Our Previous Samples

Jon Snow, Robb Stark, Eddard Stark, Bran Stark, Daenerys Targaryen are some of the main characters in the book “Game of Thrones.”Jon Snow is the bastard son of Eddard Stark. He is raised by Eddard and his wife Catelyn Tully alongside their children and Theon Greyjoy at Winterfell. His surname is Snow because he lives in the North and does not know who his actual parents are because it is kept secret by his “father.” Jon Snow’s true parents are Lyanna Stark and Rhaegar Targaryen.

Lyanna died giving birth to Jon, and Rhaegar got killed by Robert Baratheon in The Battle of The Trident. His actual name is Aegon Targaryen. Jon wishes to escape his bastard status and joins the Night’s watch. If he does a good job he will get an offer to change his surname to Stark. Jon does his job extremely well and is chosen as lord commander. Robb Stark was the oldest son of Eddard Stark and was the rightful heir to Winterfell. He was often accompanied by his adopted dire wolf, named Grey Wind. After the execution of his father by King Joffrey Baratheon, he was named King of the North and tried to avenge his father and rescue his two younger sisters Sansa and Arya who were held hostage by the Lannister family, but got betrayed in an arranged marriage by Walder Frey and he and his army got killed. This wedding is called the “Red Wedding.” Lord Eddard Stark was the head of House Stark, King of the North, Lord of Winterfell and the King’s hand to King Robert Baratheon. He was also known as Ned Stark. He was a man of honor, loyalty and husband to Catelyn Tully and father of Robb, Sansa, Arya, Bran and uncle to Jon Snow which he raised as his bastard son. Lord Eddard Stark had three siblings and their names are Benjen Stark, Brandon Stark and Lyanna Stark. Eddard Stark got executed by the “son” of King Robert Baratheon later after Robert’s death. He discovered that Cersei Lannister and her twin brother Jaime Lannister were actually the true parents of King Joffrey. He told Cersei that he would tell Robert the truth after his hunt, and Cersei ordered her cousin Lancel Lannister to give Robert too much wine during his hunt so he would get fatally wounded. On Robert’s deathbed Eddard did not reveal the truth to Robert, but rather to his two younger brothers Stannis- and Renly Baratheon. This caused them to make a claim to the Iron Throne. Cersei and Joffrey took over the throne, and Eddard ordered an arrest on Cersei and her children. Eddard got betrayed by his own men because Cersei had already bribed them. Eddard got imprisoned for betrayal and later executed in front of his two daughters Sansa and Arya after he got told to confess treason so his two daughters could be saved.

Brandon Stark, called Bran Stark is the son of Eddard Stark and Catelyn Tully. He is a very good climber. One time Winterfell got visited by King Robert Baratheon to make a proposal to their daughter Sansa Stark to marry their “son” Joffrey Baratheon. At their time in Winterfell Bran climbed up the castle and heard some noises. He looked inside a window and saw the king’s wife Cersei Lannister having intercourse with her twin brother Jaime Lannister. Bran promised to keep it a secret, but they could not take the risk. Jaime Lannister then pushed Bran from the window, and he fell down the castle hoping he would die. Bran survived, but got paralyzed in his legs. After this incident, Bran started to chase a Three-Eyed Raven. By doing this Bran got magical powers where he could see the future, the present, the past and control animals. He used his abilities to assist his family in the war against the Night Walkers. Queen Daenerys Targaryen, the mother of dragons, the breaker of chains, is the only daughter of Aerys- and Rhaella Targaryen. Rhaella is Aerys’s sister. Daenerys is the youngest child among her two older brothers Rhaegar and Viserys and unknowingly the aunt of Jon Snow. She was forced into marriage by her brother Viserys to the Dothraki for an army after their brother Rhaegar had lost and died fighting for the Iron Throne to the Baratheons. Daenerys got three dragon eggs as a gift from the Khal(king) of the Dothraki. Her dragon eggs hatched after she put them on fire. When people saw the dragons, they became fierce of her. After her husband Khal Drogo died, she became the Khaleesi (queen). She named her dragons Drogon, Viserion and Rhaegal which are named after her two brothers and her dead husband. Daenerys wishes peace among the kingdoms and fights villages with her dragons and army to release the slaves from their slave-owners. “Jon Snow”

The book Game of Thrones is written by the author George RR Martin. It is about the battle among the kingdoms in a fantasy world. It is about good versus evil. I chose this book because I have seen the TV series, and it was amazing, exciting and thrilling. I wanted to write about something I knew quite well because then I could remember more details. George Raymond Richard Martin is an American author and scriptwriter. He is best known for writing the book series “A Song of Ice and Fire.” I did not choose the book because of the author, but because of the TV-series.

Eddard Stark was born in Winterfell and died in King’s landing. He was the Head of House Stark, King of The North, Lord of Winterfell and King Robert Baratheon’s Hand. He was the second oldest child among his three siblings. His father was Lord Rickard Stark and his younger brother and sister were Benjen and Lyanna Stark. His older brother was Brandon Stark.

Eddard was Catelyn Tully’s husband and Jon Snow’s uncle who he raised as his bastard son. In addition, he was the father of Robb, Sansa, Arya, Brandon and Rickon. Lord Eddard Stark inherited Winterfell and his brother’s bride after his older brother Brandon, the rightful heir to Winterfell and his father Lord Rickard´s death. His father and older brother were executed by the Mad King Aerys Targaryen because they protested against “the kidnapping” of Lyanna Stark by Prince Rhaegar Targaryen. Lyanna Stark was Robert Baratheon’s betrothed. House Targaryen’s actions caused a war where Eddard allied with Robert Baratheon, House Arryn, House Tully, House Lannister and House Greyjoy for the removal of House Targaryen from the Iron Throne. This was known as Robert’s Rebellion. House Baratheon and Stark triumphed after Ser Jamie Lannister, who served in the Kingsguard for the Mad King, stabbed him in the back to prevent him of using wildfire against his own citizens after he knew he was surrendered and had lost the battle. Robert took the throne, married Cersei Lannister to make an alliance with House Lannister after he got the news that Lyanna died. He also named Jon Arryn as his hand. After Jon Arryn’s death, Robert went to Winterfell to ask Lord Eddard to replace him. Eddard changed the theme every time he asked for it, but accepted his proposal after he received news from Jon’s wife Lysa Arryn, who is Catelyn´s sister, that he was murdered by the Lannister family. In addition to this, Robert proposed to Eddard that his son Prince Joffrey and Eddard´s daughter Sansa should marry each other.

Eddard accepted his offer and went to King’s Landing with his two daughters to set the wedding. At the time the Baratheon’s were at Winterfell, Eddard´s son Bran climbed up a tower and spotted Robert’s wife having intercourse with her twin brother Jamie through a window. Jamie could not take the risk of him revealing this secret, so he pushed Bran from the window and believed that he would die from the fall. Bran did not wake up for quite some time, but when he did he found out that he could not move his legs. He was paralyzed. He had also lost memory of who pushed him down the tower. Eddard got suspicious and started investigating. At his time in King’s landing, he questioned the Baratheon’s legacy. He discovered that the child of a Baratheon always had black hair. That meant that Robert’s three children were not his because they were blond and had no claim to the Iron Throne. They were Cersei- and Jamie Lannister’s children that were born of incest. Eddard told Cersei that he would tell the truth to Robert when he returned from his hunt. Cersei would not let that happen so she ordered her cousin Lancel to give Robert too much wine during his hunt so he would get killed by an animal. Robert got fatally wounded and was dying. Eddard did not reveal the truth to Robert about his children, but to his two younger brothers Stannis and Renly. This caused them to make a claim to the throne. Eddard was named to rule the Iron Throne by Robert while he was on his deathbed until Joffrey was old enough. This he wrote in a letter and delivered to Cersei. Cersei said that it was Eddard who wrote this. Eddard then told Joffrey that he had no right to the Iron Throne. He then got taken custody because of treason to the Iron Throne. In Eddard’s cell, he got visited by a man named Varys who said that if he confessed treason he would be sent to the Night’s Watch. Eddard did as told, but things did not go as planned. Joffrey did not listen to his mother that he would be sent to the Night’s Watch, but he rather ordered him to be decapitated in front of his daughters Sansa, who was betrothed to Joffrey and held hostage, and Arya.

Keep in mind:
This is only a sample.

Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.

This act caused the War of the Five Kings. As punishment for Sansa because of her father’s betrayal to the Iron Throne, Joffrey ordered her father’s head to be placed in a spike in the Traitor’s Walk in King’s Landing. Sansa was still held hostage, while Arya escaped in the crowd while watching her father’s decapitation. Joffrey forced Sansa to look at her father’s head alongside other members who served her father. Joffrey loved seeing people upset at him because then he would have an excuse to punish them. This is why he forced Sansa to look at her father’s head, but Sansa maintained calm so Joffrey would not get his satisfaction. Eddard’s son Robert was named the King of the North and was at war against the Iron Throne to rescue his sisters and avenge his father. This caused the Lannisters to go to war against Robert’s brothers and the North, which could all have been prevented if Joffrey’s madness and stupidity had not executed Eddard. Eddard Stark would want to be remembered as a martyr of the North. He was an honourable, loyal and beloved man. He was a good father and raised good children who became just as him and fought for what they believed in.

Mahatma Gandhi is a great and outstanding personality of India who is still inspiring the people of India as well as abroad through his legacy of greatness and noble life.Bapu was born on 2nd of October 1869.Celebrating his 150th anniversary not only by remembering his momentous question of non-cooperation but also knowning his authority on matters of health and diseases as well.

