|
Post by chrisb on Jan 6, 2014 8:30:17 GMT
Through a philosophical lens, the question posed by Mr. Parris strikes vague resemblance to something we all know and love: Kantian deontological ethical theory. Although Immanuel Kant's philosophy did not pertain to differing consciences between men and women, his dichotomization of societal obligation sheds light on the interaction of spiritual laws in Ibsen's "A Doll's House." Specifically, Kant emphasized the distinction between morality and legality. While we often approach the law as a set of written rules that outlines what is more or less "right," he argues that law and morals fall into opposition more often than they go hand in hand. In application, Kant's theory speaks to the relationship between society and its legal expectations. Laws can be imposed, but no law perfectly reflects or alters the morality of the individual. Morality remains separate and firm.
In truth, very little (if any) of that adds to the discussion on "A Doll's House," but hopefully my paragraph of philosophical drivel at least sounds cool. As I look more intently at Ibsen's work, a few meaningful connections can be made. For one, the conflict between legality and morality is relevant, as Nora chooses to infringe upon the law and fulfill her moral obligation (or so she thinks) to assist her husband when she commits fraud. Furthermore, the outcomes of Kant's philosophy behave just like the outcomes of Ibsen's battling gender consciences in "A Doll's House." After all, Kant argues that no matter how much society or government tries to impose laws as a means of controlling behavior, morality holds its own and remains a separate set of obligations. Much like a governing body propagates legality, Torvald causes Nora to struggle with his imposition of the male conscience. Although most of the story suggests that Nora is entirely subject to this set of spiritual laws, her sudden revival of female law reminds us that, as in the case of Kantian deontological ethical theory, separate spheres of conscience will always prevail in the end.
|
|
|
Post by madisonarmst on Jan 6, 2014 8:44:40 GMT
I am struggling with Isben's idea that women are judged in the same way men are because I don't think it is held up in this story, especially from a reader-response perspective. Because Nora has been oppressed by Torvald because she is a woman and a wife, we as modern day readers sympathize with her decision to leave the stability of her current life and create a life she actually wants to live. We can understand how as a strong woman, she wants to do more than just stay at home and serve her husband. As modern day readers, however, we also find it difficult to sympathize with her in the first two acts of the play because she is so submissive and seems to rely almost entirely on Torvald. But in the final act, we see a shift when Nora tells her husband that she is going to leave him: he begs her not to go and for the first time suggests that he relies heavily on her. This role reversal in the final act is interesting and leads me to the question, if the roles were reversed yet again and Torvald was the one to leave Nora, would we judge him in the same way that we judged Nora?
When Nora left, it was easy to sympathize with her because through out the story, we wanted to see her become stronger and she finally took the first step to becoming it. But as is revealed in the final act, it is clear that Torvald is just as dependent—if not more dependent—on Nora than she is on him. Assuming they are equally dependent on each other, I still cannot say that I would encourage Torvald to leave, as I did for Nora. He would be leaving his family behind, just as Nora did, but as the primary breadwinner, it seems unfair to the family. In terms of the family unit, Nora did not have a significant role, but Torvald clearly does. If he were to leave, he would leave his family in a state of poverty, and as a woman, Nora would likely have a difficult time finding a job. For these reasons, I would not judge Nora and Torvald equally if the roles were reversed. I don't believe Nora was judged as a man would be judged given our modern, feminist bias. Thus, I don't believe Isben's philosophy holds up in this play.
