Category: A Doll’s House

In 1879, Henrik Ibsens masterpiece A Dolls House was published. It is about a central figure Norwegian family in the middle ages. Torvald Helmer works as a provider, whereas Nora Helmer babysits to raise the children and property. As the piece unfolds, it becomes clear that Noras marriage is seriously problematic and not as robust as she assumed (Akter 79). Womens only duty in the 1800s was cooking, cleaning, and raising children. It was deemed indecent and unthinkable to do any other thing else. In 1879, Henrik Ibsen chose to go against the trend and wrote a musical about an average, mild-mannered woman who grows dissatisfied and unappeased with her condescending husband and leaves her fate in his hands. Through the masked ball, the phrase doll, the croissants, and Dr. Rank, Ibsen utilizes symbols to express the overarching issue of gender.

In modern society, women are anticipated to be male supporters. Nora, the central protagonist, has been living in a world that she considers fortunate, but she has been oblivious to the fact that she has tasks to fulfill. The masquerade event represents Noras attempt to conceal her actual personality from her spouse, Torvald. The objective of a private event is to disguise oneself, thus becoming someone like oneself by wearing a costume. When Nora is in Torvalds presence, she acts infantile, naive, and childish, which is common among women in the current era. When Torvald chastises Nora for spending more money, she demonstrates this. Torvald ultimately gives in and offers Nora additional money, to which she enthusiastically exclaims as a toddler might. When she speaks to Dr. Rank and Mrs. Linde, though, she exhibits her actual intelligence and experience.

Work Cited

Akter, Saima. Re-reading Henrik Ibsens A Dolls House: A Modern Feminist Perspective. International Journal of English and Comparative Literary Studies, no. 2.3, 2021, pp. 79-87. Web.

A Dolls House by Henrik Ibsen is one of the most influential plays of Victorian times which not only opened new dimensions to the English Drama but also left an indelible impact on the future writers and dramatists at large. The theme of the play seems to revolt against the prevailing social norms, values, and conventions related to domestic life where men and women act and react as spouses according to the customs of Victorian times. All the Victorian writers, poets, and novelists depicted a traditional state of affairs where a woman used to be the symbol of exemplary sacrifice, unabated love for the members of the family, and unconditional adoration for her home. The plays were written by Jane Austen, George Eliot, the Bronte sisters, Dickens, Thackeray and others reveal the generosity and compassion of women in a sublime and stunning way. Especially, Eliots Maggie Tulliver sacrificed her life in order to save her brother who had turned her out of the house and had announced her banishment at her estate. But Ibsen has portrayed a new picture of the woman of his times. He has shown how a complying and loving wife can stand up against the humiliating attitude of her husband by costing her own comforts and breaking the strong ties of long-term matrimonial life as well as ignoring her responsibilities as a mother of three children for the sake of her prestige and ego.

The nineteenth-century woman, not only in England or Europe but also all over the globe at large, maintained great attachment with her home and could seldom think of part with it in life. There was no concept of raising a voice in favor of her rights and against the male dominance and exploitation of the delicate sex. During and before the Victorian age, there was no concept of feminism either in literature or in society and Ibsens play served as the first step towards this direction which inspired women to organize in a systematic way to combat the challenges of unequal opportunities of growth against male dominating social set up. The story of the play A Dolls House is an extremely controversial one that narrates the tale of Nora and Torvald Helmer, who is leading a happy and satisfied life in the company of one another. Since Nora has got a forgery in a bank document through Krogstad, his financial career is in serious jeopardy. Nora does not want to disclose that the forgery has been made to save Torvalds life; she makes lame excuses to save Krogstads skin and career. On finding his professional life at stake, Krogstad drops a letter in Torvalds mailbox, which he reads though Nora has tried to evade it many times. The letter irritates him too much to tolerate and he rebukes his wife declaring her a liar and dishonest. Meanwhile, Krogstads second note by the suggestion of Kristine, he revises his decision and expresses his apologies to Nora, who in return refuses to accept his apologies and announces to leave the dolls house where she serves as mere a toy. It is the turning point of the play which provides the women with the courage to perform something great to evade the humiliating behavior of husbands and other male individuals of society. The idea of the feminist perspective is also the outcome of the story and theme of the Dolls House. Social groups have been divided into different classes in respect of socio-economic status, different occupations, and professions, age, gender, and religion. Social inequalities are found in all fields of life and in all the institutions prevailing in a society. In this pretext, the Feminist perspective theory came into existence. The idea of division of labor on the basis of gender gave birth to feminism. It was a strong voice against the inequalities between men and women in respect of social status, division of power as well as work and gender discrimination.

Feminists characterize women as alienated especially in capitalism, though radical feminists state alienation exists in all economic systems existing in the contemporary world. Women in different parts of the world, whether developing or developed, contain a rich and long-term history of struggle against male domination and exploitation. They have strived in an organized way, on their own behalf against exploitation and diminishing circumstances. In the nineteenth century, women writers, novelists, and poets were discouraged while producing their works. Even, Mary Evans Ann had to name her George Eliot to hide and conceal her feminine identity. Though Victorian literature contained the works of female writers, the atmosphere was not appreciable at all. The share of women in social construction was not acknowledged, and they were stated as mere submissive and complying creatures, although they worked in fields, in hospitals, teaching institutes, and other professions. Ibsens works A Dolls House influenced in mobilizing women movements a lot at a moment when the male domination was oppressive and tyrannical. At first, Elizabeth Stanton in the 19^th century and Emma Goldman at the beginning of the 20^th century raised her voice in the United States for womens rights. Other feminist theorists including Patricia Hill Collins and others launched a campaign for their rights in the latter half of the 20^th century and demanded that women too should have been the same rights as had been delegated to men. Eisenstein has described the radical feminist theory in these words: Historically, radical feminism started with the assumption that the sexes are adversarially poised, that men have power over women and that society and its various social relationships can be best understood in terms of their relationship to that situation (Eisenstein 1983). All such facts have also been revealed while portraying Noras character and her sympathies to save her ailing husband, who on his convalescence declares his wife guilty of committing a crime and exercising dishonesty. The play urged the womenfolk to break the shackles of the tyrannical behavior of men towards them and lead an isolated life rather than becoming prey to their prejudiced and unjust behavior.

Introduction

Henrik Ibsens play, A Dolls House (1879) is mostly remembered for its heroine, Nora, slamming the door behind her as she abandons her husband and children to find herself. In this essay, however, Nora will be regarded as a secondary character because she reacts to people more than she acts on them. Her husband, lawyer Torvald Helmer, is at the heart of this play; it is his principled behavior that creates all the problems, and those principles are his fathers legacy. In other words, if the play has a message  which Ibsen denied, saying he was a poet, not a social philosopher (Finney 90)  it is not feminist or anti-marriage but anti-patriarchal. Torvald, like Dr. Rank, is paying the penalty for another mans sin, and in every single family, in one way or another, some such inexorable retribution is being exacted, says Rank (II, 39). In Torvalds case, says one of Ibsens earliest translators and reviewers, Mrs. Henrietta Lord, his patriarchal legacy has loaded him down with conventional prejudices, especially where women are concerned &. In the Helmer family the retribution is more abstract than Ranks but, as will be shown, just as inexorable.