Very few knew that bapu is an author of a health book in gujarathi.Here he discussed all the aspects for an individual to maintain good health and to perforem his duties properly.

-it is the health that is real wealth not the pieces of gold and silver-

Bapu,always wanted to explain complex things in a coordinated and simple way providing the people above and below the board easier way to understand it.

He used basic familiar terms such as air,water,food,

According to bapu health is an body ease,the man whose body is free from all disease and carries his nrmal daily routines without fatigue.he should be able to walk ten miles a day,coud digest ordinary simple food.his mind andhis senses should be in a state of hormony

-good health and good senses are the life’s best blessings-

The natural air that we take through the nose to lungs consist of a life giving substance called oxygen and the air that breathe out consist of gasses that may fatal to us if they are not discharged into the atmosphere.Hence explains the neccesisty of proper ventilation

Water is an essential eliment next to air as scarcity of former can live for days but latter provide few minutes to live.mother earth provides sufficient amount of water for survival.In oder to be healthy every one should take 5lbs of water or any other drink in a day.drinking water must be pure.the difficulty is that appearance and even taste of water may not be ultimate measure of purity.the water which appears perfectly harmless in sight nd to taste may act as a poison.the age-old custom of not drinking from an unkown well as well as straingers house is worthacopying.

Saying that ‘food is life’signifies that human body cannot be without water and air but the real nourishment is food.Food can be divided into three classes mainly vegetarian, flesh and mixed.flesh food consist of fowl and fish.a daily routine,milk is a animal product and cannot be included in strict vegetarian diet as it serves the purpose of meat to a very large extinct,a layman doesn’t consider it to be a animal food.similarly eggs are regarded as flesh food but in reality they aren’t.now a days sterile eggs are produced which are not develop into chicks therefore the one who consume milk sould have no objection in taking sterile eggs

In terms of medical profession,mixed diet is more prefered although there is a growing child,which is strongly of opinion that anatomical and physiological evidence in favour of a man being vegetarian only.his teeth,stomach,intestines….are known to prove that nature meant to be a vegetarian.

Common salt may be regarded as king amoung condiments and it is most widly used condiments.the body requires certain salts and the common salt is also one of them.these salts naturally occur invarious food stuffs but due to the unscientific ways of cooking such as throwing away the water in which rice,potatos or others have been boiled,the supply becomes inadequate.then the deficiency must be madeup by separate addition of salts.

Tea and coffe are not required by the body.the use of tea has originated in china.primarly to ensure the safety,the water is boiled along with grass called tea then it developed golden colour.the colour didn’t appear unless the water is boiled.thus the grass became infalliable test for checking the boiling of water later addition of other tea leaves imparted flavour to water and thus tea is originated.

The intoxicants used in India mainly alcohol,ganja,tobacco,bhang and opium.alcohol is the major intoxicant that is ruining the people by diminishing there senses as well as morals.alcohol can be made locally that it country madeor it may be imported form abroad.this all should be banned.although there are group of people who are in favour of limited and regular consumption of alcohol and belive that it is useful.bapu found no reason in favour of argument.even if we accept this view,there will be a increased vulnerability to people of all age groups.

With developed society, there are lots of new companies or factories. They provide several products which is for human life, such as beverage, newspaper and electric devices. People utilize them in the life. When they are gone, they will become garbage. The consequence of these situations is that there are more and various types of garbage than ever before. It is a serious problem of how to deal with garbage. Unfortunately, there only are few ways to deal with garbage, for instance, landfill and burning. The popular method is burning. Burning can be used to generate electricity, and it is more advantageous than landfill. However the harmful effects of burning garbage are discussed in this essay.

First, burning garbage is harmful to human health. Since when garbage is burning, it will release many injurious components. It is easy to inhale damaging components if human live beside the location of burning garbage. “Burn barrel air emissions include carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), and nitrogen oxides (NOx). Smaller amounts of more poisonous chemicals are commonly detected in the smoke: benzene, styrene, formaldehyde, polychlorinated dibenzodioxins (PCDDs or 'dioxins'), polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs or 'furans'), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and heavy metals such as lead, mercury, and arsenic.” These harmful components will be caused diseases such as Dioxin. It is essential materials for human who have cancer. Equally, human will decrease immune function if they contact with air which has Dioxin. Dioxin is also called an endocrine disrupter. It will affect the reproductive, developmental, and immunological problems in animal and human. Animal only need few Dioxin that it will died. There is no way for nature to produce Dioxin, it only creates by human activities which are chemical experiments or burning garbage. Similarly, formaldehyde also is one of the injurious components. If human skin exposure to certain doses of formaldehyde, it can cause allergic dermatitis. As same as allergic dermatitis, inhalation of formaldehyde in the respiratory tract may induce bronchial asthma. Therefore, it is really damaging if human contact with the air which has injurious components from burning garbage.

Secondary, burning garbage will create massive air pollution. Human give definition to the air pollution is that it is harmful to human. As same as before, burning garbage can produce Dioxin which is injurious to human. It also caused an air pollution. “Open burning of plastics also releases large amounts of toxic health and climate-damaging pollution including fine particles and black carbon, an important contributor to climate change.” The burning of garbage makes many harmful materials such as sulfur dioxide. It produces industrial smoke, which makes it difficult to breathe at high concentrations. It is the culprit of the famous London smog incident. When sulfur dioxide enters the atmosphere, it oxidizes to sulfuric acid to form acid rain in clouds, which is harmful to buildings, forests, lakes and soils. The combustion of garbage can form suspended particulate matter, also known as aerosol, which can directly damage the lungs as people breathe into the lungs.

On the other hand, burning garbage also affect the land. Burning garbage profoundly affect the soil, water and air quality. (Sullivan, 2014). The effect of acid rain on land is largely caused by the deterioration of the chemical properties of the soil. In the action of acid rain, the nutrient elements K, Na, Ca and Mg in the soil will be released and leached out with the rain. It means the soil loses nutrition from acid rain. It cannot provide nutrition for plants. Therefore, long-term acid rain will leach a large number of nutrient elements in the soil, resulting in a serious shortage of nutrient elements in the soil, making the soil become more barren. In addition, burning garbage also produce particulate matter. Particulate matter is easy to adhere to a variety of harmful substances, some are carcinogenic, and some can induce pollen allergy. Particulate matter deposition on the leaves of green plants interferes with the process of absorbing sunlight and carbon dioxide and releasing oxygen and water, thus affecting the health and growth of plants. Thick particulate matter concentration can affect the animal respiratory system, kill microorganisms, cause changes in the food chain, and then affect the entire ecosystem. Shielding the sun may change the climate, which also affects the ecosystem.

To sum up, as seen from the essay, burning garbage is destructive for human society since it creates diseases, air and soil pollution. With developed society, human will make much garbage than before. Solving the problem of dealing with garbage is very vital for human. The scientists need to offer new methods to deal with garbage.

At first glance, Garry Winogrand’s photograph Centennial Ball, Metropolitan Museum, New York (1969) is a study in organized chaos. The top-heavy composition, with its high-contrast lighting, captures the drama and excitement of the gala. A woman in a white dress visually dominates the image as she fords through a crowd of black-suited men. The flash illuminates her conventionally feminine characteristics: her coiffed beehive, jewel-encrusted dress, and impeccable makeup. She is chic, alluring, and noteworthy; yet, even as she conforms to the standards of attractiveness of the 1960s and 70s, her portrayal imparts a sense of looseness and abandon. In contrast with the glamorous ambience, she appears inebriated, her hips are angled brazenly, and her dress is ripped, hinting at a lack of undergarments. The ironic tension between these elements and the elite setting brands her as an uninhibited and dynamic personality, captured at the center of what should be a dignified party.

Centennial Ball hints at an incongruity between traditional femininity and the uncertainty of women’s emerging freedom of expression. The ripped bodice of the woman’s dress hangs from her collar, implying both a physical and social lack of restraint. In contrast to the suited men, captured with tight-lipped smiles and open-mouthed self-assurance, that surround her, she seems exposed and vulnerable. Yet her body language does not suggest vulnerability; it announces boldness. Her body is angled, her hips shifting one direction and her shoulders tilting another. Her sinuous form conveys a directional movement, a sense of dynamism. All the men lean or move towards the right, but the white-clad woman leans and moves toward the left. She directs herself in opposition to a male-dominated area (both visually and socially) with confidence and purpose.

The image simultaneously exhibits a constraint on that freedom. As brilliantly lit and prominent as the woman appears, the black suits that circle around her constrain every visual plane. One man’s arm frames the lower left of the image, cutting off the woman’s legs and ending at her hips. From the viewer’s perspective, his body restrains her movement visually, if not physically. Glimpses of various hands, backs of heads, glittering shoulders, and sides of faces of the women emerge in the spaces left between the men. It is impossible to tell who is who, or what belongs to whom. Every woman, in fact, becomes an assemblage of interchangeable parts because their physical forms are indistinguishable and dismembered. The collar of the center woman’s dress echoes both sides of this tension. While the barely contained bodice evinces a loss of control, the collar that holds her outfit together tightly encompasses her neck. She appears, paradoxically, both free and unfree. Her freedom of physical expression is tightly bounded by the society, presented as mostly male, around her. The photograph exposes the tension between two opposing forces during this era: a newfound freedom of dress and confidence (both social and sexual) gaining momentum alongside traditional norms of femininity.

