Ibsen's “A Doll House," The Sad Tale Of Narcissism & False Assumptions Of Masc.
05-22-2013, 03:10 AM
Henrik Ibsen penned the play “A Doll House” in 1879 in Norway. It was an extremely controversial play and the controversy exploded when it was put on in a theater in Copenhagen later that same year. To this day, it is the most performed play of any in the history of the world. Its message is one of self-determination and autonomy for women. Ibsen himself said it wasn’t about women’s rights, but human rights to self-determination and autonomy. Predictably, he presents no solutions beyond the mere emancipation from wifehood and motherhood for women. As the analysis will bear out, this abandonment from these roles has resulted in great unhappiness that they try to paper over with alcohol, pills, psychological disorders, extremely slutty behavior and general depression. Unable to come to grips with their primary role in life, women have decided to piss away the greatest civilizations in the world – the West.
![[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRyGAMu5VqEyyKWy7kysYt...C3FmxY7_EL]](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRyGAMu5VqEyyKWy7kysYtFa-6WWu0jKBuq78Dy54C3FmxY7_EL)
Henrik Ibsen was born into a wealthy merchant family in the 1820’s. At a young age, his family began to endure financial issues. His mother and father fought bitterly over finances. He became an alcoholic and allegedly visited abuse on his wife and children. In response to this, Henrik became very adoring of his mother. His mother said that his plays reflected “unremitting portrayals of suffering women” and “[his] sympathy for women came from his understand of their powerlessness.” As a playwright, he is considered to be among of the best of his time – while I take strong issue with his plays, one thing I cannot fault him for is writing; he is an excellent writer in my opinion. The key takeaway here is Henrik was unable to identify with his abusive father, so he identifies with his mother. This is how a beta is born – Henrik takes an entirely dim view of men and masculinity in his plays. He projects onto all men the abuse and unhappiness his father inflicted on him. Also, remember his father is an alcoholic – alcoholics are narcissists. We see Ibsen assume every man is a narcissist and every women is a codependent.
Let’s briefly talk about the plot of the play. The main characters are Nora, the wife, Torvald, the husband and Krogstad. I was going to writeup a summary of the play, but it was very long and I don’t think it would contribute to the point I want to make. Let’s just talk about the heart of the play. Nora is the epitome of a perfect housewife (on the surface). She is feminine, plays by her husband's rules and is obedient. They are wealthy, so maids do a lot of the housework and childrearing. Torvald is a rich banker who is presented as completely self-absorbed and focused on his career above all else. The crux of the conflict between the two relates to a secret contract Nora has with an employee Krogstad - a man Torvald is trying to fire from the bank. Sometime in the past, Nora got a loan from him to take a trip to Italy – she never told Torvald because he was ill and he would have been supremely offended by the implication he can’t provide for the family. Further, she lied about the money to Torvald, saying she got it from her father; she also forged her father’s signature on the bond. She has been paying Krogstad off slowly behind Torvald’s back, as he exercises sole control of the family finances. In the final act, we are presented with the most important scene in the play. Understand that Krogstad was blackmailing Nora by saying she needs to get Torvald to not fire him, so he threatened to reveal her deceit and forgery to Torvald and the community. Such a revelation would bring shame and dishonor on the family – remember, Torvald is moving up the ladder, such a revelation would throw a serious monkey wrench in his social plans. In this final act, Torvald finds out about Nora’s deceit he goes on a tear, giving a speech only a rank narcissist could manufacture. He says she is unfit to be a mother, he no longer loves her and their marriage will only be about appearances going forward. Torvald says he will cave to Krogstad’s demands so the family won’t come into shame. Clearly, she changes in this scene because of this dialogue. However, soon after his narcissistic outburst, a letter comes in, in which Krogstad says he giving up the bond and returns it to Nora, effectively him renouncing the debt. Torvald is overjoyed and explicitly states, “I am saved!” Nora responds, “What about me?” He then says, “Of course we are saved!”