Analysis

From the start of the play it is clear that Nora and Torvald love each other but also that they are living a lie. Torvald speaks to his wife as though she is a child, calling her his little lark, little spendthrift, little squirrel and little featherbrain (I, 3-4) while she plays up to him, cajoling him in her role as his child to get more money from him. She wheedles and fibs, and it seems that money is her greatest passion. When Torvald forbids her to borrow money on the grounds that he might be killed by a falling tile, Nora answers that she would not care then whether she owed money or not. In this seemingly insignificant part of their light-hearted conversation, Nora lowers her guard for a moment to express her belief that unconditional love is above the law, along with the idea that society cannot be so heartless as to convict anyone for wrongdoing if that was done for the sake of love for another. Her lawyer husband dismisses that as a womans notion. The façade is quickly put back in place when Torvald takes out his purse to give his little squirrel extra money for her Christmas budget, and she resumes her seemingly relentless quest for more money. Noras behavior is not prompted by greed but by a real need but Torvald fails to see that, saying that Its a sweet little spendthrift, but she uses up a deal of money. Nora plays along, saying he has no idea what expenses we skylarks and squirrels have (I, 6). Torvald puts her inability to handle money down to her fathers irresponsibility, a trait which he thinks is in her blood. Torvald knows nothing about her father except that his reputation as a public official was not above suspicion (II, 36) and for him that is all anyone needs to know. In all matters, Torvalds ideas prevail because, as Nora later confesses, when I was at home with papa, he told me his opinion about everything, and so I had the same opinions; and if I differed from him I concealed the fact, because he would not have liked it (III, 66).

Her patriarchal inheritance, however, is problematic largely because her husband uses it to berate and criticize her. In the course of the first act it becomes clear that Nora may once have been a spendthrift but that for the past six years or so she has managed the household budget so well that she has been able to pay off much of the principal and interest on a substantial loan. Nora apparently spent three weeks before the previous Christmas making decorations only to have the cat tear them up. This is an unlikely story for anyone but Torvald, and later she reveals (though not to him) she was actually copying documents to make extra money. The little lies she tells him indicate she is capable of big lies, too, but her motives are pure: she lies to her husband as though he is a child who must be protected from the awful truth. As a result of Torvalds inability to cope with that truth, she has had to bear her secret all by herself. That has weighed on her conscience so much that she can hardly wait to confide in Christine Linde, an old friend from school with whom she has lost contact but who appears at the door that night for the first time in nine or ten years. Within minutes of her old friends arrival she tells her that at the end of the first year of the Helmers marriage, Torvald became seriously ill due to overwork. Nora borrowed a large sum of money to take him to Italy for a year on the advice of her doctor, thereby saving his life. She explains to Christine that she used all her resources to persuade Torvald to live in the south for a year, asking him to do so as a favor to her, then using tears and entreaties, asking him to be kind and indulgent to her without success. When she suggested borrowing the money needed for the journey, Torvald became angry and said that it was his duty as my husband not to indulge me in my whims and caprices (I, 14). At that point Nora decided her husband had to be saved in spite of his principles, and borrowed the money from Nils Krogstad since, as a woman, she could not borrow money from a reputable source without her husbands consent. If she had told him afterward, she tells Christine, it would have been painful and humiliating for Torvald, with his manly independence, to know he was indebted to her. It would upset our mutual relations altogether; our beautiful happy home would no longer be what it is now (I, 14), she says. In other words, Nora understands that her husbands ego is brittle, and that it must be protected against all shocks or he might not recover.

Christine has come to visit Nora to ask her for help in getting a job at Torvalds bank. She has taken care of her bed-ridden mother and younger brothers by entering into a loveless marriage to a wealthy man. He died without leaving her anything, so that the last three years she has worked without a break. Now that her mother is dead and her brothers are independent, she has nothing to live for except work. Nora promises she will find a way to persuade her husband, again showing that a direct, honest approach is out of the question; she must be very clever and find something that pleases him, which is how she used to get her way with her father. She has the advantage of being beautiful, a fact she acknowledges with surprising objectivity, aware that her looks have given her an advantage when it comes to making her husband do her bidding. Once her looks have gone, she tells her friend, and when her husband is no longer interested in her dancing and dressing-up, then perhaps she will tell him her great secret because then it may be a good thing to have something in reserve (I, 14). What she does not realize until later is that she and her husband cannot communicate, they can only manipulate one another, she with her looks and wiles, he with his money, because they have accepted their conventional roles.

It is true that Torvald enjoys his wifes dancing and dressing-up. Just as he likes to refer to her as a bird or squirrel and even an it, he likes to cast her in roles that make her more exotic and alluring. She knows that Torvald becomes excited and amorous when she dances the Tarantella for him, a dance she learned in Capri. Nora takes full advantage of that, not only to please him or to get her way, but also to ease her anxiety. The Tarantella, Gail Finney explains, is an important symbol in the play because the dance traditionally provided Italian women with a form of hysterical catharsis, permitting women to escape temporarily from marriage and motherhood into a free, lawless world of music and uninhibited movement (98). The more desperate Noras situation becomes, the more of herself she puts into the dance. This shows how repressive her marriage is, even as it suggests that deep down she is a little skylark, one who longs to soar but instead must spend every waking moment finding ways to get around Torvalds inflexible ideas and principles. Christine, who witnesses the dance, sees at once that Nora is dancing as if her life depended on it, an accurate judgment since Nora has come to see her life as one long Tarantella that will soon be over. Torvald says that her dancing is sheer madness, but what he means is that his wife has forgotten everything he taught her (II, 50). There are dramas going on all around him  his best friend, Dr. Rank is in love with his wife and is also close to death; Christine and Krogstad were once in love and are on the point of reuniting; his wife is a nervous wreck; but all Torvald can think about is his role in the house as its lord and master. Anything that is out of order is seen as an implicit criticism of him as a man, which is why her impassioned dance angers him. Nora knows how to mollify him. She immediately asks him to coach her, a request that pleases him so much that he agrees not to check the mailbox for Krogstads letter.

Ironically, Torvald believes that every man who has gone to the bad early in life had a deceitful mother, the only mention of maternal legacy in the play. Yet Torvald gives Krogstad as an example of a deceitful man who could have the same effect on his children. This Krogstad, now, has been persistently poisoning his own children with lies and dissimulation (I, 29), he tells Nora, failing to notice that he has thrown his wife into a panic. Nora wonders if she, also a forger, is doing the same to her three children, a doubt that ends in a conviction of her unworthiness as a mother (Downs 129). She begins to think of committing suicide as a way of taking all the blame on herself, thereby protecting her husband and children from the crime she has committed. This is the greatest difference between Nora and Torvald: she is quick to see herself as being in the wrong, whereas he never doubts the principles by which he lives.