F. Scott Fitzgerald writes The Great Gatsby as a manifestation of the literary Inferno, a metaphorical world filled with a lack of grace and love. For example, the relationships throughout the book are marred with romantic affairs and the victimization of women. Furthermore, these connections notably lack love and grace, as everyone forms relationships for self-advancement rather than emotional bonds. Finally, narrator Nick Caraway falls short in his role as caretaker and guardian of the community when he fails to protect the women of the story and eventually withdraws from the community altogether as he moves back out West. In F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby, the actions and relationships of the main characters create a world filled with the major themes found in the Inferno, a metaphorical place of selfishness and an utter lack of love.

In The Great Gatsby, the defiling of an already loveless marriage through romantic affairs as well as the abuse of Daisy Buchanan by both her husband and Jay Gatsby create an atmosphere similar to that of the Inferno. For example, Tom and Daisy Buchanan partake in an empty relationship where Tom engages in an affair with Daisy’s full knowledge, as demonstrated by the fact that Myrtle Wilson, his mistress, calls Tom in the middle of dinner and Daisy remains unfazed. Marital relationships, especially in the early 20th century, traditionally intend to be strictly monogamous; this blatant violation of this expectation clearly defiles the Buchanans’ marriage and reminds the reader of the metaphorical Inferno. Later in the book, Daisy continues to further desecrate her relationship with Tom through her affair with Gatsby, rekindling emotional attachment to him at tea at Nick’s house and Gatsby’s parties. At this point the Buchanans’ marriage deteriorates even further as both members engage in extramarital relationships, marking the defiling of marriage as a major theme in The Great Gatsby. Finally, both Tom and Gatsby victimize Daisy in the famous scene where they both demand that she only loves one or the other, all while refusing to allow her to voice her opinion on the matter. Both men attempt to force her into a relationship without her full consent while forcing her into silence on this choice which will greatly impact her life; this clear oppression of the woman also finds a place in the Inferno. Fitzgerald begins to illustrate an obvious manifestation of the literary Inferno through his use of the defiling of the Buchanans’ marriage and the abuse of Daisy.

Another major aspect of the Inferno emerges throughout The Great Gatsby: the absence of love and grace in almost all relationships between the major characters. Most noticeably, Daisy did not wait for Gatsby to return from the war so she could marry him; rather, she married Tom Buchanan, a rich man from old money, apparently for the status and wealth that accompanies marriage to such a man. From either viewpoint, Daisy’s choice shows a lack of love for both men; she does not marry the man she cares for but rather chooses to marry a man she does not feel affection for simply to increase her affluence. Along those lines, while Gatsby thinks his love for Daisy originates from their fling five years previously, his true intentions reveal themselves when he famously declares “her voice is full of money!” No matter how he attempts to rationalize it, Gatsby merely wants Daisy for her social status, which he lacks; this is yet another time a main character chooses his or her selfish ambitions over the love and grace of an honest relationship. This occurs on a platonic level as well as the obvious romantic level; Gatsby initially continues his friendship with Nick in order to get closer to Daisy, such as when Nick invites both Gatsby and Daisy over to tea. Gatsby’s chief intention in this relationship does not lie in an innocent connection with Nick, but rather ulterior motives to further his own goal of reuniting with Daisy, thus increasing the lack of love in the relationships on West and East Egg. Through the absence of love and grace in the characters’ interactions, Fitzgerald continues writing The Great Gatsby as the Inferno.

Most importantly, the Inferno’s story comes to an end when the guardian of the community fails in his duties and ultimately withdraws. Even before Nick withdraws entirely and isolates himself from the surviving characters, he does not act adequately as the community’s caretaker and allows Daisy and Jordan Baker to endanger themselves on multiple occasions. For example, Nick enables both the Buchanans’ affairs and does nothing to stop either, going so far as to encourage them by keeping quiet about Tom and Myrtle Wilson and allowing Gatsby and Daisy to meet at his house. Tom’s affair with Myrtle and Daisy’s affair with Gatsby harm their marriage and therefore hurt both the people in the relationship, yet Nick fails in his role as protector and caretaker and allows the pain to occur. Later in the story, Nick is driving with his girlfriend Jordan Baker and comments on her reckless behavior behind the wheel, to which she replies that she can act carelessly since other drivers pay attention to the road, and Nick does not stop or correct her in any way. By allowing Jordan to drive dangerously and potentially endanger herself and others, Nick yet again fall short in his quest to protect and guard the community. After Gatsby’s funeral, Nick abandons West Egg and moves back to his home in the West. This literal withdrawal of the guardian from the community completes the idea of the world of The Great Gatsby as a manifestation of the Inferno.

Fitzgerald sums up his theme of the Inferno in this book by writing Nick as the guardian of the community that fails in his duties and withdraws. In F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby, he uses the relationships and interactions of the main characters to create a world of selfishness that mimics the metaphorical Inferno. First, he exaggerates the defiling of marriage and abuse of the woman by having one marriage result in two affairs and having both men in the relationships victimize and silence Daisy. Fitzgerald continues this thought through increasing the lack of love in these already loveless relationships, marking self-gain as the intention of all these connections. Finally, Nick fails in his responsibility to protect and guard the community by allowing Daisy and Jordan to potentially harm themselves and ultimately withdrawing from the group of people for whom he must care. Through the clear themes written in The Great Gatsby, F. Scott Fitzgerald creates a manifestation of the Inferno in the worlds of West and East Egg.

Table of contents

1. Introduction
2. Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Legalized
Claim 1The legality of Same-sex Marriage in IndiaClaim 2
3. Anti-claim
Marriage is for procreation and should not be extended to same-sex couples because they cannot produce children together.The institution of marriage has traditionally been defined as being between a man and a woman.
4. Conclusion
5. References

Introduction

In this essay, I argue that gay marriage should be legalized because it would prevent discrimination and allow same-sex couples to access benefits that are currently only available to heterosexual couples. Proponents of same-sex marriage contend that it is a fundamental human right that should not be denied, as recognized by Article 16 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In addition, same-sex partnerships are intrinsically valuable and play a crucial role in forming stable household units that protect the vulnerable. Moreover, not legalizing same-sex marriage would be unequal, unfair, and discriminatory, as same-sex couples are also tax-contributing members of society who should be entitled to the same state-provided benefits and rights as opposite-sex couples.

Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Legalized

Same-sex marriage is a marriage between two persons of the identical sex, which may be a new social phenomenon, resulting in a brand-new kind of family formation. In the contemporary world, this failed to exist until the twenty-first century when an increasing number of countries began permitting same-sex couples to marry legally. Additionally, beginning within the late twentieth century there has been a growing global movement to treat marriage as a fundamental human right to be extended to same-sex couples. Even when a gay relationship is a fact of Indian social life, it's yet to be proposed one reason couples are bad for the country that's not supported religion. The standard Indian society has always taken a shabby, narrow and don’t tell about it to anybody kind of look at ‘sex.” But with the import of western lifestyle in metro cities and revolution in information technology (which includes access to satellite channels and electronic media) the outlook of individuals, especially that of younger generations and social activists, towards sex is positively changing.

It takes great courage to mention, I'm a homosexual. The complexity of homosexual behavior generates a visible question in my mind on why society looks down upon deviant sexual orientations like homosexuality. Is it because homosexuals behave in a very way that's not normal, or which is, 't practiced by the ‘bulk’? Or is it because the ‘bulk’ tries to ignore the tough truth which attacks his conscience generated out of his socialization that the ‘bulk’ of such bulk does have deviant sexual tendencies at some moment of your time, which even gets manifested? The society at large impute taboos and stigmatizes such deviant persons. Therefore, that’s why same-sex marriage should be legalized as it would lead to the integration of a sexual minority group and would let them access the benefits available to heterosexual couples preventing discrimination.

Claim 1

The contention is that same-sex marriage permits same-sex couples to enjoy the same state-provided benefits available to heterosexual married couples. Because same-sex couples are also tax-contributing members of society, they should not be denied the numerous benefits, advantages, and rights provided to opposite-sex couples. To do so, according to this perspective, it would be unequal, unfair, and discriminatory, with the result that lesbians and gays would be treated as second-class citizens. In addition to more favorable tax rates, the benefits, privileges, and assistance accorded to opposite-sex marriages include those related to employment, housing, inheritance, immigration, child adoption, social security, insurance, healthcare, retirement, pensions, and death, and survivorship benefits. These benefits and privileges may be substantial in both number and scope, affecting the financial, social, and emotional well-being of couples. In the United States, for example, the General Accounting Office (GAO) in a report to Congress in 2004 identified a total of 1,138 federal statutory provisions classified in the United States Code in which marital status is a factor—some favoring marriage and some not (Cherlin 2010)—in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges. 

Also, according to advocates of the legalization of same-sex marriage generally believed that committed partnerships involving sexual intimacy are valuable because they draw people together to a singular degree and in singular ways. In this view, such relationships are intrinsically worthy while also quite distinct from (though not incompatible with) activities associated with the bearing or raising of children. Sexual partnerships are one of several factors that bond adults together into stable household units. These households, in turn, form the foundation of a productive society—a society in which, albeit incidentally, children, elders, and others who may be relatively powerless are likely to be protected. From this perspective, the devaluation of same-sex intimacy is immoral because it constitutes arbitrary and irrational discrimination, thereby damaging the community. Most same-sex marriage advocates further held that international human rights legislation provided a universal franchise to equal treatment under the law. Thus, prohibiting a specific group from the full rights of marriage was illegally discriminatory. For advocates of the community-benefit perspective, all the legal perquisites associated with heterosexual marriage should be available to any committed couple. (Britannica 'Same sex marriage')

The central argument of same-sex marriage is that it permits individuals to exercise what is deemed their fundamental human right to marry the person of their choice, without regarding religion, nationality, ethnicity, race, or sexual orientation. Not permitting restrictions Same-sex marriage, in their view of proponents, represents a denial of a basic human right. In support of this position, some have drawn attention to Article 16 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights: '(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.'

