In A Doll’s House Henrik Ibsen challenges the idea of gender roles of his time. Nora, the central character was programmed to be the perfect little housewife, first, by her father and then by her husband. She was forced to suppress her true self in order to please the men around her, to fulfill her duty as a wife and daughter. Society dictated her role on life’s stage, and men dictated society. Fearing the loss of their superior positions over women and “manly” authoritative status they treated women like subordinates both in the public domain and in the private realm.
A Doll’s House focuses on the domestic aspect of women's’ suppression. It is obvious that Nora has the least say in the relationship, because she is terrified that her husband will find out her secret as to how she saved his life (How could she? What nerve!) by forging her father’s signature, an example of women’s suppression in the public domain; however, most of Torvald's oppression is hidden behind kind words. He often calls her little animal names, which may, at first, seem sweet to the reader; however, they make me sick. I think that in calling her these “cute” names, he is laying the foundations for how she is to act. I know we live in a different time where women are no longer the subordinates in the relationship; actually, it’s debatable that we now wear the pants, just ask Britney; however; Torvald's mind games still anger me (and I think they are suppose to). I find myself thinking. “Nora snap out of it, stop acting like a twat, bitch slap him and leave his sorry ass!” .
Why is it that, because he isn’ t man enough to deal with an intelligent woman, Nora has to play the role of his little play thing, which he can manipulate as he pleases. Nora even stated that he would not be able to deal with the fact that she was the one who handled his medical bills. Honestly, if he cannot coup with her saving his life he must be really insecure. . Personally, I don’t even know why Nora saved him, I guess that speaks to her character, or to her brainwashing; I’m not quite sure, maybe it is a combination of both.
In conclusion, men have huge egos, and need their heads constantly inflated, and in 1879 they were legally allowed to take it out on women. However, things have changed, and now we, the women are in power, whether the men realize it or not. It’s simple we’re smarter, prettier, and more mature; therefore, our species should just forget about marriage, ditch the men, and leave them to deteriorate in their uncivilized ways.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Loss of Purpose
Life is Hamlet's serpent, gnawing at his soul; with each breath Hamlet plummets further into despondency, shielding his only light source. The loss of a father is monumental to most men, but to Hamlet, who had such an intimate relationship with his father, and who has rejected all surrounding women as whores, this lose is disastrous. The world is his prison, keeping him from death; had suicide not been deemed a sin by the Christian religion, Hamlet would have gladly taken his own life.
Ironically, Hamlet's father, who in a way unintentionally deprived Hamlet of his life, gives Hamlet another reason to live. The father asks his son to revenge his murder, by killing Claudius; however, this poses a problem for Hamlet, a devout Christian. Praying for God's protection, when the Ghost enters, Hamlet does not take the ghost's request without suspicion of its intentions; however, his heart is so weighed down by his lose and self-pity that he needs to find a purpose. Ultimately, acknowledging the Ghost as his true father, he accepts this task whole-heartidly. I think that the Ghost is an interesting character in that he, residing in purgatory, represents this abeyance between life and death much like his own son. King Hamlet is religious, speaking of earthly sins and God's wrathful judgment; however, he is also self-serving, asking his son to revenge his death. He is the embodiment of something between the holy ghost and man. Hamlet's promise to erase the contents of his life's book, and replace them with this new task is in essence a rejection of religion. But can he be held accountable for his hiatus from faith, when his mind is so darken with misery, that he can barely function? If his father's request presents Hamlet with even a brief diversion from the hell that is his own mind, I for one can not condemn him.
I think that some readers are quick to group his depression and genius together and label it as insanity. Hamlet is grief-stricken, and in order to relieve himself of this illness, he finds a cure, as most people would do. This cure, however, happens to be avenging the death of his father, through the murder of his uncle, the king. In order compete ambitious task, I do not think that killing a king is an easy feat, he feigns insanity, tricking the surrounding characters and even some readers. His emotions and outward appearance are completely different entities in Hamlet's case. I do not think that it is coincidental that Hamlet compares his mind to a book, saying he will erase all of its contents, and then, the next time he appears he is holding a book, about all the reasons why old men are flawed. His melancholia and willingness to depart from his physical body does not wholly disable his mind. It may cloud it and rid himself of self-control in his action towards himself, but it does not take away his ability to rationalize. Actually, I think the fact that he is still functioning is a testament to his sanity,
Hamlet's intermission from his faith, does not condemn him to hell; he tries to heal by not ignoring the pain, finding revenge to be his medicine, a remedy stopping him from committing the sin he is destined to commit. It's one evil or the other. His eternal turmoil has not caused him to lose faith completely, and any flicker of belief he retained during these impossible times is a tribute to its strength. The world in which Hamlet resides is corrupt, Shakespeare placed him in an environment, which he is the saint. The only sin Hamlet is guilty of is being human.
Ironically, Hamlet's father, who in a way unintentionally deprived Hamlet of his life, gives Hamlet another reason to live. The father asks his son to revenge his murder, by killing Claudius; however, this poses a problem for Hamlet, a devout Christian. Praying for God's protection, when the Ghost enters, Hamlet does not take the ghost's request without suspicion of its intentions; however, his heart is so weighed down by his lose and self-pity that he needs to find a purpose. Ultimately, acknowledging the Ghost as his true father, he accepts this task whole-heartidly. I think that the Ghost is an interesting character in that he, residing in purgatory, represents this abeyance between life and death much like his own son. King Hamlet is religious, speaking of earthly sins and God's wrathful judgment; however, he is also self-serving, asking his son to revenge his death. He is the embodiment of something between the holy ghost and man. Hamlet's promise to erase the contents of his life's book, and replace them with this new task is in essence a rejection of religion. But can he be held accountable for his hiatus from faith, when his mind is so darken with misery, that he can barely function? If his father's request presents Hamlet with even a brief diversion from the hell that is his own mind, I for one can not condemn him.
I think that some readers are quick to group his depression and genius together and label it as insanity. Hamlet is grief-stricken, and in order to relieve himself of this illness, he finds a cure, as most people would do. This cure, however, happens to be avenging the death of his father, through the murder of his uncle, the king. In order compete ambitious task, I do not think that killing a king is an easy feat, he feigns insanity, tricking the surrounding characters and even some readers. His emotions and outward appearance are completely different entities in Hamlet's case. I do not think that it is coincidental that Hamlet compares his mind to a book, saying he will erase all of its contents, and then, the next time he appears he is holding a book, about all the reasons why old men are flawed. His melancholia and willingness to depart from his physical body does not wholly disable his mind. It may cloud it and rid himself of self-control in his action towards himself, but it does not take away his ability to rationalize. Actually, I think the fact that he is still functioning is a testament to his sanity,
Hamlet's intermission from his faith, does not condemn him to hell; he tries to heal by not ignoring the pain, finding revenge to be his medicine, a remedy stopping him from committing the sin he is destined to commit. It's one evil or the other. His eternal turmoil has not caused him to lose faith completely, and any flicker of belief he retained during these impossible times is a tribute to its strength. The world in which Hamlet resides is corrupt, Shakespeare placed him in an environment, which he is the saint. The only sin Hamlet is guilty of is being human.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
