Today’s women would say they would like an equal partnership in a marriage (something), but historically this was not always possible. In 1870’s Norway, Henrick Ibsen A Doll’s House takes place, woman where not allowed decision making privileges or any other equal freedom. Nora, the protagonist showed signs of being independent by taking out a lone, and having side jobs, but yet she cannot even enjoy a cookie without her husband’s approval. In the 1800’s women were considered property to the men in their lives. After marriage, women did not have to right to own property, keep a wage, or sign contracts. They were considered second-class citizens and were expected to restrict their interests to the home and family, and were encouraged not to have a job and a career (National Women’s History Museum). Women had little to no freedom, according to Kelley Smith, “Some even compare the conditions of women in this time to a form of slavery. Women were completely controlled by the men in their …show more content…
She wasn’t allowed to have a job because her husband worked, therefore, she wasn’t in touch with the outside world since all her duties were inside the house. She is expected to do what her father and/or husband tells her to do. Such as to stop spending so much money on things. Nora had a bunch of gifts delivered to her home for Christmas and the kids and her husband, Torvald yells at her and says, “Nora, Nora, how like a woman! No, but seriously, Nora, you know what I think about that. No debts! Never borrow” (Ibsen). He was stating that they can’t spend more than the money that Torvald makes so they don’t have to borrow money from people and no be able to pay them back. Another example of limited freedom and decision making that Nora had, was when she wanted to take out the lone. She wasn’t allowed to take out a loan without her father’s permission or her
American Women in the Late 1800’s Were married American women in the late 1800’s expected to restrict their sphere of interest to the home and the family? In the late 1800’s women were second-class citizens. Women were expected to limit their interest to the home and family. Women were not encouraged to obtain a real education or pursue a professional career. After marriage, women did not have the right to own their own property, keep their own wages, or sign a contract.
Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen was highly criticized for undeniably demonstrating woman’s issues in the 19th century. While the play doesn’t change setting much at all, Ibsen clearly focuses in on the characterization of three insightful characters: Mrs. Linde, Nora, and Helmer. Mrs. Linde is a minor character; however, that doesn’t alter her effect on the play. She provides the mold for the perfect, idealized wife. Nora, the main character, develops rapidly in the play, and her character is a stark contrast to Mrs. Linde.
A single family income has always made budgets tight and being a wife and mother leaves little opportunity for earnings, in fact Nora did tricks and begged her husband for what little money he gave her. While many critics condemn Torvald’s treatment of Nora, in reality he was no different from any other man during this time period. When their finances were minimal he did whatever it took to take care of his family, working day and night almost to the point of death. For that reason, Nora showed her love for Torvald by securing a loan in order to take a trip to Italy for his treatment and recovery. In doing so, Nora needed to work odd jobs to repay the loan while keeping it a secret from her husband.
Torvald tells her that Nora has a duty as a mother and a wife but Nora tells him that “she is an individual”, showing that she is finally putting herself on par with Torvald, and no longer allowing Torvald to control her, but instead she is trying to gain independence and liberation from social norms in order to break free from the “Doll’s House.” She tells him that she must leave him, because “for eight years [she’d] been living with a stranger”, emphasising how there was never any proper communication and mutual understanding between them, and hence no proper marriage, as she didn’t actually know what his true character was like up until that night, as she was convinced all along that Torvald would be the man to take everything upon
Nora is a married woman and has children to take care of. She really has little freedom because of the way Torvald treats her. She is not even I feel as if deep down she knows she is not free and wants something more in her life then to be a entertaining puppet for Torvald. She realizes at the end of the story that Torvald is not good to her because of the way he acted when she told him about forging the signature. When Torvald called her a criminal and other harsh words she realized that she had no true love from Torvald and wanted to be free from him.