Torvalds character is conventional in every respect, says Brian Downs. Outside business hours, there is nothing to distinguish him from the run of ordinary professional men, if it were not for a touch of perversity in his amatory constitution (112). It is this touch of perversity that has given Nora some sway over him, although not as much as she thinks. When she asks for too much or when she slips up and makes an honest statement, Torvalds reaction is swift and harsh. In the first instance, Noras repeated request that he keep Krogstad on at the bank, even though she puts it as childishly and prettily as she can, earns her a sharp reprimand; and when she calls him narrow-minded (II, 37) he gets so angry that he immediately sends the letter dismissing Krogstad. However, when he finally reads Krogstads letter which reveals Noras secret, he complete loses his self-control, thereby revealing a side of himself that had up until then been concealed by his manly restraint. Suddenly she sees before her a man afraid that his life is about to be destroyed. When she says she forged the document because she loved him more than anything else in the world, he dismisses her explanation as a silly excuse. He blames her father, he blames his own kindness toward him and his willingness to overlook the flaws in her background, He is so angry and self-piteous that he does not care that she is offering to commit suicide. That will not help him, he says. The only solution is to pretend to the world that everything is normal but he will not permit her to raise his children (III, 63). Yet when Krogstad returns the bond, prompted by Christine, Torvald immediately forgives his wife. In fact, he turns her into a bird again and promises to shelter her under his broad wings. In the speech that follows, Torvald reveals the true nature of his inherited ideology, the one passed on from father to son for generations: the Christian ideal of the husband who is to his wife as Christ is to His flock:

You have no idea what a true mans heart is like, Nora. There is something so indescribably sweet and satisfying, to a man, in the knowledge that he has forgiven his wifeforgiven her freely, and with all his heart. It seems as if that had made her, as it were, doubly his own; he has given her a new life, so to speak; and she has in a way become both wife and child to him. So you shall be for me after this, my little scared, helpless darling. Have no anxiety about anything, Nora; only be frank and open with me, and I will serve as will and conscience both to you. (III, 65)

As usual, Torvald is moved by his own eloquence, but not Nora. Her face is cold and set, she expresses herself tersely and directly, explaining that in eight years of marriage they have never had a serious conversation. He treated her as a doll, just as her father had, and as a result she has never achieved anything. That time is over. She tells him she does not love him because he is not the man she thought he was. He reminds her of her sacred duties as a wife and a mother but to her that is bookish talk. The main point she makes, as Mrs. Lord says, is that Torvald gives her everything but his confidence; not because he has anything to conceal, but because she is a woman. The ideal marriage, says Mrs. Lord, is to make each human personality free. &. the poets work tells us, until the relation between man and woman turns in this direction, the relation is not yet Love. That is what Nora means when she tells Torvald that the only way their marriage could be saved would be to turn it into real wedlock; but even then Torvald misunderstands her because the concept of equality in marriage is one that his father scorned and which, therefore, he must reject.

Torvald is a good man or else Nora would never have considered herself in love with him, and he is a hard worker and competent or he would not have been elevated to bank manager. However, he was raised with a set of prejudices regarding manliness, honor, social standing and femininity that have turned him into a domestic dictator. The value of A Dolls House as a social criticism, as distinct from a work of art, is that it holds Torvald up before the world to show what a pathetic and fearful creation of his father he really is. On the surface Torvalds life is a success story but the beautiful happy home and the mutual relations, in Noras phrase, turn out to be all Noras doing. He seems to realize by the end of the play that by losing her he has lost everything. Whether he will ever see that his fathers beliefs are not just outdated but inhuman, will probably depend on an outside intervention. Just as Christine opened up new possibilities to Nora, so perhaps her marriage with Krogstad can teach Torvald about redemption.

Works Cited

Downs, Brian W. A Study of Six Plays by Ibsen. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1950.

Finney, Gail. Ibsen and Feminism. The Cambridge Companion to Ibsen. Ed. James McFarlane. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1994.

Ibsen, Henrik. A Dolls House. Trans. R. Farquaharson Sharp and Eleanor Marx- Aveling. London: Everymans Library, 1966.

Lord, Henrietta. A Dolls House. 1882. Henrik Ibsen: The Critical Heritage. Egan, Michael, ed. London: Routledge, 1997.

Outline

Introduction: Although Nora is considered the main character of A Dolls House, her husband Torvald Helmer is at the heart of the play. Like Dr. Rank, Torvald is paying for his fathers sins, having inherited all his qualities and ideas, especially his fathers attitude toward women.

2^nd paragraph: Nora and Torvald are living a lie. She has to play along with his amorous banter in order to get what she wants most: money. She interrupts their joking conversation to state that unconditional love puts a person above the law, but when he takes out his purse she quickly resumes her attempt to get more money from him. Her husband believes she inherited her fathers spendthrift ways.

3^rd paragraph: Noras patriarchal inheritance is a problem only because Torvald uses it as a stick to beat her. It turns out she needs the money for a good cause. Torvald needed a years rest in the south or he would die. She tried to persuade him but in vain. Finally she decided to save his life regardless. He can never know about the borrowed money because it would unman him.

4^th paragraph: Christine asks for help in getting a job at Torvalds bank. Nora says she will use her wiles to persuade him, as she has always has done, not just with her husband but also with her father.

5^th paragraph: Torvald likes his wife to take on different roles, including the fishwife from Capri, but he doesnt realize she dances the Tarantella not just for him but also to release her anxieties. Christine sees at once that Noras dance is too desperate but Torvald only sees that she has forgotten everything he taught her. Torvald is oblivious to everything going on around him, except what he regards as the product of his labors, which includes his wifes dancing skills. She mollifies him by begging him to coach her.

6^th paragraph: Torvalds theories assign blame for bad people to deceitful mothers, but he uses Krogstad as an example. Nora panics when he says morally corrupt people poison the atmosphere and their children. She considers suicide as a way to taking all the blame for her forgery on herself.

7^th paragraph: Torvalds character is conventional except for a touch of perversity. That gives his wife some influence over him but not as much as she thinks. Torvald sometimes gets angry with her, but he loses all self-control when he reads Krogstads letter, showing a side of himself she has never seen. Later Krogstad sends the incriminating document, at which Torvald forgives his wife at once and expects life to go back to normal. It becomes clear that he sees himself as Jesus Christ in relation to Nora, his Church. In a speech he explains what a true mans hearts is like, encouraging her to throw herself on his mercy. Nora has now see that his love is fallible and at that she stops loving him. She realizes that she is married to a stranger.

Conclusion: Torvald is a good man but he was raised with his fathers prejudices. The shock of Krogstads letters show s what a fearful character he is. When Nora leaves him he has lost everything. His only hope is that he will learn from Christine Linde and Nils Krogstad that love can be a redeeming force.

Literature has always been used to mirror society; thus, the changes that occurred in womens stance can be learned through literary representations. The main characters of all three plays, Nora, Eliza, and Cate, reflect greatly on the similarities in terms of a rigid stance of a woman in a patriarchal society. The interconnections between these three plays represent the role of women and their deprivation of it in different settings.

Since its publication, A Dolls House has been interpreted from various feminist perspectives. The plays characters are shown to allude to the societal framework of gender roles and the ideal female figure. In the framework of society and her husband, the protagonist, Mrs. Nora Helmer, is tied to the shackles of societal conventions and standards in a dollhouse erected by her husband. She later develops a process of self-realization and consciousness as a result of several occurrences, after which she defies preset norms and standards  I am a reasonable human being (Ibsen 71). Pygmalion, by the well-known British writer Bernard Shaw, is a representative drama. Pygmalion also depicts the development of women, but with the mans role as God in the process. A lady is shown here as a test subject who is altered and recreated by a man. Blasted, being the creature of Sarah Kane, represents how rape incidents in the modern world reveal, intensify, and perpetuate the maldistribution of power between men and women.

The goal of all three plays is to trace the places of women in the mandated social roles and ideal forms imposed by the social structure of the period. The alteration of womens identities via the passage of varied but effective events in their milieu, where patriarchy functions in full force, is a common thread throughout both plays. Nora from A Dolls House, Eliza from Pygmalion, and Cate from Blasted are altered to gain self-respect and confidence in following their male supervisors. Noras husband (Torvald) and Elizas professor (Higgins) are presented in this role denying the women their rightful place in the family and society. In the case of Cate, her abuser (Ian) not only rejects her place in society, but he also abuses it both physically and verbally.