On July 25, 2014, Miami-Dade County Circuit Court Judge Sarah Zabel ruled Florida's gay marriage ban unconstitutional and stated that the ban 'serves only to hurt, to discriminate, to deprive same-sex couples and their families of equal dignity, to label and treat them as second-class citizens, and to deem them unworthy of participation in one of the fundamental institutions of our society. 'Throughout our history, we have fought discrimination. We have joined to recognize equality for racial minorities, women, people with disabilities, immigrants, etc. Legalizing gay marriage is the right thing to do and it is time.'

The legality of Same-sex Marriage in India

The current laws regarding same-sex marriage in India are framed in a manner that does not expressly prohibit same-sex marriage. For example, when the Hindu Marriage Act defines the people who will be eligible to marry under the act,384 does not lay down any provision that states that only people of the opposite sex can get married to each other. The only problem arising in the conditions for marriage is the section that talks about the age requirements of the bridegroom and the bride.385 The same thing can be observed under the Special Marriage Act.386 Even if the law prima facie does not prohibit same-sex marriages, several obstacles still exist before same-sex marriages can be legally recognized

Claim 2

Furthermore, same-sex marriage would be beneficial, according to proponents, because it would lead to the integration of minority groups—that is, homosexuals—into mainstream society. Same-sex marriage would provide societal legitimacy to homosexual couples, which in turn, it is posited, would facilitate acceptance and tolerance of gays and lesbians and reduce exclusion, discrimination, and violence directed against them. Not only would this outcome be welcomed by same-sex couples themselves, their families, and other supporters of Same-sex marriage, but it is viewed as promoting the desirable social good of inclusion for society as a whole

Anti-claim

Concerning the arguments against same-sex marriage, one of the principal objections is that throughout most of human history, the fundamental purpose of marriage was to promote procreation to ensure the survival and demographic expansion of the group or community. Marriages were arranged to produce legitimate offspring, who would not only guarantee the group's continued existence but would increase the number of productive members within the community (Coontz 2005).

Marriage is for procreation and should not be extended to same-sex couples because they cannot produce children together.

 Allowing gay marriage would only further shift the purpose of marriage from producing and raising children to adult gratification.  A California Supreme Court ruling from 1859 stated that 'the first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation.' Nobel Prize-winning philosopher Bertrand Russell stated that 'it is through children alone that sexual relations become important to society and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution.' Court papers filed in July 2014 by attorneys defending Arizona's gay marriage ban stated that 'the State regulates marriage for the primary purpose of channeling potentially procreative sexual relationships into enduring unions for the sake of joining children to both their mother and their father... Same-sex couples can never provide a child with both her biological mother and her biological father.' Contrary to the argument for same-sex marriage that some different-sex couples cannot have children or don't want them, even in those cases there is still the potential to produce children. Seemingly infertile heterosexual couples sometimes produce children, and medical advances may allow others to procreate in the future. Heterosexual couples who do not wish to have children are still biologically capable of having them and may change their minds.

A related objection to same-sex marriage is that it unduly expands the traditional, long-standing definition of what constitutes a marriage—seen as the bedrock of a healthy society—to other forms of marital union. Seeking to include unions between two men or two women would seem to logically allow further expansion of this definition in undesirable directions. For example, the first country to legalize same-sex marriage, the Netherlands, now also permits polygamous unions to be registered (Belin 2005). The cities of Amsterdam and Rotterdam register the polygamous marriages of Muslim immigrants that have taken place in countries such as Morocco, where having more than one wife is permitted (Baklinski 2008).

The institution of marriage has traditionally been defined as being between a man and a woman.

 In upholding gay marriage bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee on Nov. 6, 2014, 6th US District Court of Appeals Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton wrote that 'marriage has long been a social institution defined by relationships between men and women. So long defined, the tradition is measured in millennia, not centuries or decades. So widely shared, the tradition until recently had been adopted by all governments and major religions of the world.'  In the Oct. 15, 1971 decision Baker v. Nelson, the Supreme Court of Minnesota found that 'the institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.'  John F. Harvey, MA, STL, late Catholic priest, wrote in July 2009 that 'Throughout the history of humans the institution of marriage has been understood as the complete spiritual and bodily communion of one man and one woman.

Keep in mind:
This is only a sample.

Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.

Conclusion

It is evident, from aforesaid discussions, that homosexuality is a complex phenomenon endemic to all societies from the early days of their formation. Although, the practice of homosexuality may have been in minority, nevertheless, it has been a part of society. It can be said without hesitation that there is a pattern of discrimination against homosexuals which pervades most dimensions of our cultural life, and that is rooted in a heterocentric system that shapes our legal, economic, political, social, interpersonal, familial, historical, educational, and ecclesiastical institutions. The root cause of this pattern of discrimination is perhaps a reasoned system of bias regarding sexual orientation that places heterosexuality as the normative form of human sexuality and thereby connotes prejudice against anyone who falls outside of that form. This biasness perhaps arises out of the assumption that heterosexuality is a normative species, but it might not be so for all. For some, heterosexuality may be only a ‘common practice’ and it is not necessary that a common practice must always be normative as well. At the end I would like to conclude by saying that same sex marriage should be legalized as it is a discrimination against same sex couples.

References

1. Chamie, Joseph, and Barry Mirkin. “Same-Sex Marriage: A New Social Phenomenon.” Population and Development Review, vol. 37, no. 3, 2011, pp. 529–551., doi:10.1111/j.1728-4457.2011.00433. x.
2. “Same-Sex Marriage.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Sept. 2018.

Whether it be a gender hierarchy or a power system organized by income, human society has frequently fallen back on some form of an unequal power dynamic. Unfortunately, this type of structure can be extremely damaging to those at the bottom of the hierarchy as well as those on top. The members at the bottom are often disrespected and forgotten while those on top are power hungry and can become authoritarians. Franz Kafka’s The Metamorphosis is a text that exemplifies these consequences. Kafka uses the characters of Grete, Gregor and Mr. Samsa to demonstrate two different power structures and their effects. The two power dynamics displayed revolve around gender and income. Kafka uses Grete and Gregor to show the extent of the damage that an unequal gender power structure can have, and he uses the father to show the effects of a capitalist style hierarchy. Moreover, within the category of gender power structures, Kafka focuses on the character of Grete to explain the dynamics of men being higher than women, and vice versa.

At the start of the novella, Grete is portrayed as weak, when she realizes that Gregor is not well, “She had already begun to weep” (15). Grete is also dependent on Gregor, as he supplies the money that the family lives off of and therefore is providing everything that Grete has. Grete’s dependence on Gregor is shown through his plan for her future: “to send her off to the Conservatory next year” (22). Grete needs Gregor to “send” her off to Conservatory school, since he is the breadwinner of the family and she relies on him for money. This shows the unequal power structure between woman and man, with the latter being considered superior because he has control over Grete and her future. Not only are women portrayed as weak in the beginning of the novella, but they are also dependent on a man. However, as the text progresses, the power structure shifts and women become the predominant sex. For example, Grete becomes Gregor’s caretaker after his metamorphosis. This alters the power structure because previously, Grete depends on Gregor for money and her future, but now Gregor has to depend on Grete to bring him food, the substance that is keeping him alive. Gregor describes Grete’s role when he thinks to himself, “She brought him an entire assortment of foodstuffs” (19). Grete also becomes authoritative, especially towards Gregor. This is shown when he accidentally terrifies Mrs. Samsa, “‘Gregor’ his sister shouted, raising her fist with a threatening glower” (29). Previously, Kafka describes Grete as crying and shown as weak, but now she is threatening Gregor and raising her voice towards him. Grete has shifted from being at the bottom of the familial power structure to being at the top.

Kafka depicts the two power structures of men being superior to women and women being greater than men through Grete’s character and also shows the consequences that come out of both of these unequal dynamics. The first power structure that Grete is involved in results in her being considered an unnecessary member of the family. Since she is a traditional woman, she at one point relies on Gregor (the predominant male figure in her life) to provide for her which results in her parents describing her as “a rather useless girl” (25). The second is equally damaging and causes Grete to become power hungry to the point of suggesting to kill her brother. As Grete realizes that she is no longer the worthless child, she craves for more and more power over her brother. This is shown when she persuades her parents to agree to “get rid” of Gregor:“‘Dear parents’, his sister said, striking the table by way of preamble, ‘things cannot go on like this. Even if you two perhaps do not realize it, I most certainly do. I am unwilling to utter my brother’s name before this creature, and therefore will say only: we have to try to get rid of it’” (41). Grete’s action of “striking the table” shows her confidence in herself since she wants the attention of her parents and she wants people to listen to her ideas. Nina Straus, author of the essay, Transforming Franz Kafka’s ‘Metamorphosis’, shows her belief that the Grete is part of two power structures here: “It is she who will ironically "bloom" as her brother deteriorates; it is she whose mirror reflects women's present situation as we attempt to critique patriarchal dominance,”(Straus). Straus explains how Kafka manipulates Grete’s character to represent the current power structure women are in when she says, “t is she whose mirror reflects women's present situation as we attempt to critique patriarchal dominance,”(Straus). Kafka uses Grete’s character to show the consequences of two types of gender power structures, a man being greater than a woman and a woman being superior to a man.

