DQ 3

4.A Doll House: In a critical essay, Paul Rosefeldt offers the following argument, taking fatherhood as a central analytical concern (when the focus is so often on motherhood in such criticism): “In A Doll's House, fatherhood, ordinarily associated with the authority and stability of patriarchy, is associated with abandonment, illness, absence, and corruption. To support his interpretation, Rosefeldt offers up evidence based on the following select observations:
“Mrs. Linde, Nora's friend, is the victim of an absent father.” “In A Doll's House, the absent father permeates all classes. When Anne Marie, Nora's nursemaid and the caretaker of her children, gives birth to an illegitimate child, she is forced to take a position with Nora's family and to leave her children. But the absence of child's father lies at the at the bottom of her plight. She says of him: "That slippery fish, he did not do a thing for me" (155).”“The polluted father also appears in the father of Dr. Rank, Nora and Torvald's friend. Because Rank's father kept mistresses and contracted syphilis, Rank inherited the disease and was "sickly from birth" (156). Rank must suffer for "somebody else's sins" (163). Rank extends his own condition to the condition of humanity, finding the "inevitable retribution of nature" (163) in every family. Thus, fatherhood itself is connected to universal pollution.”“Torvald Helmer is another example of a failed father. He has little to do with his children.” “Using these arguments as a basis for your own, explain why/how the play’s focus on fatherhood supersedes its examination of motherhood.” OR, conversely, explain why this focus is NOT the best/most interesting/useful context through which to understand A Doll House. If you disagree, you need to explain which interpretative focus you think is the best/most interesting/useful.

Based on the arguments above, I would not agree that the play's focus supersedes its examination of motherhood. It is true that Mrs. Linde is a product of an absent father, Dr. Rank, paying the price of his father's promiscuity, and Torvald Helmer is a failed father but their circumstances are not the focus of this play, "The Doll House". It is not on motherhood either. The best/most interesting/useful interpretative focus of this play should be on the liberation of a woman and finally coming to her senses and finding herself, her place and her identity in society. Considering the eight years of marriage to Torvald, Nora did not have a place in the house. She was "played" on, of what her role in the household, all dictated and manuevered by Torvald. Nora played the role of a doll, being played on and just like what Torvald is doing, she played along. Nora is living under the "wings" of Torvald. Nora does not have a decision of her own like page 893, "...I can't get anywhere without your help" when asked of her dance practice for the masquerade for one.
Just like a doll, Nora's role was to please and make Torvald happy. It is the same when a little girl plays with her doll. The script can be changed at any time. Just like a doll, Nora is "ageless", the identity of the doll is dictated by the "owner" of how she wants it. Nora did not think of her own welfare especially when she went out of her way, risks her marriage by forging her father's signature.
As I was reading this, I was expecting a different ending. I was expecting that Nora would be kicked to the curb by Torvald since all he is worried about is what other people think ("Abandon your home, your husband, your children...") (907) and nothing else. Instead, I was surprised that Nora actually stood up for herself, after all the fear of getting caught and all that. She actually did not care about Torvald's plea for her to stay even to the point of "putting up a face" to continue living in "masquerade".
The irony is that, after all Torvald being so stubborn on being the last say in the house, where Nora's opinion does not matter, he actually begged for Nora to stay at all costs. I am pleased that Nora stood her grounds and moved on. It is very important that she gives up everything in search of her own identity. Nora's liberation as the ending is strong. A sign of women's suffrage. Knowing that in the Victorian Era, women has no place in society -- women were bred to bear healthy children for their husbands, oversees the household, and just be the wife.
Lies, deceit, manipulation by men could also be a focus but this story could not give the same strong impact if not given the twisted ending.

7. “The Things They Carried” : Consider Pamela Smiley’s interpretation of O’Brien’s central motive: “Herein lies the central project of O'Brien's The Things They Carried: to make the Marthas who stayed home during the sixties and seventies playing volleyball, going to college, reading Virginia Woolf, to make such women understand their brothers, friends and lovers who went to Vietnam. This O'Brien (the author) accomplishes through a series of female characters--Martha, Mary Ann, Lemon's sister, the woman at the reading, and Linda--through whom he de-genders war, constructs an ideal (female) reader, and re-defines American masculinity.”What do you think Smiley means by “de-gender” war? Why would this be useful, assuming she attempts to offer a gender-neutral vision of war that might be understood without the constraints of gendered stereotypes and limitations? If the story “re-defines American masculinity”, (Smiley) and it has been said that it does in various guises, HOW does it do so?

What Smiley means by "de-gender" war is that war is not all about the soldiers and the chaos associated with men. Smiley means by "de-gender" is that men in uniform may be trained to portray an image of a man with great strength, courage, confidence, "tough" look and most especially to suppress emotions, there is more than what meets the eye. Regardless of that "toughness" or the "desired looks" of what they were trained for, beneath the thick camouflage uniforms, there is the reality of them as being humans, individuals and have emotions and feelings. On page 808, it says, "wistful resignation/ afraid of dying but were even more afraid to show it." They "carried all the emotional baggage of men who might die - gried, terror, longing - these were intangibles". Also, these men are trained to be well-disciplined, have a life out of being a soldier. This reality is not what the basis of their “manliness” is or should I say their masculinity?
I do not think that the story redefines "American masculinity" because regardless of the training of the best soldiers or the members of the elite military members, the truth and reality is still hidden beneath that strong image. They may have differed of the "things they carried" but they were all equal in terms of burden, the fear and the love for a fellow comrade especially in the death of Ted Lavender. Men cry...not only women. On page 807, "One thing is for sure, he said. The Lieutenant's in some deep hurt. I mean that crying jag --the way he was carrying on--it wasn't fake or anything, it was real heavy-duty hurt. The man cares."

Another thing too is that, even if the women went to Vietnam but this does not really mean a lot to me. The presence of the women in the lives of these men does not necessarily mean that it “de-gender” war. Women here in the story just helps in the understanding of the reality of life of a woman’s role in a man’s life to me. It is the men, who fights in the war, and the “reality” and the “truth” behind a war…the burdens they bring into the war…that is what defines the American masculinity and not the women.

"American masculinity" has not been redefined but reaffirmed in this story.