![[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSaSu-v6wJvHo1m_sZzx69...eqkJpzaHsF]](https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSaSu-v6wJvHo1m_sZzx69mSyDhqfPzFLYFUsQEmLeqkJpzaHsF)
Then Nora delivers a wallop of a speech. She gives a proto-feminist speech, in which she questions the roles of wifehood and motherhood. She questions male-domination of society and how men and women need to be equal partners in order to have a “true marriage.” Realize her breaking point was when Torvald refused to fall on his sword and take the fall for the debt to Krogstad. Let’s talk about one specific point she makes.
Throughout the speech she gives, Torvald repeatedly refers to her as a child. Nora agrees with her and says she is leaving her husband and kids so she can find herself. Nora comments that her children will not miss her because the maids already do most of the childrearing and cleaning. She drops her keys down and gives back her engagement ring. At the very end, let me quote most interesting conversation of the play.
Nora leaves while Torvald sinks into depression and the play closes with Nora slamming the door.
So where the hell do we go from here?
The overarching point here is narcissism, female privilege and biology. Let’s start with a superficial breakdown of Nora’s life. Nora’s life was taken care of by a wealthy career man; maids cleaned the house and cared for the kids when she didn’t want to. She lived a life of supreme privilege – she didn’t have to work with fools at a job, she had all sorts of help to deal with housework. This sort of life is ground zero for feminists. When I went to law school, the most active feminist was richer than anything. She would berate me for class issues (my libertarian approach to economics) and then, after her shaming monologue for being ignorant of class issues, we would approach our cars in the parking lot. She had a brand new Lexus with rims; my car? I was driving my Dad’s beater of a station wagon he used for hauling shit. Which is my point, most ardent feminists aren’t poor, they are living lives of supreme privilege and just bored with their lives. When confronted, they just double down on male privilege.
Which is my next point. The main problem with the male privilege analysis is that is ignores reality. Not every male is a rank narcissist focused on themselves – they may have other issues, but not are all self-absorbed. This problem is two-fold. One, is that narcissists have always been and will always be supreme attractive to women. Sure, often times that attraction fades once a woman finds out the truth of their mate, but out of the gate? They clean up. Second, is the idea that a man is necessarily in control of his family in a patriarchy. Take a note; I have a friend who, by all accounts, is in a very conservative relationship. However, his wife is in supreme control, even though she projects an image that he is the patriarch – which is the sleight of hand. In a patriarchy, women will just project outwardly their man is in control while they control the puppet strings. Today, women will openly flaunt their husbands are kitchen bitches and fools.
![[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ2nIFZbLqkfijlAYYHh40...zZQZysGLJf]](https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ2nIFZbLqkfijlAYYHh40nT4QG5YSi-XiSsJBFyhzZQZysGLJf)
Let’s talk about the hierarchy of alphas, women and betas through the lens of narcissism. Remember, codependents are have many narcissistic traits and can easily become compensatory narcissists if presented with a weaker codependent. Here is the psychological hierarchy: Alphas > Women > Betas > Omegas. Have you ever noticed how demure a female can be with a sexy man and then how downright mean and shitty to a beta? This how the process works. Realize that there can be narcissism without success, but no success without narcissism. If you regularly pull hot tail, you have narcissistic qualities. That isn’t an insult, as anybody who achieves a level of greatness will have narcissistic qualities. Also, consider that having narcissistic qualities is a far cry from being an actual narcissist. I have some anti-social traits but would never be diagnosed with anti-social personality disorder.
Back the previous point, women often develop codependent qualities with alphas, then become compensatory narcissists with beta males. When a female divorces a beta male after years of marriage, often times her biggest problem is overcoming her compensatory narcissistic qualities that have become ingrained into her psyche. When women complain about the inability to connect romantically, she often is either complaining about a lack of alphas males or her inability to get over herself and truly connect with a man in a positive fashion.