The protagonist of the novella, Gregor, is another character who Kafka manipulates to depict the damages caused by two types of unequal gender power structures. For Gregor, the story begins with his body being transformed into that of an insect. This poses multiple problems, one of which being his inability to communicate. While Gregor is not presented as a human, Kafka uses Gregor’s thoughts to show his role within the family before and after his transformation. Gregor is the only member of the family who earns money before his metamorphosis; this places him at the top of the family power structure, as “Gregor’s future, and that of his family depended on” his earnings (15). Here, the narrator describes Gregor’s significant role in the family as the breadwinner. This shows an unequal gender power structure because Gregor’s father did work at one time, proving he can provide for himself, but the women in the family are both completely dependent on Gregor for money. However, after Gregor’s metamorphosis, he finds himself at the very bottom of the family power structure. Gregor becomes completely dependent on his sister, Grete, as she provides him with food and water, which he needs to survive. Gregor’s appreciation for Grete is shown when the narrator describes Gregor's feelings: “If only Gregor had been able to speak to his sister and thank her for all she was compelled to do for him”(24). This is an example of the gender power dynamic of women being superior to men, since Gregor is dependant on Grete. As the story progresses, Grete grows into her role as the authoritative power in her relationship with Gregor; she no longer is as caring for Gregor as she is when the story begins. Furthermore, rather than carefully selecting food for him, she now “would quickly thrust some randomly chosen foodstuff into his room with her foot on her way to work in the morning or at midday, only to sweep it out again at night with a quick swipe of the broom” (35). Now that she has become more powerful than him, she has lost the respect she once had for Gregor, since she now “thrust[s] some randomly chosen foodstuff into his room” rather than carefully selecting food Gregor likes. Both of the power structures that Kafka shows through Gregor prove to be damaging and eventually contribute to his death.

The gender power dynamics of men being greater than women and vice versa are extremely damaging. Kafka shows the consequences through the character of Gregor. When Gregor is the breadwinner of the family, he has an enormous amount of pressure on himself to provide for the everyone. This reflects the first power structure of man being greater than woman because Gregor has to provide for the women in his family. This not only puts him under heavy stress, but also prevents him from spending time with his family. While his family is sleeping Gregor hurriedly leaves the house early every morning. This is shown when he says, “my train leaves at five” (4). Gregor has to catch the five a.m. train every morning, suggesting that he wakes up even earlier than his departure time and has to go to bed extremely early if he wants to get enough sleep to work long hours. This schedule does not leave much time for activities other than work and sleep, so Gregor cannot spend very much time with his family. This is damaging because Gregor can’t have relationships with his family members if he never spends time with them. The second power structure Gregor is part of also has serious consequences. Gregor transitions from being the most valued member of the family to being useless. Since he is now not helping his family in any way, he is convinced that he is no longer needed. This leads him to fall into a depression, where he eats “almost nothing at all” (36). In this passage, Gregor refuses to eat and slowly starves himself to death. Through the character of Gregor, Kafka clearly shows how damaging unequal power structure can be. By putting all the pressure on one sex, a situation arises where one feels useless and the other feels overwhelming amounts of pressure to provide. The final character that Kafka uses to show the damages of an unequal power structure is Mr. Samsa. At the start of the novella, Mr. Samsa is unemployed and has debts that Gregor is working to pay off. The father is portrayed as lazy, as he is making Gregor pay of his debts rather than working to pay them off himself. His laziness is shown here: “Gregor’s father was admittedly in good health, but he was old and hadn’t worked in five years” (23). This situation also makes him lower within the power structure of the family because he is not providing in any way. While this is not a gender power structure, it is still significant/vital because it reveals how power works within a capitalist society.

Although Gregor is jobless in the beginning, once the family realizes that Gregor most likely is not going to transform back into a human form, the father decides to work again. This gives him a sense of pride and reverses the power structure. Now, Gregor is deemed the useless one, while the father is praised for being the breadwinner. The pride the father has is shown when he refuses “to take off his porter’s uniform even at home” (33). Here, he does not change because he is so proud of his new job and providing for the family. Although this power structure is focused on money rather than gender, the consequences that come from it are equally as damaging. One of the consequences of this power dynamic are that the father has lost all respect for his son, Gregor. In one instance when Gregor comes out of his room, Mr. Samsa fills “his pockets from the fruit bowl on the sideboard” and tosses “apple after apple in Gregor’s direction” (31). In this passage, Gregor’s father attacks him instead of showing feelings of worry for his son and his current state. His condescending attitude is shown when he is rude towards the tenants staying in the apartment. He sees the tenants as inferior to him since he is the provider of the place where they stay. His disrespect is shown through his actions here: “Gregor’s father appeared to be once more so firmly in the grip of his own stubbornness that he forgot the basic respect that, after all, he owed his tenants” (40). Mr. Samsa, “forgot the basic respect that, after all, he owed his tenants” (40) which shows that he is disrespectful to those who he perceives to be lower than him, even if they actually are not. Kafka uses the father to show that while gender power structures are damaging, there are other types of power dynamics, such as monetary based structures, that can be equally damaging.

Keep in mind:
This is only a sample.

Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.

Kafka’s The Metamorphosis delves into the effects an unequal power structure can have on people. Whether the power dynamic is between two people of different genders or different incomes, Kafka shows throughout his story the consequences that this inequality can have. The three main characters that he uses to show the damage are Grete, Gregor, and Mr. Samsa. Grete and Gregor show two gender power dynamics, man being superior to woman and woman being greater than man. Mr. Samsa’s character is manipulated to show the effects of an income based power structure, both when he is earning nothing and when he becomes the breadwinner in the family. All three of these characters are faced with a power dynamic that eventually changes; Kafka does this to show that both versions of the structure are damaging, and that society should strive for equality rather than hierarchy.

Table of contents

1. Modern American Prose
Skating by Annie DillardThe Long Loneliness by Loren EiseleyOn Being a Journalist by Ellen GoodmanPrologue by Stephen Jay GouldOn Discovery by Maxine Hong KingstonChildren in the Woods by Barry LopezThe Swiss at War by John McPheeThe Pen and the Scalpel by Richard SelzerTo Err is Human by Lewis ThomasIn Search of History by Barbra TuchmanChoice: A Tribute to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. by Alice WalkerThe Essayist by E.B WhiteThe Right Stuff by Tom WolfVocabulary

The characters in Caleb’s Crossing deal with issues of prejudice against their gender and racial discrimination. The character Bethia, a Puritan minister’s daughter, deals with lack of control in her own life due to her gender. Though the novel does take place in the 1600s, where a woman’s independence was quite unheard of and it was normal for the man in the family to make the woman’s decision, there were still different levels of severity. Bethia’s older brother, Makepeace, exhibits a harsh control of his sister throughout the majority of the novel. Makepeace constantly shouted superior to Bethia like, “Enough! Pride is a sin sister. Beware of it” (18). One could think of Makepeace ways towards women (especially towards Bethia), on the extreme side of the spectrum. However, a man like Samuel did not treat Bethia like Makepeace. Samuel demonstrates respect and some independence to Bethia, given the time period. Gender discrimination is still prevalent in today’s society. In parts of China and India, a woman is considered second class. Or in some parts of the Middle East, women cannot do anything without the permission of their father or another male family member.

Racial discrimination is another issue that the characters in Caleb’s Crossing deal with. The English settlers thought themselves as superior to the Wampanoag. Caleb and Joel faced the hardships of being a different race than the English settlers as they progressed in the colonial world, (ie. their college education). When Bethia was a child, and did not know any better, she called the Wampanoag “salvages, pagans, barbarians, the heathen” (10). Since the Wampanoag were not white, and did not live their lives as the settlers did, they thought of them as inferior. Racial discrimination is still in today’s society. There is much racism towards Middle Easterners. Many think assume all Middle Easterners are terrorists and people with no morals, all due to terrorist attacks by Islam extremists/jihads.

Caleb’s persona was different than what I thought it was going to be. In my previous knowledge and understanding of Native Americans, they either converted to Christianity completely, or stayed true to their Native American beliefs. However, Caleb incorporated both Christian, and Wampanoag beliefs in his daily life. When Caleb came to live Bethia’s family, he claims that Bethia “Did God not create the sun” (96). He says this after telling Bethia “Not a morning has passed, for as long as I can remember, that I did not sing a greeting to Keesakand upon his rising” (96). Caleb took his two beliefs and combined them, resulting in him being a more understanding person of wisdom.

Even though Bethia Mayfield went off to marry Samuel Corlett, Caleb is her true soul mate. Though they are not from the same parents, they are brother and sister. Their bond is stronger than the one Bethia has with her actual brother, Makepeace. From the start, Bethia claimed that Caleb “had soon become more of a brother to me than Makepeace” (25). As the years went on, Caleb continuously looked after Bethia, in a brotherly protecting manner. Caleb confides to Bethia that “if I were your brother, I would not sell you into base servitude just to bay myself a future” (145). This exhibits that Caleb would put Bethia before himself, a true brotherly act.

Even when Caleb passes away, Bethia still has a connection with him. Bethia says that Caleb “visits me, in my dreams…” (309). The strong bond that Caleb and Bethia share is stronger than any other character in the novel. A soul mate is one who is truly suited for another person, and this is exactly what Caleb is to Bethia, and visa versa.

