A Doll’s World II: GIRLS JUST WANt not to be seen as of use for their husbands and pawns of a patriarchal society but as humans themselves.

  • What do you believe to be the three most important facts about 19th century Norway?
  • Why do you think the concept of respectability became more important as the middle class expanded?

I think that the most important facts of 19th century Norway include the expansion of the upper-middle class which shows the expansion of the population that lives to abide by these rules. More people are working their way up only to be held to that high standard by the rest of the higher classes. In this, we realize that it becomes easier for them to lose the status as well since they’re, in a way, competing. The second fact is that not only did the economic boom help the country money-wise, but the idea of money became detrimental to society’s structure. You can see the focus on money and materialism in today’s society, and so imagine the beginning of this greed and hunger for money that started in a split second historywise. The third is to keep in mind the two whilst realizing the expectation of moulding into the patriarchal model of what a woman should be. Following the patriarchy was not only a social tradition and a way of being in 19th century Norway; there are also laws that back up this ideology and weaken the presence of the feminine in comparison to the masculine.


The concept of respectability became more important as the middle class expanded because people strive to climb up the social ladder naturally and, in this form, strive to mimic aristocracy. The social climate only affected the few people in the middle class before its expansion, and as it grows, the limit between upper and lower middle class seem to blur. People want to be perceived as the better half of the middle class and want to seem more respectable and, ultimately, rich. Being money-centric led people to view class as a general form of social standing.

A Doll’s World: Ibsen’s World

“A woman cannot be herself in the society of the present day, which is an exclusively masculine society, with laws framed by men, and with a judicial system that judges feminine conduct from a masculine point of view” – Henrik Ibsen, 1878

Looking at Ibsen’s quotes, including the one stated above, we know that Ibsen was conscious of his surroundings and wrote about it well. He seems to take steps back and see the world in a third point of view where he criticises his species. The key point of his messages seem to always be controversial in the time that he lived in as well as juxtaposing that time. He seems to view that world as unjust to every human. Values I can pull out from these quotes include the urge to always question, being always conscious of how materialistic people are and how narcissism occupy the bigger part of society.  He criticises how lenient people are on bringing other people down to boost themselves up in status for their short lives; questioning people’s morals and priorities.

He seems to be a product of his times. The concepts that he believe in are, in fact, ahead of his time; however, I believe that in order to bridge that gap between ahead and present, there must be a link of questioning. Ibsen seems to be that. His times have provoked his curious thinking and self-awareness.

A Doll World

“A woman cannot be herself in the society of the present day, which is exclusively masculine society, with laws framed by men and a judicial system that judges feminine conduct from a masculine point of view.” Henrik Ibsen, 1878

To what extent are Ibsen’s words still true today?

Before finding concrete facts about the laws that were made exclusively for the female body, I can already begin to describe how much this resonates with the issues of today. There are double standards that exist throughout the genders that, when thought about, are completely absurd. Women are portrayed as objects that are to meet the satisfaction of men in the media which heavily reflects on the conduct, or rather misconduct, of people in society. One example is that many men who disagree with makeup, on a woman, claim that it is a mask and that the beauty of a woman with said makeup on is selling a lie. The first mistake here is the assumption that makeup is a means for one to impress another, the second is that they assume that other person is men in general. Not only this, but it seems that a big number of men feel as if it is their duty to dictate a women’s body as seen in the debate over abortion, which essentially is the debate on whether a woman can have control over their own body.

The difference between the society Ibsen references and current day is that we now recognize that the double standard happens both ways. Toxic masculinity is an idea that is now more understood and rooted as the basis of the urge to dictate women. Though women do not hold more, or even equal, political power. Which is why it is not an issue that stands on its own. So yes, Ibsen’s words still ring true but the situation nowadays is different.

Shakespeare : Construct-A-Character

“Differentiate between the direct and indirect characterization Shakespeare uses in order to construct his characters.”

Through characters talking and praising other characters, Shakespeare indirectly portrays his characters before they even make an appearance in his tragedy. The biggest and most obvious example of such is in portraying Macbeth, the play’s namesake. The very first characterization was indirect, was through drawing a parallel from the very famous lines of the three witches reciting, “Fair is foul, and foul is fair,” (1.1.12). to Macbeth saying, “So foul and fair a day I have not seen,” (1.3.36) two scenes later. This signifies a foreshadowing and a comparison of power from the non-mortal witches to the very much mortal Macbeth. This as well as seeing how on many occasions have there been characters who have praised him for his bravery, a grand theme of a passage that the Captain speaks of in the second scene of the first act, have given already give us a peek into the character that is Macbeth. From this we expect him to be heroic, to be valiant, to be charismatic, and yet we have not even formally met him.