I think part of this is biological, not just based in narcissism and codependency. Women are attracted to dominance, part and parcel of that *is* submission. There always will be one chief and one follower in any relationship. Friendship might be the only thing approaching equality (maybe gay guy relationships?), however, usually it does not play out in an equal manner. Holding out psychologically impaired friendships, it seems to me your best friends are equals in many ways – nobody holds that much sway over the other. Put that speculation aside, I think women are hardwired to treat men in such a manner. They are disdain and use beta males as tools, they completely ignore omegas and dream of romance and sex with alphas. Hypergamy fuels this, but also understand women need provisioning, so beta get false sense of hope when a woman really does need beta money, comforting and presence.
![[Image: MV5BMTM1NzA2ODUyN15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMzM3...4,317_.jpg]](http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTM1NzA2ODUyN15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMzM3NTgxMQ@@._V1_SY317_CR3,0,214,317_.jpg)
Let’s riff about Nora’s speech to Torvald. She makes a few points I want to discuss. Let’s talk about her point about becoming a human being. That is a common liberal talking point that traditional social orders don’t allow for people to self-actualize. The problem is that most people will never self-actualize, nor will they have the incentive or desire to do so. Freeing people from traditional social structures does nothing but encourage any subliminal festering issues to surface. If you are born, you are a human. One does not become a human being. Simone de Beauvoir famously remarked one is not born a woman, but becomes one. That is a social constructionist argument - which is the problem that undergirds Nora’s assertion. She is right that people often don’t self-actualize and society doesn’t encourage that as a primary goal. Society should emphasize stability over actualization – who cares if you are self-actualized if barbarians are ripping down your house.
The next point to consider is the miracle conversation. Nora speculates that if they changed, together, they could have a “true marriage.” While somebody can go in on this several ways, let me focus on attraction. Nora clearly has complex for narcissistic males. She repeatedly claims to be in love with him throughout the play – part of that is Ibsen reinforcing that women are supposed to say that, the other part is Ibsen admitting Nora is truly in love with Torvald. Let’s assume, in 1879, psychological resources exist and both are 100% on changing themselves. What are the odds of them staying together after such a transformation? First, it would take at least at year, probably more for Torvald. Second, given their psychological comportment, I would bet nothing would psychologically link them after the transformation – their psychology fused them together sexually and romantically.
Which feeds into my next point. When women call for sexual liberation and the ability to marry purely for love, they are really exhorting for marrying for psychological issues or lust. When Nora slams the door on her family life, she did nothing to help women at large. She just turned her back on an unhealthy relationship. She did nothing to analyze her relationship beyond her own interests. She did as she said – she is living for herself. However, the problem with this play being presented as a woman’s rights play is the fact all the protagonist did was become a narcissist. She abandoned her children, her husband and did nothing to alter her psyche in the story. Some rewrites have formulated a story for Nora after she left Torvald, but they are all supremely deficient. Part of that is because finding her identity will never happen without her acceptance of her children and her husband who fathered them. The other part is the fact many women want to treat Nora as a hero – leaving unattractive men and children. They want to still live in a Doll House, albeit in a room above the garage adjacent to the doll house.
![[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTeNqwSVQribGeexh1RUpy...QE6Q5CL5-x]](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTeNqwSVQribGeexh1RUpyrvqQlVTHcCaRzhrhMNSQE6Q5CL5-x)
Which is where I will conclude my needlessly long analysis – I deleted many paragraphs. Women don’t want to leave the doll house. They want the perception they have done it while still remaining in the purview of the house. Let’s consider “50 Shades of Grey.” I have talked to female friends about it, they mostly claimed it was about a hot guy who was seduced by a woman and they had great sex. Some truthfully claimed they were into dominant men and Christian Grey was that sort of man.
That is the hamster we see in “A Doll’s House.” Instead of admitting the real issues the relationship has, she doubles down on the superficialities of it. She leaves, but does nothing to better herself. She claims that she and Torvald never had a discussion about anything serious in their relationship. While she projects her unhappiness onto Torvald, she is really unhappy with her own superficiality. When she comments about how the maids know better than her about raising the kids, she admits she is little more than window dressing. In her privileged world, she really is not relevant. Through her dogged pursuit of privilege, she made herself irrelevant. Instead of admitting her problem, she attacks the easy target – her husband’s narcissism. It is an easy target, as Torvald should learn to treat people as more than inferiors. Of course, her kids will suffer the most. They witnessed an epic fight between a narcissist and a codependent. They will be hurt for it. They are no heroes in this story, no victims and nothing positive to comment on.