Nora and Eliza might be viewed as ideal female icons depending on their status as nice or bad women. The idealization of decent women as attractive figures with polite speech and subservient behavior who fulfill their responsibilities to their families and society can be found in both plays. Nora is presented as a decent lady who is constantly attached to the home, moves according to her husbands wishes, and is always willing to sacrifice herself for the family. Eliza is portrayed as a rebellious heroine who exercises her will to some extent throughout her life.

Through characterization, authors attempted to represent the social structure of their day. A Dolls House references girls doll play and how women are seen as dolls and treated like dolls, as Torvalds relationship with Nora demonstrates. In Pygmalion, referring to the old Greek myth of a sculptor carving a statue and bringing her to life, Professor Higgins transforms a rough and unpolished girl with a sad voice (Shaw 6) into a beautiful duchess. Blasted, in its turn, points out the process of rape in its every dimension, intending to blast the person (Kane 34) from the inside.

There are several interconnections between the three women, for example, the fact that they both suffer at the hands of men, albeit in different circumstances and scenarios. All of them are confronted with severe experiences and harsh truths of life and learn from them. This training causes a change in their personalities, and they grow into contemporary independent women who are capable of self-control and have enough self-assurance to function in society. The majority of the topics overlap; however one common thread that runs across plays is womens fight to prove their presence in society.

Works Cited

Ibsen, Henrik. A Dolls House. A&C Black, 2008.

Kane, Sarah. Sarah Kane: Complete Plays: Blasted; Phaedras Love; Cleansed; Crave; 4.48 Psychosis; Skin. A&C Black, 2001.

Shaw, Bernard. Pygmalion: A Play. Denton & White, 1912.

Introduction

It may seem that the role of money in society is higher than morality  while abstract concept limits life, the material situation allows the owner to gain more influence and resources. That is why the phenomenon of money is reflected in fiction: the central themes of two plays, Tartuffe by Moliere and A Dolls House by Henrik Ibsen, explore the problem of the position of money in human life. Both plays are a fantastic example of the fact that finance is just a tool, but how to use it is up to the individual. Thus, the works can be found in the versatility and ambiguity of the authors relationship to finance. This essay aims to discuss the effect of money on society and individual characters in the plays in particular.

Money as a method of influence

On closer reading, it can be seen that one of the two plays central themes is to define money as an instrument of influence. In other words, characters with a higher material status, financial resources, and assets have more power. In Tartuffe, it is shown that the estate owner, Orgon, is a hugely influential person who has a social influence not only on his subordinates but also on his relatives, having the right to forbid his daughter from marrying (Moliere 18). Simultaneously, the reader of A Dolls House sees that Krogstad, who lent to the main character, Nora, has a detrimental effect on the borrower (Ibsen 13). Furthermore, it should be noted that the man began to make specific claims only when he realized the poverty of his position, and, using the power of money, decided to blackmail the wife of the employer.

Money as a source of happiness

It is worth pointing out that the two plays track the storylines that tell about money as an element of the demonstration of happiness and care. The play A Dolls House begins with the fact that even with the familys unstable financial situation, Nora tries to preserve the spirit of Christmas and buys gifts (Ibsen 1). At the same time, she is happy that her husband has received a higher post with a more substantial salary, strengthening a womans sense of security and peace of mind. A little differently, money is used as a tool for emotional attachment in Tartuffe: by bringing home a stranger, Orgon rapidly redirects parts of his savings to him to show the degree of trust and sympathy for his guest. Over time, however, love becomes too much, just like deductions  intoxicated by the guests beliefs, the owner of the house does not even notice family problems (Moliere 10). This subsequently leads to Tartuffes attempt to seize the house and Orgons power, though to no avail.

Money as a guide for choosing a partner

One can notice that in Tartuffe and A Dolls House, money is used as a strategy when choosing a husband for women. Probably, behind the strengthened financial state is a sense of internal security, which can be a factor in the development of sympathy for the richer human. For example, Ibsen writes about Linden, who had a relationship with Krogstad but chose another man because of her greater security (Ibsen 16). Their marriage was childless and barely happy, but the womans life was prosperous. Molieres work focused on the potential marriage of Orgons daughter, Mariana, to Tartuffe (Moliere 19). The couple had nothing in common, and instead, a woman would have been deeply unhappy in such a marriage, but the strengthened status of the man, together with his beliefs and ideas, became crucial to the marriages approval by the father.

Conclusion

To sum up, it is necessary to admit that the approach to money is one-sided and superficially wrong. As demonstrated in the plays Tartuffe and A Dolls House, money can play both a role of pressure and power and a role of a tool for caring and creating a sense of security. In any case, money is a tool, and the critical question is who uses it and how.

Works Cited

Ibsen, Henrik. A Dolls House. 2016, Web.

Moliere. Tartuffe. 2018, Web.

Introduction

There are many different meanings to the concept of feminism in modern literary criticism. The most common definition of feminism is the advocacy of womens rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes (Hannam 7). Operating this definition, the paper will examine Noras character from feminist perspective. Throughout the play, she is presented as Torvalds pet. It is not until the end of the play that Nora decides she wants to live alone. He bribes her with money and makes her do tricks for him. Such an attitude is not the one a feminist would accept. A feminist wants to be treated equally with the opposite sex. Therefore, looking at the latest version of A Dolls House, it is relevant to argue that Nora is a feminist hero.

A Review of the Play

The main character of Henrik Ibsens play A Dolls House, Nora, suffers because of hiding a big secret from her husband. She borrowed money from Nils Krogstad to save her husband who was terribly ill at the time. Torvald (Noras husband) has no clue that Nora was the one who got the money to pay the hospital bills. Torvald has been recently promoted, and he plans to fire Krogstad, who is now his employee. When Krogstad finds out about this intention, he starts blackmailing Nora to make sure he does not get fired. His actions are immoral, but Nora cannot tell her husband about the blackmailing since she herself committed fraud when she signed the agreement with Krogstad. She applied the signature of her father who was already dead at the moment of closing the deal.

In the end, Torvald finds out everything, and he becomes furious with Nora. In this argument, Nora has an epiphany and decides that she needs to be on her own. The woman is deeply disappointed in her husband who accuses her instead of defending her honor. Nora ends up leaving Torvald and her children to discover life on her own and be independent for once in her life. A Dolls House was written at the time when there was much controversy about feminism.

Ibsen wrote many plays during that period that had a big impact in the 20th-century drama. I find this piece particularly interesting because a male writer is writing about feminism, and this could affect how feminism is portrayed. However, research on Ibsen and his other works allows concluding that A Dolls House is not the only controversial piece he wrote.

Current research aims at finding out what makes a feminist hero and whether Nora was one. The authors of some of the articles I have found remark that there are different opinions on what a feminist is. Critics have argued that Nora is not a feminist heroine because she goes back to Torvald in the older version of Ibsens works (Rosenberg 189-190). The critical approach I am using is feminist criticism. This will help me analyze the texts from a feminist point of view and dig deeper into my research. Also, using this theory, I will examine the text from a new perspective and will be able to understand the symbolism of the woman in A Dolls House.

Noras character did not know any other life than the one of being dependent on a man. Her father played a significant role in her life, and then she was passed down to Torvald. If to think about it, Nora did not have a fighting chance, and it was sad seeing her so easily manipulated by her husband. Throughout the play, the course of events and the development of Noras character allow noticing slight changes in the heroines behavior. For instance, she wanted people to believe that she had some sort of power in the house, and she would manipulate stories so she could get what she wanted.

