Plight Of Women In A Doll's House

Henrik Ibsen’s play A Doll’s House highlights the second-class citizen status of Norwegian women in the late nineteenth century. Ibsen uses the main character, Nora Helmer, as an example of the plight of women and their need for equal rights and independence. In Clement Scott’s review of the play, he describes Nora as “a child-wife compounded of infantile tricks and capriciousness, a frivolous and irresponsible young person who does not hesitate to fib, and can, at a pinch, condescend to forge; a wife of eight years ' standing who changes from a grown-up baby to an illogical preacher; a woman who, in a fit of disappointment, in spite of appeal to her honour, her maternity, her religion, her sense of justice, leaves the husband she has sworn

Nora routinely tells lies, both small and large, in her relationship with her husband. The little white lie of eating the macaroons, which her husband has forbidden to her, foreshadows her capability of lying and being deceitful. When her husband, Torvald, asks her point blank if she has “taken a bite at a macaroon or two” (Ibsen, I.11), Nora denies the accusation and replies to Torvald she “should not think of going against your wishes” (I.11). The most serious offense of Nora’s deceptions is committing fraud to receive an illegal loan. Norwegian Law in the 1870’s does not allow women to obtain a loan without a male signature. Knowing she has no legal way to borrow money, Nora decides to forge her dying father’s signature on a loan agreement from a money lender. Nora does not tell her husband about the loan but, instead, chooses to lie to Torvald and tell him that her father gave her the money. When the money lender, Krogstad, informs Nora she has committed a crime, she rationalizes her decision to break the law so she and her seriously ill husband can take a trip to Italy to improve his health. Nora dismisses the notion that a court will prosecute her for “a very foolish law” (I.52), and the judges will take into account her special circumstances. Her narcissistic attitude and deceitful ways leave her family vulnerable

When Torvald refuses to take the blame for Nora’s crimes, she realizes “her husband is not the ideal hero she imagined, determines to cap his egotism with her selfishness” (Scott) and removes her facade of a happy and helpless wife. Nora confronts Torvald about her true feelings and the lack of communication in their marriage. Nora explains to him, “We have been married now eight years. Does it not occur to you that this is the first time we two, you and I, husband and wife, have had a serious conversation?” (III.140).The accusations Torvald hears from Nora shocks him as this is the first time she has voiced her displeasure in their marriage. Nora never confides to her husband her innermost thoughts and feelings, choosing to share them with Dr. Rank who, “more than anyone else” (III.85), has her full confidence. Nora in eight years of marriage did not attempt to connect with her husband on a personal level. Scott observes in his review of the play, “there [are] no previous signs of her conversion, but she has exchanged playfulness for preaching. She, a loving, affectionate woman, forgets all about the eight years ' happy married life, forgets the nest of the little bird, forgets her duty, her very instinct as a mother, forgets the three innocent children who are asleep in the next room, forgets her responsibilities, and does a thing that one of the lower animals would not do. A cat or