I know how it feels to see parents in which one is a narcissist and a codependent. I remember, when I was young, I saw my mother treat my father like garbage and smack him in the face. I remember hugging him after it; I was no more than six years old. I knew I had to be an adult for my parents – never a good thing for a kid. I saw that over the course of my life. I remember recently going home, seeing my Dad reading books in his room. I was star-struck by his knowledge and book collection as a kid; now, as an adult, I am in awe of a man who never cashed in on it. It was emblematic – alone and reading books. I stopped for second while passing his room. He asked what I was going to do that night; I told him I was going to go drink with my friends. There was a moment where we made eye contact for a few seconds. I could see his insecurity. For a moment, I wanted to set the whole house on fire and tell my Mom this man is one the best men to ever exist in Western civilization – don’t you *ever* disrespect him. I knew the time had passed long ago to change this situation. I quietly left my house. My biggest regret in life is not building a better relationship with my Dad – he has health problems now and I am too busy to spend that much time with him. I will never get over that regret.
Unlike Nora, I would never slam the door on my loved ones. They are supremely deficient, but I would never come at them like that. While I strongly disagree with her approach, I understand the impetus. Ibsen himself was subjected to beating by his father. His ultimate failure was attributing his father’s behavior onto all males and contingent on patriarchy - which is where this analysis ends. He falsely assumes that if women have more sexual agency, then society will be better. He was wrong. He did nothing to diagnose Torvald, nor did he do anything to diagnose narcissism in the West. The exegesis of Nora in the play reinforces the superficiality of women, as Nora never really changes beyond leaving her husband and children.
![[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRTLXjY5xcFn1RUpwadyYS...1DXvk_15yA]](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRTLXjY5xcFn1RUpwadyYSI6Nr5uy8TLHJ37nJuqak21DXvk_15yA)
I will conclude with the idea of "true marriage." What is Nora talking about? She seems to be talking about an equal marriage. In reality, she is talking about lust. Women like to pretend what they are sexually attracted to is their equal, but women are attracted superiors. There is no need to belabor this point, as a conclusion will happen.
Understand that "A Doll's House" was the first major feminist play to be released. While Ibsen himself turned down the honor of being a women's rights activist (LOL), it was a key cog in the advancement of feminism. His tale was laced with narcissism and unresolved personal issues. It by no means is representative of the social order it supposedly critiques. Understand, Ibsen drew on an alcoholic father as his male figurehead. It clearly isn't representative of men as a whole. Feminism was always based on faulty premises and extreme situations - this play reinforces that.
Henrik Ibsen was born into a wealthy merchant family in the 1820’s. At a young age, his family began to endure financial issues. His mother and father fought bitterly over finances. He became an alcoholic and allegedly visited abuse on his wife and children. In response to this, Henrik became very adoring of his mother. His mother said that his plays reflected “unremitting portrayals of suffering women” and “[his] sympathy for women came from his understand of their powerlessness.” As a playwright, he is considered to be among of the best of his time – while I take strong issue with his plays, one thing I cannot fault him for is writing; he is an excellent writer in my opinion. The key takeaway here is Henrik was unable to identify with his abusive father, so he identifies with his mother. This is how a beta is born – Henrik takes an entirely dim view of men and masculinity in his plays. He projects onto all men the abuse and unhappiness his father inflicted on him. Also, remember his father is an alcoholic – alcoholics are narcissists. We see Ibsen assume every man is a narcissist and every women is a codependent.