Religion is a major aspect of the world in the novel, Caleb’s Crossing. Christianity is the foundation for the colonists’ lives. Bethia’s father, a Puritan minister, would go on missions to convert the Wampanoag to Christianity. The Puritan lifestyle was simple, one was to do their daily tasks and pray, in return, they would earn the grace of God. In Bethia’s life, they would do the “chores that must be done, and then sat to pray” (15). They would do this, even in times of grief.

Had it not been for religion, Caleb would have never entered the colonial lifestyle. Caleb would not never gotten the opportunity to go to college if Bethia’s father had not been so passionate about his Puritan missions.

Doing something un-Christian like was immensely severe, and could potentially be punishable by law. When Bethia, out of anger cursed, “ God damn you, Makepeace” (178), she was ridiculed by being harshly punished. Bethia was forced to a wear a sign on her clothes for a week, and was reprimanded by Makepeace through forceful beatings.

In Caleb’s Crossing, Caleb’s wit and strong aptitude for learning are not held is a very high esteem due to his ethnicity. If Caleb was white, then is academic excellence would be admired by all, as it should. Caleb faced struggles just to earn an education, like the colonists. In the academic world, Caleb was treated as an outcast as “fellow scholars did nothing make them welcome, and instead contrived an array of small slights, such as leaving no place for them to sit upon the forms in the hall and never addressing a remark to either one at dinner or during the brief recreations in the yard” (129). To be treated like an outcast by his fellow peers demonstrates how his Wampanoag heritage was used against him, and prevented him from being accepted. This happened to Joel as well. Since Caleb and Joel were Native American, they worked twice as hard to earn what was so easily given to the white colonists. Unfortunately, this still happens today, in the United States. People expect that certain minorities will not achieve what others can. Race and ethnicity to do not define one’s success, a person’s actions do.

Bethia’s eagerness to learn is most engaging in the novel, Caleb’s Crossing. As a child, Bethia loved learning, and was able to retain information well. Bethia yearned for knowledge, therefore, when her father stopped giving her lessons, she would listen in on her brother Makepeace’s. She would even “chime in with any answers that my brother

(Makepeace) could not give” (15). Bethia was even able to learn the Wampanoag language, just by listening in on her father’s lessons.

Even as Bethia grew older, her love of learning did not die. Bethia even accepted a menial job at a college buttery, just to be able to overhear college lectures. Bethia explains to Master Corlett that “ all my life, the one thing I have yearned after is an education of the kind that is closed to me by my sex” (239). Throughout the novel, all Bethia wants is to be able to learn, it is a constant yearning of hers. Bethia taking a pitiful job at a college buttery to expand her already impressive knowledge unveils how important an education is to Bethia. This aspect of Bethia causes the reader to have tremendous respect for the character of Bethia.

Modern American Prose

If Black English Isn’t a Language, Then Tell Me What Is? by James Baldwin.

Baldwin explains how important language is, explaining that it can be used as a tool. Baldwin also writes about how Black English is its own language.

“Blacks came to the United States chained to each other, but from different tribes: Neither could speak the other’s language” (37). Baldwin’s use of the colon further helps him convey his point. This particular use of syntax causes the reader to logically see the author’s point.

On Keeping a Notebook by Joan Didion.

In this essay, Joan Didion writes about how she keeps a notebook, and records her random, daily life events.

“Why did I write it down? In order to remember, of course, but exactly what was it I wanted to remember” (99). Didion asks rhetorical questions, which results in an engaged reader. The casual, conversational style of the writer is demonstrated through this essay. Joawn Didion has a stream of consciousness style of writing.

Skating by Annie Dillard

This essay is about Annie’s childhood during a big snow, where she writes her memories of their Irish Catholic neighbor skating at night. This essay also explains Annie’s experience with Catholic racism when she was a child.

“What was she doing out there? Was everything beautiful so bold? I expected a car to run over her at any moment: the open street was a fatal place, where I was forbidden to set foot. The author, Annie Dillard’s use of detail causes the reader to know more about the child, Annie. The detail of not being allowed to go into the street was additional information. The detail used by the author reveals how much the event meant to the author, and how much it impacted her.

The Long Loneliness by Loren Eiseley

Loren Eiseley states that man is alone all his life. However, he can strive to be an intellectual human being.

“His are not, however, the cold-blooded ways of the true fishes” Eiseley’s use of commas in the sentence cause the reader to pause, and reflect on what the author is trying to say. Her choice of diction for the word “however” also allows the readers to think more thoroughly on what the author is saying.

On Being a Journalist by Ellen Goodman

In this essay, Goodman writes about journalism, and how one can connect bigger events with their own personal life ones.

“To meet my “quota”, I need to two opinions a week, although I assure you that some weeks I overflow with ideas, percolate opinions, while other weeks I can’t decide what I think about the weather” (187). Goodman’s use of commas in this particular sentence makes the writing seem more like a conversation than an essay. What Goodman talks about is a common feeling everyone can relate to, making her writing enjoyable with her readers. Goodman constantly uses commas, not just in this particular passage. This method lets the reader ponder what they have just read. With Goodman’s style of writing, the reader can feel connected to the writer and their work.

Prologue by Stephen Jay Gould

Gould wants America to go back to the old roots of intellectual science. He goes on in saying that protecting the environment is not just for the sake of the Earth, but more for the sake of the human race.

“ I doubt that we can do much to derail the earth’s history in any permanent sense by the proper planetary time scale of millions of years” (211). Gould conveys his knowledge of science in this passage. Though he combines this with his personal opinion and twist, the reader can still get knowledgeable information out of it. Gould continuously combines his opinion with fact, making the essay more intriguing to the reader.

On Discovery by Maxine Hong Kingston

This essay describes the stereotypical things a woman had to do, and how it was no small feat.

“Once upon a time, a man, named Tang Ao, looking for the Gold Mountain, crossed an ocean, and came upon the Land of Women” (255). Kingston’s choice of diction in “once upon a time” gives the essay a story-like feel. The use of commas make the sentence flow smoothly, further adding to the story-like feel of the essay.

Children in the Woods by Barry Lopez

Lopez writes about how relationships can be based off of just one encounter in one’s life.

“I remember once finding a fragment of a raccoon’s jaw in an alder thicket” (289). The fact that Lopez writes about a personal experience makes his writing more personal. The reader is able to connect on a higher level with the author.

The Swiss at War by John McPhee

This essay describes the Swiss’ military abilities by writing about important battles and victories.

“The Swiss infantry, six hundred years ago, knew not only how to form a square but also how to break trough almost anything” (327). McPhee praise for the Swiss army’s high ability conveys to the reader how remarkable the Swiss army really is. When the writer conveys his emotions and opinions in his writing, the readers are more likely to understand and agree when some emotions are put in with facts.

The Pen and the Scalpel by Richard Selzer

The author writes about how he was a surgeon, and compares it to his love of writing.

“A doctor walks in and out of a dozen short stories a day. It is irresistible to write them down” (335). Selzer conveys to the reader that a doctor is an exciting occupation, therefore exciting things should be written down.

To Err is Human by Lewis Thomas

Thomas writes and explains that humans make errors, yet learn from their mistakes.

“We are at our human finest, dancing with our minds, when there are more choices than two” (383). Thomas explains that humans are not meant to behave as robots, and only have a bland, one choice. When humans can choose, they are able to truly be themselves.

In Search of History by Barbra Tuchman

The author talks about how historical writing is achieved.

“In my opinion, short words are always preferable to long ones; the fewer syllables the better, and monosyllables, beautiful and pure like ‘bread’ and ‘sun’ and ‘grass’ are the best of all” (394). Tuchman’s opinion on writing makes the reader feel as though they are being taught a true value. By putting in her own opinion, Tuchman emphasizes important things to know when writing something historical.

Choice: A Tribute to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. by Alice Walker

Walker describes M.L.K’s work and connects it to her own personal life.

“Take me, Daddy,’ I say with assurance; ‘I’m the prettiest” (444). Alice Walker’s decision to include a personal memory causes the readers to feel more emotional and empathetic towards what Walker writes.

The Essayist by E.B White

E.B White describes how the Essayist is a man, and describes the essays in the collection.

“The essayist is a self-liberated man, sustained by the childish belief that everything he thinks about, everything that happens to him, is of general interest” (468). E.B White says this in a joking, casual tone. However, there is some truth in what she says.

The Right Stuff by Tom Wolf

Wolf describes what it takes to be a military test pilot.

“This was a skillet! -- a frying pan! -- a short order grill! -- Not gray but black, smeared with skid marks from one end to the other and glistening with pools hydraulic fluid…” (543). This vivid imagery takes the reader and puts them in the pilot’s setting.

Vocabulary

Presentiment- an intuitive feeling about the future.

Sauerkraut- chopped cabbage that has been pickled in brine.

Porpoise- sea animals related to dolphins and whales.

Adept- very skilled or proficient in something.

Percolate- liquid or gas that filters through a substance.

Ambivalence- the state of having mixed feelings or contradictory ideas about something.

Perverse- showing a deliberate and obstinate desire to behave in an unacceptable manner, often in spite of consequences.

Malfeasance- wrongdoing, especially by a public official.

Elicit- to derive from reason

Effervesce- To become frothy.

Vis-à-vis- face to face with.

Keep in mind:
This is only a sample.

Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.

Mendacious- Given to lying.