Noras Character in A Dolls House: Suffering and Forgiveness

Forgiveness is one of the most crucial moral issues that are taken into consideration when speaking of interpersonal communication, and the relationship between sexes is not an exception. In her analysis of A Dolls House, Mahaffey defines forgiveness as one of the possible reactions expressed by a victim towards an offender as a resolution to grant absolution rather than to blame (54). Some non-feminists believe that forgiveness is a sign of weakness.

Thus, the question frequently asked in regard to male-female relationships is whether feminists consider forgiving a man as a sign of weakness. In the play, Torvald eventually forgives his wife for what she did. However, he only does so when he realizes that Noras actions were aimed at helping him to save his reputation from being destroyed. It is a quite different kind of forgiveness. Torvald grants Nora pardon when he sees that everything is well again and that there is no danger for him.

Torvalds decision to forgive Nora is followed by his expectation that she will take him back immediately and easily. However, Noras character has evolved so much until that moment that she refuses to accept her husbands suggestion to return to the way of things as they used to be. Hence, Torvalds forgiveness of Nora is close to the perception that the majority of people have (Mahaffey 57).

Torvalds understanding of transgression is the normative one: it is necessary to avoid doing or being wronged since both of these states put the preservation of ones integrity at risk (Mahaffey 57). Torvald is only able to forgive and forget when he sees that his status is out of danger (Mahaffey 58). Such forgiveness implies returning to the past state of affairs and forgetting the conflict. However, this scenario is no longer acceptable for Nora. She realizes how unreliable and cowardly her husband is, and she does not want such a belated excuse.

What is interesting is that in the early version of the play, Nora does not decide to run away. Instead, she forgives Torvald and continues living in her trap of life. (Rosenberg 189-191). In this version, it would be impossible to treat Noras character as a feminist one. She decides to keep being treated like a doll for the rest of her life. The comparison of the two adaptations is what allows speaking about feminism in Noras character. In the final version, she says that she forgives Torvald, but she needs to learn to be on her own (Ibsen 94-95). The woman realizes that she has given up too much for her husband and their marriage (Alexander 387).

She has never had a chance to discover her own identity and has never been treated with respect by her husband (Alexander 387). It seems valid to assume that Nora forgiving Torvald and still choosing to leave him makes her a feminist heroine. It encourages her to become stronger because she can forgive him yet walk away. Most people would not be able to do that.

Nora as a Feminist Character: Idealism and Gender

When considering whether Nora is a feminist or not, it is crucial to analyze idealism as an important feature of the play. The most apparent idealist against whose views Nora has to fight is Torvald. This card-carrying idealist aesthete makes Nora feel so frightened and cornered that she has no other choice but reveal her feminist features and leave him (Moi 257). As Moi remarks, Torvalds idealism and Noras unthinking echoing of it make the characters theatricalize each other and themselves (257).

The most astonishing representation of such theatricalization is that Nora and Torvald act in a variety of idealist scenarios of male rescue and female sacrifice (Moi 257). As Langås remarks, the divergence between male and female genders goes beyond the body and into the soul (150). Thus, the issue of female sacrifice in the play is what makes the audience wonder about Noras gender and her feminist ideas.

The society has a well-established idea of women having to sacrifice something and men having to save them from difficult situations. In Noras case, these two oppositions are represented at different scales. First of all, she indeed made a sacrifice and an unwise thing: she borrowed money using her late fathers signature (a senseless action), and she attempted to save her husbands life (a sacrifice). What is different in this scenario from the well-established public opinion, though, is that the man who was supposed to come to rescue refused to do so.

Monrad, a nineteenth-century literary critic and philosopher, suggests understanding gender as a gift from God and argues that is ties biological differences to social, and the subordinated woman to the superior man (qtd. in Langås 149). In this respect, Nora breaks the established rules due to refusing to be subordinated. However, it is understandable why she makes such a decision. She has been the doll child in the patriarchal world for too long (Ford 156). Now, it is time for her to take care of herself, understand her true possibilities, and defend her rights.

Feminism as a Destructive Force Against Conventional Marriage

Approaches to understanding womens rights to equality differ, depending on females position in the society, marital status, and other factors. When analyzing Noras character as a feminist, some scholars view it from the angle of the destruction of conventional conjugal obedience and respect. Christian remarks that in late Victorian England, A Dolls House served as a destabilizing force that exposed the difficulties of conventional marriage (44).

Ford characterizes the play as the exploration of the issues of social convention (156). However, it seems impossible for Nora to continue living with the husband who treats her with selfishness and brutality (Rosenberg 189). Thus, the revolt of the woman is quite understandable and justified (Rosenberg 189). Still, there exist opinions that a womans place is at her husbands feet, and her will and desires do not deserve to be taken into account.

In the play, the reflection of married life is given through a variety of devices, but the most expressive of them in Noras Tarantella. This play within the play, according to Christian, presents the intersection of theatrical performance and the marriage relationship at its most literal (45). As well as in their marriage, Torvald points out his wifes flaws when she is rehearsing the performance. As well as in their life, he is dictating his opinion to her as the only correct one.

The pressure under which Noras dance is prepared is the embodiment of her whole married life. The only way for the woman to save herself and be rescued from the world of suppression, neglect, and disagreement is to reveal her feminist character and defend herself. Indeed, in the period in which the play was written, Noras choice was considered as unacceptable and radically wrong for a woman and wife. However, when a woman is not treated as equal, she cannot continue putting the marriage in the first place. Thus, Nora has no other choice but break the chains of her conventional marriage, no matter what degree of disapproval her decision may cause.

Nora as a Victim of the Female Gender

One of the plausible explanations why Nora has become a feminist is the description of conditions in which she lived. She has received such attitude both at her fathers home and at her husbands one. Her father used to treat her as a doll-child (Ibsen 89). Upon marrying Torvald, she is being considered almost as a toy (Alexander 386). For many centuries, women have been treated as dependent creatures unable to make their own decisions and not allowed to contradict their fathers or husbands. After many years of such treatment, Nora decides that she cannot stand it any longer.

The core idea of feminism is gender equality, and Noras life was as far from equality as it could be. Thus, she had no other choice than to stand for herself and defend her right to be accepted with respect. As Langås remarks, A Dolls House is not so much about Noras struggle to find herself as a human being as it is about her shocking experience of being treated as a woman (148). Taking into consideration this opinion, it is apparent that the characters motif was feministic and that she had no other option than defend her individuality as a female.

Noras painful growth and maturity reflect the common attitude of men towards women. The relationships between Nora and men depicted in the play serve as the confirmation of the struggle of women at the time (Ford 158). Each of the male characters in the play performs a destructive role in the heroines life. Her husband, Torvald, does not respect her and feels angry instead of grateful when he finds out to what sacrifice she has gone to save his life.

Krogstad, the man who is blackmailing Nora, is terrorizing her, and the relationships between these two characters make Nora look submissive (Ford 158). The role of Noras father in her present situation should not be underestimated, as well. With his attitude to her as to a doll-child, he did nothing good for his daughter (Ibsen 89). She grew up into a woman who could not defend herself and did not know how to be resolute and decisive.

The problems of the main heroine of the play represent the usual difficulties women face because of their gender. Even when a woman is strong enough to speak out, men rarely listen to her arguments. In case with Nora, she does not even know how to express her arguments because she has never been treated as equal. Thus, the victimization of this character due to belonging to female sex is what leads her to becoming a feminist even though initially she did not have such an intention.