Let’s briefly talk about the plot of the play. The main characters are Nora, the wife, Torvald, the husband and Krogstad. I was going to writeup a summary of the play, but it was very long and I don’t think it would contribute to the point I want to make. Let’s just talk about the heart of the play. Nora is the epitome of a perfect housewife (on the surface). She is feminine, plays by her husband's rules and is obedient. They are wealthy, so maids do a lot of the housework and childrearing. Torvald is a rich banker who is presented as completely self-absorbed and focused on his career above all else. The crux of the conflict between the two relates to a secret contract Nora has with an employee Krogstad - a man Torvald is trying to fire from the bank. Sometime in the past, Nora got a loan from him to take a trip to Italy – she never told Torvald because he was ill and he would have been supremely offended by the implication he can’t provide for the family. Further, she lied about the money to Torvald, saying she got it from her father; she also forged her father’s signature on the bond. She has been paying Krogstad off slowly behind Torvald’s back, as he exercises sole control of the family finances. In the final act, we are presented with the most important scene in the play. Understand that Krogstad was blackmailing Nora by saying she needs to get Torvald to not fire him, so he threatened to reveal her deceit and forgery to Torvald and the community. Such a revelation would bring shame and dishonor on the family – remember, Torvald is moving up the ladder, such a revelation would throw a serious monkey wrench in his social plans. In this final act, Torvald finds out about Nora’s deceit he goes on a tear, giving a speech only a rank narcissist could manufacture. He says she is unfit to be a mother, he no longer loves her and their marriage will only be about appearances going forward. Torvald says he will cave to Krogstad’s demands so the family won’t come into shame. Clearly, she changes in this scene because of this dialogue. However, soon after his narcissistic outburst, a letter comes in, in which Krogstad says he giving up the bond and returns it to Nora, effectively him renouncing the debt. Torvald is overjoyed and explicitly states, “I am saved!” Nora responds, “What about me?” He then says, “Of course we are saved!”
Then Nora delivers a wallop of a speech. She gives a proto-feminist speech, in which she questions the roles of wifehood and motherhood. She questions male-domination of society and how men and women need to be equal partners in order to have a “true marriage.” Realize her breaking point was when Torvald refused to fall on his sword and take the fall for the debt to Krogstad. Let’s talk about one specific point she makes.
Quote:Quote:
I don’t believe in that anymore. I believe that, before all else, I’m a human being, no less than you – or anyway, I ought to try to become one. I know the majority thinks you are right [women are wives and mothers first], Torvald, and plenty of books agree with you, too. But I can’t go on believing what the majority says, or what’s written in books. I have to think over these things myself.
Throughout the speech she gives, Torvald repeatedly refers to her as a child. Nora agrees with her and says she is leaving her husband and kids so she can find herself. Nora comments that her children will not miss her because the maids already do most of the childrearing and cleaning. She drops her keys down and gives back her engagement ring. At the very end, let me quote most interesting conversation of the play.
Quote:Quote:
Torvald: Nora – can I never be more than a stranger for you?
Nora: Ah, Torvald – it would take the greatest miracle of all –
Torvald: Tell me the greatest miracle!
Nora: You and I both would have to transform themselves ourselves to the point – oh, Torvald, I’ve stopped believing in miracles.
Torvald: But I’ll believe! Tell me! Transform ourselves to the point that -?
Nora: That our living together could become a true marriage.
Nora leaves while Torvald sinks into depression and the play closes with Nora slamming the door.
So where the hell do we go from here?
The overarching point here is narcissism, female privilege and biology. Let’s start with a superficial breakdown of Nora’s life. Nora’s life was taken care of by a wealthy career man; maids cleaned the house and cared for the kids when she didn’t want to. She lived a life of supreme privilege – she didn’t have to work with fools at a job, she had all sorts of help to deal with housework. This sort of life is ground zero for feminists. When I went to law school, the most active feminist was richer than anything. She would berate me for class issues (my libertarian approach to economics) and then, after her shaming monologue for being ignorant of class issues, we would approach our cars in the parking lot. She had a brand new Lexus with rims; my car? I was driving my Dad’s beater of a station wagon he used for hauling shit. Which is my point, most ardent feminists aren’t poor, they are living lives of supreme privilege and just bored with their lives. When confronted, they just double down on male privilege.
