep her debt from her husband if he had the same spiritual laws as she. Both Nora and Torvald have a different conscience about what is right and wrong and that essentially creates the conflict in the play. Ibsen writes, “Here is shelter for you; here I will protect you like a hunted dove that I have saved from a hawk’s claws; I will bring peace to your poor beating heart. It will come, little by little, Nora”(Ibsen 111). Torvald thinks he is sheltering and protecting Nora. In reality, he is only cultivating a perfect little doll-like wife and shielding Nora from being herself. Without understanding that Nora and Torvald have two different consciences and spiritual laws, it is easy to hate Torvald without further reasoning. Torvald does not act superior because he wants to oppress women, but because he genuinely believes that is what is right.
The second part of the quote is especially relevant to modern times—“ but the woman is judged in practical life according to the man's law, as if she were not a woman but a man”. I recently watched a TED talk with Sheryl Sandberg where she referenced a study that showed the difference between women and men bosses. If a man is committed to his job, people regard him as hard working and tough. If a woman is committed to her job, however, people regard her as selfish and work obsessed. Society, as a whole, has two distinct views about the acceptable traits of women and the acceptable traits of men.
|
|
|
|
Post by emwolfram on Jan 6, 2014 6:03:49 GMT
I feel as if the quote is saying men and women are inherently different and incapable of understanding these differences. However it also posits that the standards a women must live up to in the world is determined by men. Gender roles exist because we all agree to on some level to adhere to them. Men and women share equal blame in this... or do they?
I feel as if this quote points out that women live confined within the gender expectations created by men. In context of the short story this is relevant because the 19th century had very little social mobility for women. I think "the laws of men" do not mean what men must follow but rather, like Betsey said, the laws created by men for women. Within the story Nora is a sweet little song bird. Nora is so caged by this expected role that when she feels she will bring shame to her husband she contemplates suicide. The men in Nora's life had filled her head with their expectations and left her as lifeless as a china doll. Her decision at the end of the story to defy the "laws" that she had been governed by shows that they were never her creation. I agree with Fiona, this story makes men look really bad, however I see it more as a misguided sort of bad. Not evil or cruel, but still wrong.
The times have changed but this issue has not. Women today are shamed by men and by each other for not living up to the laws of men. Women are looked down upon for choosing a career over children. For not being skinny enough. For being a slut or for being a prude. There are still invisible expectations that define women. The letter that Amy (Chen) shared about what guys look for in women was an excellent example of this. The letter made it sound like being controlled by men was romantic.
"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.
Ladies, in our eyes (a REAL man’s eyes), there is NOTHING more precious than a woman. NOTHING."
I laughed my ass off at the poorly concealed misogyny of those words and pray that no girl thinks being "protected" and "lead" is a sign of love. Torvard in many ways was sweet toward Nora. He probably loved her and saw her as precious. But he did not see her as a person, just a fulfillment of the male ideals of womanhood. This is not real love. It is impossible to be an equal if you are seen as a pet. I had a male adult coach in my life who would make the boys run extra laps but would call the girls sweethearts and let us stretch instead. Is this kindness? Or is this patronizing overprotective attitude towards women the real threat in our lives? It might be time for females to look at their "saviors" and wonder what price they pay for this "protection." Perhaps like Nora we should all break the laws of men so we can no longer be judged by them.
I am really glad we read this story. I learned a lot.
|
|
|
|
Post by yongkim on Jan 6, 2014 6:30:07 GMT
In the 1800s, men were the breadwinners of the family. This provided men with a sense of entitlement, which included the assertion of dominance over the opposite gender. Generally, the women acquiesced in the desires of men. Whether it is the scientific evidence (which Patrick discussed earlier in this post) or the historical influences, I agree with Ibsen in that there is a disparity between the conscience of men and women. Ibsen is correct in saying the conscience of men and women are different, but I disagree when he states that there are only two kinds of spiritual laws. The reason why we do not understand each other's spiritual laws is because we over simplify it, just as Ibsen has in his quote. In a simplified version, there exist two kinds of conscience (men and women); however, numerous distinct spiritual laws exist within the conscience of men and women. We cannot understand all the women in the world simply because we understand one, and the same goes for men. As individuals, we all possess different traits and behaviors, which must be accounted for.
In terms of A Doll's House, I believe Ibsen's idea that women are judged according to man's law is true. In the 19th century, maintaining honor and reputation was imperative, especially for men. If you were in a family, the man's reputation would apply to his wife as well. In the play, there are several instances in which Torvald mentions his reputation, including the heated argument in Act III when he expresses his extreme disappointment in his wife. However, when he asks Nora if she is concerned about what people will think when she leaves him, Nora responds, "That's no concern of mine. All I know is that this is necessary for me" (1731). Torvald attempts to judge his wife based on man's law when he suggests that Nora should be concerned for their reputation. The disregard for her husband's reputation as well as the single concern about her own needs is a new concept during the 1800s. Nora successfully breaks away from the grips of her husband in order to feel like an individual as opposed to a doll. I am in accord with Matt when he says that nowadays women are judged based on man's law because their laws are now the same. With Ibsen's play and the rise of gender equality, both genders are now judged according to human law, not on the laws of their respective genders.
|
|