Sex, sexuality, and gender have been argued about throughout history. Often the debate of “nature versus nurture” is most popular. However, as time passes, new concepts are produced. Social constructionism is the belief system that sexualities, which change over time, are historically and socially constructed. The history of sex, sexuality, and gender hold different meanings for different times and places. The examination of certain identities, understandings, and categories aid in dissecting the power relations that underlie them. Understanding the significance of history shows that there is a moral and political view associated. To tie in, essentialism comes from our bodies and promotes the idea that there is something intrinsic to us as individuals. The social constructionist approach is part of the foundation to understanding how sexuality is a social construct. To discuss the topic of gender and sexuality, this essay will use the social constructionist approach.

Social constructionism is derived from the essentialist context, therefore, to truly dive in, one must be well versed in essentialism. The conceptualization of sex is an overpowering force that is fundamental to who we are. Essentialism stems from the body. For example our psyche, hormones, and genes. The idea that there is something innate to who we are describes essentialism. The concept of normative sexuality is located within human nature and one’s sexual expression must be expressed to prevent neuroses or perversions. “Social constructionism, which covers a broad range of approaches that emphasize that the social, cultural, and the historical, is crucial to the making of our genders, sexualities, and sexual identifications” (Kinsman, 2017).

Social constructionism itself is part of the foundation of sexuality. Historically, sexuality been deemed to be something that was biological. Sex, sexuality, and gender have, and continue to be, seen as a product of nature. However, sexuality is a product of society. Through politics, culture, and media one’s sexuality is governed by society. The notion that one’s sexuality is biological simply is part of the little “t” truths. Sexuality is ever changing, therefore, fluid. Kinsman speaks about “commonsense” in media over the course of time as it is a crucial part of the social constructs and practices of hegemony, consent, and coercion. Kinsman also argues that, “… sexualities are socially and historically made and are not determined by our hormones or genes” (Kinsman 2017). Social constructionism deeply analyzes how society has shaped sexuality throughout history. As Fausto-Sterling puts it, “without human sociality, human sexuality cannot develop” (Fausto-Sterling, 2000). She further goes on to explain, “Truths about human sexuality created by scholars in general and by biologists in particular are one component of political, social, and moral struggles about our cultures and economies” (Fausto-Sterling, 2000).

The importance of social constructionist approach to sexuality is evident as it is the core of queer theory. “And if viewpoints about sex and sexuality are already embedded in our philosophical concepts of how matter forms into bodies, the matter of bodies cannot form neutral, pre-existing ground from which to understand the origin of sexual difference” (Fausto-Sterling, 2000). Queer theory aims to resist the categorization of people, especially into binaries, such as male versus female or gay versus straight. “We have to engage actively in the breaking down of social power relations and inequalities within our movements, communities, and societies” (Kinsman, 2017). Fausto-Sterling main arguments pertain to the binaries that exist in our society. These beliefs manifest their ways into our core belief systems which affect our physiological beings. This knowledge embodies our beings as it is political, social, and moral. “To talk about human sexuality requires a notion of the material. Yet the idea of the material comes to us already tainted, containing within it pre-existing ideas about sexual difference” (Fausto-Sterling, 2000). Most information given to us contain biases. No matter how unbiased scientific knowledge claims to be, there are still preconceived ideas in the scientific method. Social constructionists move beyond the attempt to be categorized as big “T” truths. It is there to provide a more meaningful understanding of sex, sexuality and gender. “Social constructionism must move beyond the stifling polarities of the “nature versus nurture” debate to see how our physiological potentialities get built upon, organized, and developed as they become part of our social bodies and worlds” (Kinsman, 2017). Social constructionism seeks the physiological potentials that are embedded in our social understandings. “This way of developing social constructionism allows us to see the interactions and transformations between the physiological and the social, historical or cultural – which cannot be reduced to “nurture” or to the notions of the “external environment” (Kinsman, 2017). The nature argument on sexuality and gender requires for there to be no change. However, one’s thoughts, feelings, likes and dislikes are constantly changing. “Describing some of the ways that social constructions of gender and sexuality enter the body, she tells us that sensations, thought, feelings, movements, and social interaction can change the structure of the brain” (Kinsman, 2017). Society has never stayed the same throughout history. The things that are deemed as “socially acceptable” have altered. Social constructionism understands that change and embraces it. Sex, sexuality, and gender now will quite possibly change in the future. Society and social norms dictate what is considered “normal” and “okay”.

The social constructionist approach is part of the foundation to understanding how sexuality is a social construct. The conceptualization of sex is an overpowering force. “… both “biological sex” and “social gender” are social constructions” (Kinsman, 2017). Everchanging with time, the fluidity of sexuality cannot be contained within the binary system that it is forced into. “Social construction approaches not only make much better sense of the available information we have on gender and sexuality and of our experiences of them, they also can provide grounds for optimism and hope” (Kinsman, 2017). Social constructionism aims to further explain and better understand the information it is given. As society grows and time moves forward, things will change. The concepts that exist now may not exist in the same context later. As seen from the essay, to analyze sex, sexuality and gender, the social constructionist lens must be applied.

The play A Doll’s House, by Henrik Ibsen, offers a critique of the superficial marriage between Nora and Torvald Helmer. Written in 1879, the play describes the problems which ensue after Nora secretly and illegally takes out a loan from a local bank in order to save Torvald’s life. Throughout the play, the delicate relationship between Nora and Torvald is based largely upon the enactment of conventional gender roles. For example, Torvald plays the part of the masculine hero, vowing always to shield his helpless wife from harm, while Nora plays the submissive wife who relies upon her husband’s opinions as her own. Through the performances of these roles, A Doll’s House challenges the traditional notion of gender, implying that gender is not the result of biology but is instead a part one plays in order to fulfill the demands of society.

At the time A Doll’s House was written, the patriarchal society of the nineteenth century dictated the social standards for both men and women. Men were seen as leaders; they ran businesses and governments, made the important decisions, and served as the protectors of the weaker members of society, the women and children. Throughout the play, Torvald appears to take on the characteristics of traditional masculinity. He is proud that he has been promoted to the head of the bank, and he finds satisfaction in playing the part of the protective husband, telling Nora, “When the real crisis comes, you will not find me lacking in strength or courage. I am man enough to bear the burden for us both” (565). However, upon closer examination, one can see that Torvald’s masculine identity is not intrinsic, but rather a role which he plays in order to meet the expectations of society. Instead, his sense of masculinity comes primarily from the preservation of certain social hierarchies, which place him in a position of power.

This quest for power can be seen in Torvald’s work at the bank. He confesses to Nora that he is firing Krogstad primarily because Krogstad refuses to address him with respect. Torvald says, “We—well, we’re on Christian name terms. And the tactless idiot makes no attempt to conceal it when other people are present. On the contrary, he thinks it gives him the right to be familiar with me. He shows off the whole time, with ‘Torvald this’ and ‘Torvald that’. . . If he stayed, he’d make my position intolerable” (564). As Langas explains, Torvald refuses to hire Krogstad back “because he needs to confirm his authority as a man” (Langas 159). Society’s notion of masculinity requires one to be successful in business, and Torvald must maintain control at the bank in order to maintain his masculinity. Krogstad loses his job because he is a threat to the traditional structure of power at the bank and therefore a threat to Torvald’s own sense of power and manhood.

Torvald’s masculinity is also inexorably tied to his role as the patriarch of the Helmer household. In the first half of the play, Torvald continually exerts his power over Nora, forbidding her to eat macaroons and belittling her with pet names such as “squirrel” and “my little songbird”. He even refers to Nora as his pet, saying, “The squanderbird’s a pretty little creature, but she gets through an awful lot of money. It’s incredible what an expensive pet she is for a man to keep” (561). While one could characterize Torvald simply as an overbearing chauvinist, another view is that his apparent misogyny reflects his desire to fit in to the social construct for masculinity.

Nora’s own behavior supports Torvald’s manly power. Moi writes, “Helmer’s sense of masculinity depends on Nora’s performances of helpless, childlike femininity” (Moi 264). That is, the more submissive Nora acts, the stronger Torvald feels. For example, when Nora confesses to Torvald that she is in trouble with Krogstad, he responds, “Just lean on me. I shall counsel you. I shall guide you. I would not be a true man if your feminine helplessness did not make you doubly attractive in my eyes” (576). The fragile relationship between Nora and Torvald is built largely upon the perpetuation of Torvald’s feelings of power and masculinity, and even Nora is aware of this. When she explains to Mrs. Linde why she could never tell Torvald that she had taken out the loan, Nora says, “And besides—he’s so proud of being a man—it’d be so painful and humiliating for him to know that he owed anything to me. It’d completely wreck our relationship” (565). Langas comments, “Nora’s acknowledgement demonstrates that she realizes that marriage is based upon a gendered hierarchy that she, for the time being, accepts” (Langasa 157). Ultimately, it is clear that Torvald’s ability to feel that he is in a position of power determines his performance of the masculinity dictated by nineteenth century society.

Nora’s femininity is also shaped by the demands of a patriarchal society. At the time Ibsen was writing, the governing social code was the “Cult of True Womanhood,” as Welter calls it. The “cult” prescribed certain standards for acceptable female behavior: “The attributes of True Womanhood, by which a woman judged herself and was judged by her husband, her neighbors and society could be divided into four cardinal virtues—piety, purity, submissiveness, and domesticity. Put them all together and they spelled mother, daughter, sister, wife—woman” (Welter 152). Throughout the play, Nora continually adjusts her identity in order to please the person she is with at the time, playing the flirt around Dr. Rank or the strong women when she is with Krogstad. However, the easiest role for her to play is that of the ‘true’ woman, the submissive woman, which is seen most explicitly in her relationship with Torvald.