Which is my next point. The main problem with the male privilege analysis is that is ignores reality. Not every male is a rank narcissist focused on themselves – they may have other issues, but not are all self-absorbed. This problem is two-fold. One, is that narcissists have always been and will always be supreme attractive to women. Sure, often times that attraction fades once a woman finds out the truth of their mate, but out of the gate? They clean up. Second, is the idea that a man is necessarily in control of his family in a patriarchy. Take a note; I have a friend who, by all accounts, is in a very conservative relationship. However, his wife is in supreme control, even though she projects an image that he is the patriarch – which is the sleight of hand. In a patriarchy, women will just project outwardly their man is in control while they control the puppet strings. Today, women will openly flaunt their husbands are kitchen bitches and fools.
Let’s talk about the hierarchy of alphas, women and betas through the lens of narcissism. Remember, codependents are have many narcissistic traits and can easily become compensatory narcissists if presented with a weaker codependent. Here is the psychological hierarchy: Alphas > Women > Betas > Omegas. Have you ever noticed how demure a female can be with a sexy man and then how downright mean and shitty to a beta? This how the process works. Realize that there can be narcissism without success, but no success without narcissism. If you regularly pull hot tail, you have narcissistic qualities. That isn’t an insult, as anybody who achieves a level of greatness will have narcissistic qualities. Also, consider that having narcissistic qualities is a far cry from being an actual narcissist. I have some anti-social traits but would never be diagnosed with anti-social personality disorder.
Back the previous point, women often develop codependent qualities with alphas, then become compensatory narcissists with beta males. When a female divorces a beta male after years of marriage, often times her biggest problem is overcoming her compensatory narcissistic qualities that have become ingrained into her psyche. When women complain about the inability to connect romantically, she often is either complaining about a lack of alphas males or her inability to get over herself and truly connect with a man in a positive fashion.
I think part of this is biological, not just based in narcissism and codependency. Women are attracted to dominance, part and parcel of that *is* submission. There always will be one chief and one follower in any relationship. Friendship might be the only thing approaching equality (maybe gay guy relationships?), however, usually it does not play out in an equal manner. Holding out psychologically impaired friendships, it seems to me your best friends are equals in many ways – nobody holds that much sway over the other. Put that speculation aside, I think women are hardwired to treat men in such a manner. They are disdain and use beta males as tools, they completely ignore omegas and dream of romance and sex with alphas. Hypergamy fuels this, but also understand women need provisioning, so beta get false sense of hope when a woman really does need beta money, comforting and presence.
Let’s riff about Nora’s speech to Torvald. She makes a few points I want to discuss. Let’s talk about her point about becoming a human being. That is a common liberal talking point that traditional social orders don’t allow for people to self-actualize. The problem is that most people will never self-actualize, nor will they have the incentive or desire to do so. Freeing people from traditional social structures does nothing but encourage any subliminal festering issues to surface. If you are born, you are a human. One does not become a human being. Simone de Beauvoir famously remarked one is not born a woman, but becomes one. That is a social constructionist argument - which is the problem that undergirds Nora’s assertion. She is right that people often don’t self-actualize and society doesn’t encourage that as a primary goal. Society should emphasize stability over actualization – who cares if you are self-actualized if barbarians are ripping down your house.
The next point to consider is the miracle conversation. Nora speculates that if they changed, together, they could have a “true marriage.” While somebody can go in on this several ways, let me focus on attraction. Nora clearly has complex for narcissistic males. She repeatedly claims to be in love with him throughout the play – part of that is Ibsen reinforcing that women are supposed to say that, the other part is Ibsen admitting Nora is truly in love with Torvald. Let’s assume, in 1879, psychological resources exist and both are 100% on changing themselves. What are the odds of them staying together after such a transformation? First, it would take at least at year, probably more for Torvald. Second, given their psychological comportment, I would bet nothing would psychologically link them after the transformation – their psychology fused them together sexually and romantically.