Rejecting Feminism in A Dolls House and Counterarguments

Despite a variety of arguments for Nora being a feminist, there exists an opposing view, according to which the play is not about womens rights at all. As Templeton remarks, Noras conflict represents something other than, or something more than, womans (28). Adams argues that the plays real theme has nothing to do with the sexes (qtd. in Templeton 28). Therefore, the play that has frequently been accepted as the proclamation of womens rights movement is not really about women at all (Adams, qtd. in Templeton 28). As Adams mentions, Like Angels, Nora has no sex. Ibsen meant her to be Everyman (qtd. in Templeton 28). However, there are several ideas that should be expressed as a reply to these arguments.

The main reason for not agreeing with Adamss criticism is that Nora cannot possibly have no sex since there are many indications to her femininity and submission in the play. The second counterargument is that it is apparent that Nora is a woman and a feminist because her nature combines so many features that pertain to the weaker sex. Moreover, Noras character reflects the desire to get rid of the oppressing circumstances and become a respected and equal individual living in the society. Finally, it possible to reject antifeminist opinions of the play due to the existence of several versions, which means that even Ibsen paid attention to Nora as a female character and adjusted the play to draw attention to her feminist choices.

Conclusion

The analysis of Henrik Ibsens A Dolls House allows making a conclusion that there are feminist motives in the main characters final choice. Nora is a mother and wife, but she decides that she cannot continue sacrificing her own desires for the sake of her husbands reputation. The problem is much deeper than merely the desire to avoid house chores and mothers responsibilities. The heroine feels too much betrayed and oppressed by the man who was supposed to be her strongest support and defense. She is disappointed by the cowardice of her husband and cannot forgive him for being so unkind towards her. Moreover, she did the immoral act for which he is blaming her, to save his life and not to do or buy something pleasant for herself.

There are several crucial themes raised in A Dolls House: marriage, motherhood, devotion, unfaithfulness, and others. However, the most significant of them all is the theme of a womans struggle to be treated equally with men. Having failed to reach this equality in many years, Nora eventually decides that the best way to gain it is to live by herself. The feminist views of the heroine are apparent: she refuses to be a toy in mens hands, she cannot accept the idea of being humiliated, and she does not agree to live by the rules created for her by the male gender.

Works Cited

Alexander, Peter C. Building a Dolls House: A Feminist Analysis of Marital Debt Dischargeability in Bankruptcy. Villanova Law Review, vol. 48, no. 2, 2003, pp. 381-468.

Christian, Mary. Performing Marriage: A Dolls House and Its Reconstructions in Fin-de-Siècle London. Theatre Survey, vol. 57, no. 1, 2016, pp. 43-62.

Ford, Karen. Social Constraints and Painful Growth in A Dolls House. Screen Education, no. 37, 2004, pp. 156-158.

Hannam, June. Feminism. Routledge, 2014.

Ibsen, Henrik. A Dolls House. Dodo Press, 1923.

Langås, Unni. What Did Nora Do? Thinking Gender with A Dolls House. Ibsen Studies, vol. 5, no. 2, 2005, pp. 148-171.

Mahaffey, Vicki. Portal to Forgiveness: A Tribute to Ibsens Nora. South Central Review, vol. 27, no. 3, 2010, pp. 54-73.

Moi, Toril. First and Foremost a Human Being: Idealism, Theatre, and Gender in A Dolls House. Modern Drama, vol. 49, no. 3, 2006, pp. 256-284.

Rosenberg, Marvin. Ibsen vs. Ibsen or: Two Versions of A Dolls House. Modern Drama, vol. 12, no. 2, 1969, pp. 187-196.

Templeton, Joan. The Doll House Backlash: Criticism, Feminism, and Ibsen. PMLA, vol. 104, no. 1, 1989, pp. 28-40.

The play A Dolls House has several instances of restrictions in life that mainly applied to women who lived in the 1870s. Ibsen demonstrates specific gender roles and tags to his advantage to show the distinction between absolute and conditional love. In his imagination, Ibsen combined with the drama the distinction between the two kinds of love are evaluated and differentiated in relation to the characters in the play who are also ideal of typecasts of the 1870s: the characters in the play express symbolism, foreshadowing, and dynamics.

Some of the characters who are considered to be valuable in the play are Nora and Kristine because they portray the independent and dependent women of the 1870s. Nora is seen to be stereotypical because she seems to be somehow careless with money and this is because in her life she has never worked to earn herself some money. She is also self-indulgent, materialistic, uneducated, and impulsive. Throughout that era, Women were always supposed to be reliant on men.

Nora was a doll to both her father and Torvald as indicated in act III, 1250. She is also considered to be dynamic in that she changed from a little lark that used to do tricks to Torvard to an independent thinking woman who left her husband and children to find herself. On the other hand, Kristine had faced some misfortunes and trials in her life that made her work so as to provide for her family and herself. The sacrifices that she (Kristine) made forced her to realize what it was like in the real world. Through her actions, Kristine is vied to have broken the stereotypical mold that people were seeing women be subservient and docile objects of male attention. However, by the end of the play, she has seen yearning for love security, seen once again in the play when she happened to find herself in the arms of a man.

The two women (Nora and Kristine), who were different did set the stage for men who came into their lives who apparently happen to be different from each other, yet are still alike. Both of them suffer from pessimism. According to the play, Torvald is seen to be the stereotypical man of the 1870s since he has a strong belief that he is the master of the house. According to Sheri Metzger, authority dwells with the establishment and as a lawyer and banker, Torvald undoubtedly represents the establishment. In the play, Nora is viewed to be his Doll after he calls her cute little animal names associated with womens roles in the 1800s. Torvald uses names such as songbird, lark, and spendthrift to show her weaknesses to his strength.

On the other hand, Nils seems to be a distinguishing character when he repeatedly tries to break the stereotypical mold. This is revealed when Nil listens to Kristine and then shows true affection for her. In this circumstance Nils is seen to be the pivotal player, in that without Nils character, the author would have been forced to show accurately the anti-stereotypical man of the 1870s. Still, Nils can be considered to be a dynamic character since he as well changed as the play continued. In the play, Nils went from the clichéd male who took advantage of an uneducated woman, assisting her in committing a felony and not telling her that her acts were highly illegal which led his own livelihood and reputation to be at stake. Nils changed from a blackmailer to someone who helped Nora from her much-encumbered life, to aid him in achieving ultimate freedom from the said life.

While evaluating these relationships, one can see the disparity in conditional and unconditional love; the reader can also see the sleaze of womens rights and the stereotypes portrayed in the play. Since the beginning of the play, there was a forewarning of the ending of Torvald and Noras relationship. It was clearly revealed in Act I, 1207 when Nora is trying to convince Torvald to acquire a loan for the Christmas holidays and Torvald says how like a woman!&from a home thats founded on borrowing and debt (Act I, 1207). Torvald and Nora signify unhappiness, the time-honored, and controlled bond that shows the weakness of conditional love.

This is well seen when Torvald discovers the secret Nora. Torvald was even ready to totally forsake their marriage vows and continue with a life of ruse when he thought that her dishonesty would destroy him, but after reading the last letter from Nils that stated that they have nothing to worry about his thoughts totally changed him to once again be the loving husband. According to (Act III, 1248) when he states; Oh, to have to say this to someone Ive loved so much! indicated that he had changed his thinking on his wifes behavior and it elegantly illustrates his love in the past tense.