At the beginning of their marriage Nora did everything on her power to save his husband health including going against her husband beliefs by lying about how she obtained a large amount of money (money that she told her husband that was borrowed from her father and not by doing business with Krogstad) Nora told Mrs. Linde that she has been using her allowance to pay the debt. She was looking forward to New Year, because she will have paid off her debt completely and then will be “free” to fulfill her responsibilities as a wife and mother without impediment. At this point we can notice the fact that Nora doesn’t feel “free” and realizes in her wife and mother
During act III, Nora asked to speak to Torvald after her performance of the tarantella dance. The following conversation demonstrated her quest for autonomy and freedom, as well as Torvald’s inadequate responses to her arguments and demands; it also showed how deeply connected her unhappy situation is with society’s regulation of the relationship between the sexes. She asserts that she is “...first and foremost a human being”, and her strong conviction that her womanhood, and the expectations associated with it, are secondary, strengthens her resolve to make a radical choice: A break with both husband and, with necessity due to her legal position, her children (Ibsen, 184). During her conversation with Torvald, she proclaims, “I have other sacred duties... The duties to myself (Ibsen, 184).”
The way that Nora responds to Torvald and his many rules show again Nora’s childish nature. This is evident in how Torvald controls Nora and does not want her to eat macaroons. After realizing that Nora had in fact had some, he questions her to which she responds “No; what makes you think that?” (Ibsen 1361). Nora hides the truth from Torvald as if he is her father and is unable to stand up to him because she fears what may happen to her even though they should be equals. Although it may be frowned upon for the wife to make such decisions in this period, Nora knows that this is no way to live, and instead of making that known she buries the idea.
During the 1890’s until today, the roles of women and their rights have severely changed. They have been inferior, submissive, and trapped by their marriage. Women have slowly evolved into individuals that have rights and can represent “feminine individuality”. The fact that they be intended to be house-caring women has changed.
Ibsen’s play A Doll 's House, written in 1879, examines the importance of social class and the expectations that follow. A Doll’s House tells the story of married couple, Torvald and Nora Helmer who strive to fulfill social expectation. However, the ending is known to be a shock for some, as roles reverse and Nora comes to realize that she has been mistreated like a doll throughout the whole marriage. Throughout A Dolls House by Henrik Ibsen, doll 's and the dolls house are symbolic of how Nora is a submissive wife controlled and dominated by Torvald, and both are repressed by societal standards.
Nora carries herself as a childish, and naive person who has not had many life experiences, while Kristine prides herself on being down-to-Earth, and reasonable person. This shows in Act I, Scene I as Nora discusses Torvald’s new position at the bank and Kristine congratulates her, and states that “...it would be delightful to have what one needs” (pg. 761). Nora replies with “No, not only what one needs, but heaps and heaps of money.” (pg. 761) This exchange displays Nora’s materialistic mindset, while shining a light on Kristine’s maturity as she places necessities as a priority above personal
The play begins with Nora being portrayed as a self-indulgent and whimsical woman with childlike qualities. After the porter asks Nora for “a shilling”, (Ibsen, p.23) she tips him over-generously with a pound, directing him to “keep it,” (p.23) giving the audience the impression that Nora does not know the value of money, much like a child would not. Her immature extravagance is recognized through her desire to spend Torvald’s higher salary right away, even though it will not be received for another three months. His
Summary of Reading: I have been reading about history of marriage all day and the research of marriage is all about what the Men want, not the women. Men provide a home, food, money or trade and to provide offspring to his family. Women were property that would have to obey their husbands and do what they were told. There were arranged marriage in Asian countries and Europe was more about the right to choose a mate.
In response, Nora proceeds to confess To Mrs. Linda about having to borrow money in order to take care of her husband. She told her husband the money was from her father, when in fact Nora has been secretly paying for it by. Nora also asks Mrs. Linde not to mention anything to Torvald because he is unaware of Nora’s debt. Unlike Nora,
In a sense, the play is a tragedy of the traditional society. It is a tragedy for the society represented by Torvald because that society had been confidently dealing with women in that manner which it regarded as correct and just. Now that a woman has suddenly given it a blow at almost its bases — the religion, traditional values, education, the institution of marriage, and so on — the society is facing a crisis, or a tragedy. If all the women, who are of course treated no better than this, do the same, the whole of the social system would collapse. And the impact would be basically the tragic destruction of the man's basis of happiness.