What Is The Presence Of Masculinity In A Doll's House
Written Assignment on A Doll’s House
In A Doll’s House, Henrik Ibsen showcases how toxic formations of masculinity as well as femininity can birth completely destructive and damaging relationships between men and women. Norway in the 1870s, presumably similar to every culture, was a sexist society that adopted stereotypical gender roles. In the play, the cultural perceptions of economics, food, art, and family, all being superficially tied to gender, contribute to the extinction of a marriage.
Ibsen’s play portrays the marriage between a traditionally masculine businessman who has just been promoted at his job in the bank, and an allegedly helpless housewife. The wife, Nora, is introduced as a “spendthrift” who is accustomed to wasting her husband’s money on unnecessary items like christmas decorations. The language used between Nora and her husband, Torvald …show more content…
while discussing money directly imposes an eerie feeling in the reader and makes it clear that there is something wrong; the excessively compassionate terms of endearment that Torvald uses for Nora such as “my little squirrel” or “little featherhead” (Ibsen, 6) serve to subconsciously embed the desired hierarchy in her mind. One may believe that he does this intentionally. Especially when addressing economics, this language becomes very disturbing as Torvald punishes and awards his wife using money. The most hackneyed role of a husband is to finance the household. Torvald, fully satisfying this duty, immediately considers it the throne of his superiority and expects the suitable treatment from his wife.
During Ibsen’s time, Norway had experienced tremendous economic growth due to increase in efficiency of agriculture, resulting in relatively higher livings provided for the middle class.
Also putting into account the decency of Torvald’s occupation, it is possible to conclude that the Helmer household was in a comfortable financial position at worst. Even so, Torvald conjures the subject of their financial problems solely as a way to justify his control over Nora. “If you spend it all on the housekeeping and any number of unnecessary things, then I merely have to pay up again.” (Ibsen, 8) At the climax of the play, this ownership of this object switches when it is revealed that age Nora has borrowed money from Torvald’s business acquaintance to save her husband’s life. The fact that the supposedly helpless, sweet wife had pulled of such an elaborate scheme destroys Torvald’s ideology and leaves him with nothing to stand on to prove his superiority. Additionally, it shows the reader how a capable and intelligent women can dim herself down completely, to serve to the arrogant emotional needs of her
husband.
Food is by far the most irrational subject of control that Torvald has over Nora. Macaroons are a symbol for the contrast between beauty, a subject of special concern for Torvald, and freewill. There are several instances where it is mentioned that macaroons are banned in the Helmer household by Torvald. It is safe to assume that his reasoning is the inclination to keep his doll - Nora - in perfect shape. As reflected in the character of Torvald, women are often perceived as objects at the service of men’s emotional, sexual, and practical needs. Although it is clear that Nora enjoys macaroons, internalised misogyny leads her to deem it acceptable for her husband to forbid them. Even though she eats them in secret, she acts as if she accepts the rule only to satisfy Torvald’s egotistical need for dominance, infused by his harmful masculinity. The combination of the two people, both trapped in extreme borders of their genders, creates an impossibly painful circumstance, unfortunately representing the majority of marriages at the time.