On the other side, Dr. Ranks love for Nora is unconditional, and that awful quality indicates best what unrestricted love truly involves. This kind of love also requires enough so as to make it controversial and interesting. This is well revealed when Nora calls him her best and true friend, and also when Rank and Nora play with her silk stockings. Their love for each other is the type of relationship she ought to have had with her spouse. With his ill-judged discussions, nasty conversation, and his medical theories, Dr. Rank can hardly pass. Even at the moment, Dr. He is vital to the play because he seemed to have tried to keep quiet on the affection he had for Nora who happened to be his best friends wife until that time he could not hold it any longer and not pass on with this portion of darkness frozen inside.

The bond between Dr. Rank and Nora, though promising is quite immoral, to some extent akin to what can be felt in the budding of the renewed flame between Nils and Kristine. Kristine and Nils did not rekindle their relationship until the end of the story. The author (Ibsen) has demonstrated their unconditional love in a nearly scientific way. In the play, Kristine tells her reasons for parting with her husband and marrying another man, accepts Nils past, and loves him the way he was. For that reason Niks exonerates her and with that, they get past it to start a life as one and they gained an understanding of love, life, and the search for happiness. They together bring an equivalent share on the table and they have an agreement between them that nobody can put asunder and this is the way unconditional love is ought to be.

The dissimilarities between complete and untested love can be seen all through this play. By concentrating on the characters roles in the play the reader realizes how truly dysfunctional Nora and Torvalds lives are. Torvald and Noras relationship shows how life was like for the women in the 1870s. Nil Kristines relationship was foreseen to be a stable and loving one, one devoid of bitterness. The Doll House story is enduring in that the readers in current times can still relate to the cycles of belittling and mental abuse. Even today women generally link security and happiness with being held in the arms of a man, without knowing or inquiring what valuable dolls lie within.

Work cited

Sheri Metzger, Literary analysis: A Doll House, by Henrik Ibsen.

The Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen created the play A Dolls House in 1879. The plays central theme is the position of women in society; contemporaries perceived the drama as a feminism manifesto. However, the problems of A Dolls House are not limited to the womens issue: it is about the freedom of the human person in general. The plays setting is Nora and Torvalds house in Scandinavia at the beginning of the 20^th century. Three main male characters in the play  Torvald Helmer, Nils Krogstad, and Dr.Rank  in addition to the main motives, have secret fantasies that can be seen in the course of the play. Given the above, each of the main characters lives his private life, and the visible part of it is a kind of screen, a mask behind which it is convenient for them to hide and with which they manipulate other peoples lives.

First, a lawyer, Torvald Helmer, perceives his wife exclusively as an item of lust. Henrik Ibsen sheds light on how Helmer supports sexual fantasies regarding Nora: dressing her as a girl and encouraging the wife to dance for him. To emphasize, Nora is speaking to herself while waiting for her husband:  will do everything I can think of to please you, Torvald! I will sing for you, dance for you. Since Torvald encourages her maidenly and childish behavior, Ibsen implicates an incestuous interrelationship. Nora, in turn, notices that the custody of her father has been replaced by the one of her husband, and the emotional life has not changed.

Secondly, the main antagonist in A Dolls House is Nils Krogstad, and his ulterior motive is to preserve his postion at the bank so that his children do not learn the consequences that a tarnished reputation causes. Krogstad claims: Even money-lenders, hacks, well, a man like me, can have a little of what you call feeling, you know. However, the motives of Torvald and Krogstad differ: the latter will stop at naught, not for his own personal gain, but in the name of the family. Yet, it can be concluded that society made Mrs. Linde end her romance with Krogstad and thereby provoked his misdeed. Although the unjust attitude of society towards Krogstad is not an excuse for his accomplishments, it brings him closer to Nora and, consequently, softens perceiving him as a contemptible personage.

Finally, Dr. Ranks role in A Dolls House is connected to Noras life; she finds relief from Torvalds tedious chatter in communicating with Rank. Throughout the play, Dr.Rank periodically visits the Helmer house and flirts with Nora. Nonetheless, the valid reason for visiting the Helmer house is Dr. Ranks affection for a married woman. Rank announces: Nora&Do you think hes the only one who&? Who wouldnt gladly give his life for your sake.

I swore to myself you would know before I went. Ill never have a better opportunity. Well, Nora! Now you know. And now you know too that you can confide in me as in nobody else. On the one hand, the relationship between the two characters can be perceived as purely spiritual feelings, but Nora also finds herself in awkward circumstances. Literary critics often see the image of Dr.Rank as an icon of the ethical decomposition of society.

To summarize, A Dolls House calls into question the marriages entirety and explores the evolution of self-awareness in characters. The play eventually reproaches all the deceptive values of the modern community, which denies the value of the individual. The author was often criticized for the bold attack against the norms of society, but it is precisely because of this that the play was forward timing and is relevant to date.

Ibsens drama A Dolls House appears to be influential literary work, as it revises and reconsiders traditional male and female roles and reveals the threats underlying gender discrimination. The author definitely portrays courageous and goal-oriented women, who struggle with the challenges of the androcentric society and find their niche in this life. However, one of the classically female behavioral models which Ibsen emphasizes is womens self-sacrifice for the good of significant others. The present paper uses a combination of gender focus and reader-response approaches and argues that in A Dolls House, womens self-sacrifice is viewed as a regular responsibility and thus remains unnoticed by males and receives no gratitude.

First of all, it is necessary to consider Mrs.Lindes fate and the way she acted against her personal interests for the purpose of supporting her family. First of all, as the play reveals, she had a strong romantic relationship with Krogstad, but decided to marry a wealthier man given the necessity of providing for the dependent mother and little brothers: You must not forget that I had a helpless mother and two little brothers. We couldnt wait for you, Nils; your prospects seemed hopeless then. (Ibsen, p.111). Thus, in spite of having strong feelings for her penniless lover, she chose to marry a man who would support her financially in raising her brothers. Marriages, based on mutual love, normally allow a deeper realization of emotions, and the woman consciously rejected this family life, living instead a life, based on marital obligations of spouses. Such life is psychologically difficult, as it is barely possible to reconcile oneself to the lifelong separation from the person the woman is attached to and to assuming spousal duties, which are not reinforced by positive emotions (Embank, p.123; Haugen and Haugen, p.10). However, her moral nobility remains undistinguished by Krogstad, when they meet many years later: That may be so, but you had no right to throw me over for anyone elses sake [&] When I lost you, it was as if all the solid ground went from under my feet. Look at me now  I am a shipwrecked man clinging to a bit of wreckage (Ibsen, p.111). As a representative of the androcentric societys decision makers (men), he fails to identify her sacrifice and doesnt even consider taking her position and trying to understand his interlocutor. Further, as their dialogue progresses, Mrs.Linde notably empathizes with him, while remaining not fully understood, as Krogstad appears to be so self-centered that he seems incapable of talking about anything else except his misery and despair. As one can assume, both of them seem to believe that there was nothing extraordinary in her pattern of neglecting her personal interests, and this act was treated by both as a regular practice.

Furthermore, although the woman worked days and nights for the sake of her brothers after Mr.Linde passed away, she nowadays is a redundant person in their lives and is definitely treated by them much worse as compared to her care of them (Gray, p.43). In fact, after the death of her husband, the woman needed to earn her own and her familys living and thus became a diligent worker: The last three years have seemed like one long working-day, with no rest. Now it is at an end, Nora. My poor mother needs me no more, for she is gone; and the boys do not me either; they have got situations and can shift for themselves (Ibsen, p.20). As one can assume, although she dedicated her life to bringing up her brothers, they are nowadays not interested in her well-being, otherwise, she wouldnt have searched for the job so desperately (Ibsen, p.23). More importantly, Mrs.Linde expects no reciprocal support from her closest relatives and even doesnt consider the possibility of relying upon them in certain issues (e.g. job search), although children are traditionally obligated to look after their aging parents, and Christine definitely replaced her mother for her boys. However, probably due to her shyness, she doesnt dare to ask for their help and thus, the result of her self-sacrifice is loneliness the character is now enduring.