Which feeds into my next point. When women call for sexual liberation and the ability to marry purely for love, they are really exhorting for marrying for psychological issues or lust. When Nora slams the door on her family life, she did nothing to help women at large. She just turned her back on an unhealthy relationship. She did nothing to analyze her relationship beyond her own interests. She did as she said – she is living for herself. However, the problem with this play being presented as a woman’s rights play is the fact all the protagonist did was become a narcissist. She abandoned her children, her husband and did nothing to alter her psyche in the story. Some rewrites have formulated a story for Nora after she left Torvald, but they are all supremely deficient. Part of that is because finding her identity will never happen without her acceptance of her children and her husband who fathered them. The other part is the fact many women want to treat Nora as a hero – leaving unattractive men and children. They want to still live in a Doll House, albeit in a room above the garage adjacent to the doll house.
Which is where I will conclude my needlessly long analysis – I deleted many paragraphs. Women don’t want to leave the doll house. They want the perception they have done it while still remaining in the purview of the house. Let’s consider “50 Shades of Grey.” I have talked to female friends about it, they mostly claimed it was about a hot guy who was seduced by a woman and they had great sex. Some truthfully claimed they were into dominant men and Christian Grey was that sort of man.
That is the hamster we see in “A Doll’s House.” Instead of admitting the real issues the relationship has, she doubles down on the superficialities of it. She leaves, but does nothing to better herself. She claims that she and Torvald never had a discussion about anything serious in their relationship. While she projects her unhappiness onto Torvald, she is really unhappy with her own superficiality. When she comments about how the maids know better than her about raising the kids, she admits she is little more than window dressing. In her privileged world, she really is not relevant. Through her dogged pursuit of privilege, she made herself irrelevant. Instead of admitting her problem, she attacks the easy target – her husband’s narcissism. It is an easy target, as Torvald should learn to treat people as more than inferiors. Of course, her kids will suffer the most. They witnessed an epic fight between a narcissist and a codependent. They will be hurt for it. They are no heroes in this story, no victims and nothing positive to comment on.
I know how it feels to see parents in which one is a narcissist and a codependent. I remember, when I was young, I saw my mother treat my father like garbage and smack him in the face. I remember hugging him after it; I was no more than six years old. I knew I had to be an adult for my parents – never a good thing for a kid. I saw that over the course of my life. I remember recently going home, seeing my Dad reading books in his room. I was star-struck by his knowledge and book collection as a kid; now, as an adult, I am in awe of a man who never cashed in on it. It was emblematic – alone and reading books. I stopped for second while passing his room. He asked what I was going to do that night; I told him I was going to go drink with my friends. There was a moment where we made eye contact for a few seconds. I could see his insecurity. For a moment, I wanted to set the whole house on fire and tell my Mom this man is one the best men to ever exist in Western civilization – don’t you *ever* disrespect him. I knew the time had passed long ago to change this situation. I quietly left my house. My biggest regret in life is not building a better relationship with my Dad – he has health problems now and I am too busy to spend that much time with him. I will never get over that regret.
Unlike Nora, I would never slam the door on my loved ones. They are supremely deficient, but I would never come at them like that. While I strongly disagree with her approach, I understand the impetus. Ibsen himself was subjected to beating by his father. His ultimate failure was attributing his father’s behavior onto all males and contingent on patriarchy - which is where this analysis ends. He falsely assumes that if women have more sexual agency, then society will be better. He was wrong. He did nothing to diagnose Torvald, nor did he do anything to diagnose narcissism in the West. The exegesis of Nora in the play reinforces the superficiality of women, as Nora never really changes beyond leaving her husband and children.
I will conclude with the idea of "true marriage." What is Nora talking about? She seems to be talking about an equal marriage. In reality, she is talking about lust. Women like to pretend what they are sexually attracted to is their equal, but women are attracted superiors. There is no need to belabor this point, as a conclusion will happen.
Understand that "A Doll's House" was the first major feminist play to be released. While Ibsen himself turned down the honor of being a women's rights activist (LOL), it was a key cog in the advancement of feminism. His tale was laced with narcissism and unresolved personal issues. It by no means is representative of the social order it supposedly critiques. Understand, Ibsen drew on an alcoholic father as his male figurehead. It clearly isn't representative of men as a whole. Feminism was always based on faulty premises and extreme situations - this play reinforces that.