The reason Nora is so accustomed to sexist, demeaning behaviour is uncovered on page 77, when she explains that her father was the exact same way Torvald is, making a reference to the Dutch family structure; “he told me his opinions about everything, and so I had the same opinions… he called me his doll-child, and he played with me just as I used to play with my dolls.” Parental relationships form the basis of a child’s perception of romantic relationships. Whether it is the way a father treats a mother or the daughter herself, the daughter will accept that attitude as the standard for a male-female relationship. This is why Nora has no trouble tolerating Torvald’s controlling, supremistic demeanor. After grasping the concept of this chain reaction, it is impossible to ignore the future effects of Nora leaving on the Helmer children. At the end of the play, their mother leaves them with the man that has aspired to completely wreck her individuality. Considering the children's future, they will also most likely receive the same subliminally demeaning treatment which will then leave them inclined to pick a partner of the same destructive values, and the chain will continue. On the other hand, since divorce was such an unusual routine at the time of Ibsen, the children may still have a chance to reflect and devise different views. The ending of the play was written to have a shocking affect because in every culture, the prime duty of a woman is to birth and raise children. Thus the fact that a woman chooses her independence over her motherly duties is fully unwarranted. Especially after the writing of the play was leaning towards Nora’s suicide, this unexpected turn of events represents … society offers women an ultimatum demanding the acceptance of certain rules. Nora, desperate
The play acquires an artistic quality with the appearance of the Tarantella, a dance originating from Italy. The dance is a topic of curiosity, with its urban legend; it says that women bit by a poisonous spider used to dance crazily in intoxication until the venom wore away. The original dance was vigorous and violent while the later adaptation of the dance was more delicate, aimed more towards entertainment. Nora epitomises this alternating dance. The original is her true self that has been hidden away a long time ago, the new version is the mask she has sealed on from the pressure of her husband and the rest of society. The clash of these two identities meets the audience’s eyes in the scene where she is practicing the dance with Torvald. While he is directing her to perform, as they always have, in the adapted form, Nora loses herself in the music and goes wild. She starts moving and twirling uncontrollably, alluding to the original form of the dance, while Torvald tries desperately to contain her; “Slower, slower!”. The fact that Nora probably learned the dance in the adapted way - “Torvald wants me to dance the Tarantella that I learned at Capri.” - shows that the ardent rage emerged out of her impulsively, like her intuitive was trying to send her as well as everyone else a message, that the fire inside her had not burnt out yet.
Following the message, Nora leaves, completely destroying the ideologies of femininity versus masculinity. A Doll’s House not only showcases the raw and realistic examples of the harm that severe gender roles can have on a relationship, but also how it can drive a woman to freedom. The play illustrates the two ways a toxic situation like the one of the Helmers can go.
In A Doll’s House, Henrik Ibsen showcases how toxic formations of masculinity as well as femininity can birth completely destructive and damaging relationships between men and women. Norway in the 1870s, presumably similar to every culture, was a sexist society that adopted stereotypical gender roles. In the play, the cultural perceptions of economics, food, art, and family, all being superficially tied to gender, contribute to the extinction of a marriage.
Ibsen’s play portrays the marriage between a traditionally masculine businessman who has just been promoted at his job in the bank, and an allegedly helpless housewife. The wife, Nora, is introduced as a “spendthrift” who is accustomed to wasting her husband’s money on unnecessary items like christmas decorations. The language used between Nora and her husband, Torvald …show more content…
while discussing money directly imposes an eerie feeling in the reader and makes it clear that there is something wrong; the excessively compassionate terms of endearment that Torvald uses for Nora such as “my little squirrel” or “little featherhead” (Ibsen, 6) serve to subconsciously embed the desired hierarchy in her mind. One may believe that he does this intentionally. Especially when addressing economics, this language becomes very disturbing as Torvald punishes and awards his wife using money. The most hackneyed role of a husband is to finance the household. Torvald, fully satisfying this duty, immediately considers it the throne of his superiority and expects the suitable treatment from his wife.
During Ibsen’s time, Norway had experienced tremendous economic growth due to increase in efficiency of agriculture, resulting in relatively higher livings provided for the middle class.
Also putting into account the decency of Torvald’s occupation, it is possible to conclude that the Helmer household was in a comfortable financial position at worst. Even so, Torvald conjures the subject of their financial problems solely as a way to justify his control over Nora. “If you spend it all on the housekeeping and any number of unnecessary things, then I merely have to pay up again.” (Ibsen, 8) At the climax of the play, this ownership of this object switches when it is revealed that age Nora has borrowed money from Torvald’s business acquaintance to save her husband’s life. The fact that the supposedly helpless, sweet wife had pulled of such an elaborate scheme destroys Torvald’s ideology and leaves him with nothing to stand on to prove his superiority. Additionally, it shows the reader how a capable and intelligent women can dim herself down completely, to serve to the arrogant emotional needs of her
husband.