The central act of self-sacrifice in the play is certainly Noras bold effort, undertaken for the purpose of saving her spouses life, associated with years of fear and self-constraint; however, Nora, similarly to Mrs.Linde, is not able to identify the component of sacrifice. When her husband fell ill, doctors recommended that he stayed for some time in Italy or another southern state, but the young family could not afford the trip. In order to provide Torvald with appropriate treatment, Nora borrowed this money, counterfeiting her fathers signature on the contract: I never said I borrowed the money. I may have got it some other way. (Lies back on the sofa).) Perhaps I got it from some other admirer (Ibsen, p.25). As a result, she has lived for years in extremely constraint conditions: Whenever Torvald has given me money for new dresses and such things, I never spent more than half of it; I have always bought the simplest and cheapest things [&] Last winter I was lucky enough to get a lot of copying to do; so I locked myself up and sat writing every evening until quite late at night (Ibsen, p.28). In order to understand Noras situation, it is necessary to construct the image of the late 19^th-century upper-middle-class woman. Due to the fact that they were supposed to fully match their spouses social class, they needed to wear expensive and elegant clothes and accessories, especially in public. Paid work was considered appropriate only for lower-class and peasant females, whereas Nora was prevented from accessing employment (Gray, p.47; Embank, p.126). Thus, the woman consistently threatened her social reputation. Moreover, it is psychologically difficult to keep a secret from a spouse, given that familial relationships are normally based upon mutual respect and trust. Due to the fact that her marriage to Torvald looks idyllic, it is also possible to assume that her secret is a burden, which she would willingly reveal to her spouse (Embank, p.126). However, the fear of hurting Torvalds dignity is much stronger, so she is desperate to keep her past act undiscovered: Deprave my little children? Poison my home? ( A short pause. Then she tosses her head.) Its not true. It cant possibly be true (Ibsen, p.61). In fact, the woman was forced to live years of persistent fear of the revelation of her mischief. Later, as the plot progresses, Nora with no vacillation intends to reveal her secret to Dr.Rank, the familys best friend, thus sacrificing her reputation as the ideal wife (Embank, p.129). This act would have meant the loss of her best friend, but, despite the feeling of shame, Nora tries to ask Dr.Rank for help, but as he confesses that he has loved her for a year, so she decides to avoid giving him the information about her disobedience. Notably, whereas she easily tells Christine about the events, associated with the couples journey to Italy. This means, men are positioned in the play as the dominating group, whereas females are peers, as they all are the victims of Ibsens contemporary androcentric society (Embank, p.129; Gray, p.54). The two women are forced to comply with this societys norms and values, so both Nora and Mrs.Linde interpret Noras attempt to save Torvalds life as imprudence with a successful outcome.

Finally, Torvalds reaction to the information about Noras self-sacrifice is illustrative in terms of the androcentric societys view on females heats. In fact, Torvald recognizes nothing but a violation of social norms in his wifes heroic effort: Now you have destroyed all my happiness. You have ruined all my future. It is horrible to think og! I am in the power of an unscrupulous man; he can do what he likes with me, ask anything he likes of me, give me any orders he pleases  I dare not refuse. And I must sink to such miserable depths because of a thoughtless woman! (Ibsen, p.134). As one can notice, similarly to Krogstad, Torvald focuses primarily on his own loss, which Torvald anticipates as a result of Noras sacrifice. He fails to take into consideration the fact that she took risks and committed a crime in order to save him; and in spite of the lack of financial independence, she managed to pay off the main part of the debt. In Torvalds response, one can find mixed emotions including shame, anger, and panic, but there is no gratitude in his words. Torvald fails to evaluate the depth of Noras devotion to him, which points to the fact that ignoring womens self-sacrifice is a stable practice of the man-led society.

Thus, the analysis of A Dolls House reveals that heroism and fame are associated exceptionally with mens actions, whereas the sacrifices women make despite their inferior social position are not accepted as such or believed to be womens responsibility. As both Christine and Nora employed masculine social patterns and strategies for the sake of their closest people, their acts are treated as misbehavior and the noble motives and great results of their self-sacrifice are silenced by women themselves and ignored by the superior gender.

Works cited

Gray, R. Ibsen, a Dissenting View: A Study of the Last Twelve Plays. CUP Archive, 1980.

Ibsen, H. A Dolls House. Plain Label Books, 1950.

Haugen, E.I. and Haugen, E. Ibsens Drama: Author to Audience. University of Minnesota Press, 1979.

Embank, I. Ibsen and the language of Women. In Women Writing and Writing about Women, edited by Mary Jacobus. Taylor & Francis, 1979. pp. 114-132.

Over time, gender parity and womens roles have changed from conservative views to family set-ups a modern woman would consider patriarchal. Various literary pieces describe how women with a modern worldview challenged traditional gender attitudes and belies including Medea speech by Euripides and the play A Dolls House by Isben. Euripides describes, about a tragedian called Medea who challenged gender ideology in a negative way. Contrastingly the play, A Dolls House is about Nora who implicated gender ideology in a positive way. Although unlike Medea in Euripides speech who objects gender parity in a negative way, Nora undertakes a positive approach of confronting gender cultural norms and beliefs, both are victims of their circumstances.

First, the speech Medea by Euripides details how a woman disputed gender bias resulting in negative outcomes. Men in ancient Athens had the free will to divorce women, subjecting them to insecurity and limited control over their futures. Following the gender bias during ancient Greek, Medea opposed gender inequality by referring to men as the most wretched existence on earth. According to Medea, women have responded to mens ferocious behavior by employing deception and backhanded manipulation, as embodied by her life and history.

Notably, Medea has experienced first-hand divorce and abandonment from Jason, who suffers total emasculation in the plot. In response, Medea murders her children in a horrific manner that triggers surpassing rage and gratuitous cruelty from men. By invoking unnatural violence in her appeal to social justice, Medeas actions motivate elevated masculine exploitation by depicting women as evil beings. Arguably, Medea, who is a protagonist of the play, characterizes a tragic hero who protests gender injustice in a negative way.

In his play A Dolls House, Ibsen demonstrates womens roles during ancient times. The narrative describes that ancient women were prohibited from neither controlling money nor running their businesses. Portrayed as a doll, Nora is entirely submissive to her husband and would save housekeeping offered by Torvald that, in return, allows her to acquire a loan in secret when she needs to save her husband. Nora emerges as a champion for womens plight in a positive way considering she not only sacrifices a lot to maintain her feminine frame in a patriarchal society but also goes overboard to acquire massive debt in secret to save his husband.

Both Medea and Nora are victims of their circumstances and at fault for committed actions. Due to cultural circumstances, Nora and Medea compromise their honor and dignity to uphold the tenets of marriage. However, both are challenged by observing the traditional outlook of marriage. While Medea is opposed to masculine strength and free will, Nora embraces a saving and borrowing habit against cultural norms.

Ultimately, despite the fact that, unlike Medea in Euripides speech, Nora takes a positive approach to confronting gender cultural norms and beliefs, both are victims of their circumstances. Medea is a villain following gender oppression in her society. Conversely, Nora in the play A Dolls House, emerge as a virtues champion of gender equality by willingly allowing belittlement from her husband to align with cultural norms that encouraged men to be providers and women to be housekeepers.