|
|
|
Post by abbylyons on Jan 6, 2014 20:55:44 GMT
Ibsen’s position is absolutely relevant to us today. One issue that is highly relevant in my own life is the general lack of women in STEM fields. Even today, I find that women in STEM are sometimes not taken seriously. It’s true that many women are simply uninterested in technical fields. However, this leads to the general assumption is that women go into STEM fields so they can easily get jobs in industries that lack women, or even just to get accepted into a prestigious college that doesn’t have enough women majoring in STEM only to switch majors later. From the perspective of trying to get accepted into a prestigious college, I found that applying as a computer science major posed a challenge to me: by default, an admissions officer (male or female) would assume that I have no real interest in computer science, simply because I’m a woman. Therefore, I had to prove that I was genuinely interested in the subject, a strategy which ended up working for me. This shows that women are not judged the same way that men are; however, they are judged by a set of standards imposed by society, including the expectation of being more interested in humanities. Often people are dubious when a woman decides to not follow those standards. (By the way, I didn't intend for this to turn into a rant…)
While deciding what to major in in college is probably not a spiritual matter, it is still an important life decision that demonstrates some of the less-than-equal standards that women are held to. I’m sure that men experience the same thing in some aspects of life. But since I’m not a man, I don’t feel qualified to speculate about what those aspects of life may be.
|
|
|
Post by avinash on Jan 6, 2014 20:57:13 GMT
This idea is central to sexism today. There definitely is discrimination towards women in today's society. There is research that shows that men and women are genetically different in significant, identifiable ways. Women though are viewed through a male-dominated lens. This masks the true problem concerning sexism. Nora is viewed through the lens molded by a society that is dominated by males. This affects the reader's expectations of her and perception of her actions.
|
|
|
Post by Anna M. on Jan 8, 2014 4:29:13 GMT
I understand what Ibsen says, but I don't think I agree. The goal is for men and woman to be judged by the same gods. Historically, woman has not been judged "as if she were not a woman but a man". Instead, women have been judged by the laws men thought were appropriate for them. This quote leads me to believe that "A Dolls House" is not a feminist play but more a play for the advancement of all individuals. I'm even more convinced of this from Torvald's final line, "(With sudden hope.) The miracles of miracles...?" (1734) This sign of hope, and also the change we see in Krogstad at the end of the play makes me think that the play is truly about all people being an individuals and being able to improve themselves to become better instead of settling for what is expected of us or for the norm.
While Ibsen states that women and men don't understand each other, I think this can easily be solved by communication. If you don't understand another person then you should talk to them. Also I don't think that you "don't understand" someone for the sole reason of their gender. I don't even understand myself sometimes. Sure, Torvald didn't understand Nora, but neither did Nora for most of the play so you can't really blame that on his gender. And I think that Torvald's hope at the end of the play signifies his better understanding of what Nora really wants and also what he wants.
P.S. sorry about the late post, was struggling with jet lag and couldn't do anything without dozing off.
|
|
|
Post by shannonfender on Jan 20, 2014 5:14:35 GMT
Men and women are fundamentally different. Beyond the obvious anatomical differences, men and women differ in the way they think, act, feel, and respond when confronted by the same situation. I was reading an article about these differences (linked below!), and I think there is a lot we can apply here to A Doll's House. Ibsen believes in the "two kinds of conscience" of men and women, and I believe that this distinction undeniably exists. The fact of the matter is that men and women are physically, emotionally, hormonally, and neurogically different than men...But there is no shame in that!! In the scope of A Doll's House, however, the innate difference between men and women creates an irrepairable gap between Torvald and Nora. Torvald and Nora each play into their own assumed gender role because they use these differences to justify positions of superiority and inferiority. This logic is not only tragic, but also terribly flawed. Just because men and women are wired a bit differently does not mean one is better than the other. To further prove this point, an example from the article depicts a boy and girl working on a math problem together. The caption beneath says, "Their brains may be different, but they'll likely reach the same conclusion". Thus, we can conclude that women are neither better nor worse than men, but it would be fair to say that each gender has their own typical strains of thought. The article is copy and pasted below, so if you have time, you should give it a go! (I didn't intentionally try to make that rhyme, but I'm going to go with it) (Here's the article) science.howstuffworks.com/life/men-women-different-brains1.htm
|
|
|
Post by iyiayeugo on Dec 10, 2019 7:53:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by uxetuvixeuyo on Dec 10, 2019 10:19:48 GMT
|
|