Food is by far the most irrational subject of control that Torvald has over Nora. Macaroons are a symbol for the contrast between beauty, a subject of special concern for Torvald, and freewill. There are several instances where it is mentioned that macaroons are banned in the Helmer household by Torvald. It is safe to assume that his reasoning is the inclination to keep his doll - Nora - in perfect shape. As reflected in the character of Torvald, women are often perceived as objects at the service of men’s emotional, sexual, and practical needs. Although it is clear that Nora enjoys macaroons, internalised misogyny leads her to deem it acceptable for her husband to forbid them. Even though she eats them in secret, she acts as if she accepts the rule only to satisfy Torvald’s egotistical need for dominance, infused by his harmful masculinity. The combination of the two people, both trapped in extreme borders of their genders, creates an impossibly painful circumstance, unfortunately representing the majority of marriages at the time.
The reason Nora is so accustomed to sexist, demeaning behaviour is uncovered on page 77, when she explains that her father was the exact same way Torvald is, making a reference to the Dutch family structure; “he told me his opinions about everything, and so I had the same opinions… he called me his doll-child, and he played with me just as I used to play with my dolls.” Parental relationships form the basis of a child’s perception of romantic relationships. Whether it is the way a father treats a mother or the daughter herself, the daughter will accept that attitude as the standard for a male-female relationship. This is why Nora has no trouble tolerating Torvald’s controlling, supremistic demeanor. After grasping the concept of this chain reaction, it is impossible to ignore the future effects of Nora leaving on the Helmer children. At the end of the play, their mother leaves them with the man that has aspired to completely wreck her individuality. Considering the children's future, they will also most likely receive the same subliminally demeaning treatment which will then leave them inclined to pick a partner of the same destructive values, and the chain will continue. On the other hand, since divorce was such an unusual routine at the time of Ibsen, the children may still have a chance to reflect and devise different views. The ending of the play was written to have a shocking affect because in every culture, the prime duty of a woman is to birth and raise children. Thus the fact that a woman chooses her independence over her motherly duties is fully unwarranted. Especially after the writing of the play was leaning towards Nora’s suicide, this unexpected turn of events represents … society offers women an ultimatum demanding the acceptance of certain rules. Nora, desperate
The play acquires an artistic quality with the appearance of the Tarantella, a dance originating from Italy. The dance is a topic of curiosity, with its urban legend; it says that women bit by a poisonous spider used to dance crazily in intoxication until the venom wore away. The original dance was vigorous and violent while the later adaptation of the dance was more delicate, aimed more towards entertainment. Nora epitomises this alternating dance. The original is her true self that has been hidden away a long time ago, the new version is the mask she has sealed on from the pressure of her husband and the rest of society. The clash of these two identities meets the audience’s eyes in the scene where she is practicing the dance with Torvald. While he is directing her to perform, as they always have, in the adapted form, Nora loses herself in the music and goes wild. She starts moving and twirling uncontrollably, alluding to the original form of the dance, while Torvald tries desperately to contain her; “Slower, slower!”. The fact that Nora probably learned the dance in the adapted way - “Torvald wants me to dance the Tarantella that I learned at Capri.” - shows that the ardent rage emerged out of her impulsively, like her intuitive was trying to send her as well as everyone else a message, that the fire inside her had not burnt out yet.
Following the message, Nora leaves, completely destroying the ideologies of femininity versus masculinity. A Doll’s House not only showcases the raw and realistic examples of the harm that severe gender roles can have on a relationship, but also how it can drive a woman to freedom. The play illustrates the two ways a toxic situation like the one of the Helmers can go.