Some critics believe that Nora has a miraculous awakening in the final act and suddenly realizes that her marriage has been “a masquerade where neither of the partners is honest to the other” (Orjasaeter 33). However, it is my belief that from the beginning Nora recognizes the “performative structure of identity” (Langas 165) and attempts to use her femininity to exert her own form of power in the patriarchal society. Early in the play, Nora admits to Mrs. Linde that she acts in a certain way because it amuses Torvald to see her “dance and dress up and play the fool” (555). This purposeful decision can be seen in the way that Nora often uses her subordinate position to boost Torvald’s own sense of power, which in turn allows her to manipulate or distract him from the situation at hand. For instance, when she tries to convince Torvald to hire Mrs. Linde at the bank, she takes advantage of his masculine pride, saying, “You see, Christine’s frightfully good at office work, and she’s mad to come under some really clever man who can teach her even more than she knows already” (557). Later, when she is trying to divert Torvald from criticizing Krogstad’s forgery, she again morphs into the part of the vulnerable wife and pleads, “You know I trust your taste more than anyone’s. I’m so anxious to look really beautiful at the fancy dress ball. Torvald, couldn’t you help me to decide what I shall go as, and what kind of costume I ought to wear?” (561). Finally, with a letter from Krogstad waiting in the mailbox, Nora uses the tarantella dance to manipulate her husband. She appeals to his male ego, saying, “I can’t get anywhere without your help. I’ve completely forgotten everything. . . Help me, Torvald. Promise me you will?” (569). However, while Nora believes that she is gaining power from these interactions with Torvald, by continually placing herself in an inferior position, she both allows him to maintain his feelings of masculinity and perpetuates the patriarchal culture which originally gave such credence to female subordination.

As the play progresses, Nora becomes more and more caught up in the theatrical roles she is forced to play. This can be seen in her close relationship with Dr. Rank. Unlike her interactions with Torvald, when Nora is with Dr. Rank, she is able to shed the allusion of the submissive wife. However, she is still playing a role; she takes advantage of his affection for her; actively defying the standards of true womanhood and uses her coyness to get what she wants. When Nora contemplates asking Dr. Rank for the money to repay Krogstad, she shows him her silk stockings and says, “Flesh-coloured. Aren’t they beautiful? It’s very dark in here now, of course, but tomorrow--! No, no, no, only the soles. Oh well, I suppose you can look a bit higher if you want to” (566). In this scene, the room is dark, Nora is showing off her legs, and she is playing the seductress role beautifully—the audience is sure that Dr. Rank will say yes to Nora’s request. Langas states, “The scene is a kind of striptease, where the woman attracts the man’s desire. . . The female body as an object takes part in a gendered negotiation for power” (Langas 162-163). However, Nora’s sense of control is shattered when the doctor confesses his love for her. She never expected that Dr. Rank would cross the boundaries set forth by respectable masculinity, but once he does, Nora is no longer comfortable with the role of temptress. After calling for a lamp, she returns to playing the role of the loyal wife, saying, “Well, upon my word, you are a fine gentleman, Dr. Rank. Aren’t you ashamed of yourself, now that the lamp’s been lit?” (567). With the room once again lit and the propriety of the situation restored, Nora and Dr. Rank are then able to function within the boundaries of traditional gender relations.

In the final act of the play, Nora becomes increasingly frustrated by the social constructs for gender. After Torvald reads the letter from Krogstad detailing Nora’s loan from the bank, he immediately forgets his vows to rescue Nora from harm. Although Nora believed that Torvald would forgive her because she took out the loan in order to save him, he instead becomes enraged, threatening to cut off her contact with the children and saying, “Now you have destroyed all my happiness. You have ruined my whole future. Oh, it’s too dreadful to contemplate!” (575). For the first time in the play, and seemingly for the first time in their marriage, the couple is able to interact entirely without artifice, and the result is a heated argument. The relationship does not end with this argument, however; it ends after Krogstad’s second letter arrives and Nora is released from her debts. Here Torvald attempts to reestablish the conventional gender roles and reclaim his position of power. He tells Nora that things will soon return to how they were before: “There is something indescribably wonderful and satisfying for a husband in knowing that he has forgiven his wife—forgiven her unreservedly from the bottom of his heart. It means that she has become his property in a double sense; he has, as it were, brought her into the world anew; she is now not only his wife but also his child. From now on that is what you shall be to me, my poor, helpless, bewildered little creature (576).” During much of Torvald’s speech Nora has been offstage, changing dresses, and at this point, she returns. She now wears everyday clothes and tells Torvald, “I’ve changed” (577). Yet the change is much more than taking off the fancy clothes from the masquerade ball. In removing her physical costume, Nora now finds that she is unable and unwilling to return to the characters she has been playing.

After finally freeing herself from the restrictions of playing a part, Nora is confronted with the extent of her own theatricality. Although she has been an active participant in the charades, she was unaware of the lasting consequences. After playing so many roles throughout her life, she finds herself unable to formulate her own sense of identity, apart from the men for whom she has performed. She has become “a person who exists only as roles dictated by society” (Tam 190). Nora’s lack of identity can be seen through her interactions with men, including her father, whom the audience never sees but hears much about. Nora says, “When I lived with Papa, he used to tell me what he thought about everything, so that I never had any opinions but his. And if I did have any of my own, I kept them quiet, because he wouldn’t have liked them. He called me his little doll, and he played with me just the way I played with my dolls” (577). She also goes on to criticize Torvald for her lack of opinions, saying, “You arranged everything the way you wanted it, so that I simply took over your taste in everything—or pretended I did. . . I’ve been your doll-wife, just as I used to be Papa’s doll-child” (577).

Nora’s continued use of the doll image is not simply an allusion to the play’s title but an important means to understanding the extent of Nora’s roles. In allowing her father and her husband to manipulate her as if she were a toy, Nora has in fact taken on the identity of a doll. She moves and gives the impression of being alive but is ultimately lacking in the qualities which allow one to feel human (Moi 266). When Nora finally comprehends that her identity has been permanently linked to other people, she makes the difficult decision to leave her family and set off on “a journey of self-quest and self-creation” (Tam 189); she leaves in order to establish an authentic sense of identity. She tells Torvald, “I must stand on my own feet if I am to find out the truth about myself and about life. So I can’t go on living here with you any longer” (577). To this, Torvald respond she must stay because of her duties to him and to the children. He says, “First and foremost you are a wife and mother” (578). Nora answers, “I don’t believe that any longer. I believe that I am first and foremost a human being, like you—or anyway, I must try to become one” (578). This exchange is significant in that it shows Torvald’s desperate attempt to force Nora back into the roles which she has been playing, those of wife and mother. It also illustrates Nora’s adamant rejection of these roles and her desire to free herself from the culturally constructed gender norms.

As Nora continues to tell Torvald of her need to leave, he makes one last effort at convincing her to stay. He says, “Do you need to ask where your duty lies in your own home? Haven’t you an infallible guide in such matters—your religion?” (578). However, Nora’s newfound feeling of agency also allows her to critique her own experience of religion. Piety was one of the requirements for the Cult of True Womanhood and, as Torvald demonstrates, it was often used by patriarchal societies to validate the idea of gendered hierarchies. Langas cites nineteenth century theologian Marcus Jacon Monrad, who believed that any critique of the patriarchal system was “an irrational quest for equality, a demolition of the order of nature and of the definite commandment of the Holy Book” (Langas 150). After Nora’s refusal to return to her role of piety, she realizes that, like many other things, her view of religion has been tied to the view of a man. She says, “I don’t really know what religion means. . . I only know what Pastor Hansen told me when I went to confirmation” (578). Ultimately, in spite of Torvald’s attempt to appeal to Nora’s senses of duty, piety, and morality, Nora leaves her family behind in search of freedom from a social system which consistently placed women in a subordinate position.

Keep in mind:
This is only a sample.

Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.

Overall, Ibsen’s A Doll’s House is a critique of the gendered roles which one plays as well as the social system which seems to require one to perform a certain way. This can be seen in the character of Torvald who, at the expense of others, continually places himself in positions of power in order to measure up to the nineteenth century standards of masculinity. Gender as a performance is also seen in Nora. Throughout the play, Nora willingly adopts different forms of femininity in an attempt to exert power in the patriarchal society, but it is only at the conclusion of the play that she realizes the consequences of this theatricality and refuses to resume her submissive role. Instead, she leaves her husband and children behind, challenging the traditional standards of femininity and calling into question the very social, political, and religious institutions which originally labeled her as inferior and forced her to essentially perform her gender.

Works Cited

1. Langas, Unni. “What Did Nora Do? Thinking Gender with A Doll’s House.” Ibsen Studies 2005: 148-171.
2. Moi, Toril. “‘First and Foremost a Human Being’: Idealism, Theatre, and Gender in A Doll’s House.” Modern Drama 2006: 256-284.
3. Orjasaeter, Kristin. “Mother, Wife, and Role Model.” Ibsen Studies 2005: 19-47.
4. Tam, Kwok-Kan. “Spatial Poetics of the Self and the Moral Dramatic Structure in A Doll’s House.” Ibsen Studies 2005: 180-197.
5. Welter, Barbara. “The Cult of True Womanhood: 1820-1860.” American Quarterly 18.2 (1966): 151-174.