Shakespeare uses direct characterization through

Chetan Bhagat and His Philosophy to be a Cockroach

This speech was a whole other world compared to Steve Dawson. Chetan Bhagat saw us as the type of audience that needed a bit more entertaining, or so at least that’s what we received. It wasn’t a better way to present but it was a better method to appeal to the audience, and I believe it has become his character to entertain in such a manner. The steps in which he told us about how he achieves change is to primarily entertain and then once you get the following, divert their attention and their loyalty towards you to a cause greater than the both of you. His goal to make a sense of change is one seemingly very dear to him as he said “If there is no change, then what’s the point?” But there are many obstacles and he provided a means of overcoming these. One must be a cockroach. Adaptable and resilient, the small creatures where around from the years of the dinosaurs, proving that the bigger you are doesn’t mean the better in every way. He wants to “change with the times” in order to get his message across a range of different people, and so with that, he defines two types of winners. One type is the one that wins within a game, a game pre-created by another person, and the other that wins the game by changing it, for the better and to benefit more people. Personally, I change the game to benefit myself because I’m a sore loser, but I understand the implementations of the situation. He leaves saying “Nobody should be scared of their own identity,” and this presents when he tells of critics and those who will want to oppose you.

Steve Dawson and his Law of Not SCHMOOZING

I really didn’t know who Steve Dawson was before he showed and so I didn’t expect much. He talked about Interviewing Techniques: 5 maxims for Great Answers and they were explained to a depth in which makes sense. Some of these techniques were obvious enough, but he explained why they were needed and to what extent they could alter an interview. It wasn’t all to meaningful to be completely honest, but it was a helpful guide to being professional.

found footage

I just came in for another day at work, my red apron on, hair up, and sorting out all the new foods that came in last nights shipping, making them nice and tidy. The Boss behind the counter, counting yesterdays earnings. I don’t know his name, strange right? We never seem to talk anyways so it’s all well. The store felt like peace, whatever that means.

And then He comes in.

An old employee, a fired old employee, with company.

Here to cause a scene I see.. I think to myself.

As I suspected, he’d come for his beloved cigarettes. After all, that’s what he was fired for, smoking on the job. I know that doesn’t seem like a big deal but it wasn’t just one or two breaks, or even three. It was the entire time. Smoking inside the store.

And here he is now.

Here to…

He grabs a box of them from in counter. I had just walked across the store to get more boxes to unpack and now, I’m in the middle of Italy, more like a bystander. One guy senses the tension in the situation in and runs off with some chocolates as the cigarettes are being passed to a third guy behind mr former employee. Grabbing more boxes of cigarettes, he’s in the Boss. The third guy runs off with his box as mr unemployed holds his gaze like a snake charmer then tactically breaks it. The Boss, out of his trance, runs after him before he gets out the store, only to get pushed into the nearest stand as his cigarettes run off. He tries running out after the villains but gives up before the door even has a chance to close. Choosing to take a more reasonable revenge. Boss calls to file in this ruckus.

English short stories


It would be challenging for those who hadn’t read many short or shortest stories yet and me at first, it would be hard to express oneself in a mere six words. There’s so many things we want to say but not a lot at the same time.


As we float, we sink further. -Jack

This could be interpreted in the sense of success over failure or gaining over losing. I think of it as what one had to sacrifice to become where the person is today. A simple example could be if you’re in debt and you live a lavish lifestyle and thats the front cover of the book that is you, you seem successful. Yet if you continue this path you lose internally and by anyone else’s concern you’re rich.


Smelled perfume on my husband’s collar, loved the scent, i’ll buy it in the shops next time. #lessismore


 My grandma looked at herself in the mirror, then asked, “Jacob, do you think I look old?” The six year old me then replied, “not old, just ugly.” I didn’t know about karma. Now, taxi drivers tell me, “emm, no can be model,” and, ”are you in sixth grade?”

Dude, I’m in high school.


LAYER FOUR: how language includes or excludes; represents or misrepresents. (Fry’s Planet Word)

LANGUAGE: the base of communication, as well as miscommunication. When you hear someone speak a language, that you know of, which isn’t the majority of what is spoken in whatever situation you’re in, you automatically feel a connection, even if the other person doesn’t feel it, yet. Contrarily, if you hear something foreign to you, even if it’s what’s most commonly spoken around you, you feel left out, excluded.

There were points aforementioned in the video where examples of traditions, simple commands, or jokes in conversations would not be able to be conveyed exactly, even through simple translation. In such situations, you see where you stand, whether you’re included or excluded in said conversations, maybe you understand it, but don’t understand because you’re not native. In any event, one shouldn’t worry too much because you probably have some “inside jokes” yourself. The Basque language is one of both inclusive and exclusive because it seems to be in between the French and the Spanish language with it’s own words as well.

Any and all languages you speak can represent who you are, the things you understand, or maybe the realities you present. Cities and cultures are tied to a language and sometimes the people who speak it. In many cases, however, language, whether your own or others, can misrepresent. Such ties can deceive your perceptions as in a world of transcendency to one of 100 years before, and many of the people who may “look” untied to one culture may be shoulder deep in it.

LAYER THREE: Views on Trump’s Fear of a Language and the its Identity

Post based on this article: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/10/donald-trumps-fear-spanish-power-language-identity

First off, Donald Trump’s views on others unlike him in physicality, as well as mentality, and his “excuses” regarding the matter, are completely aND UTTERLY DESPICABLE. His intolerance towards humans, who are indifferent to him, have no place in the 21st century or otherwise.

Now, regarding the article, the journalist feels that forced assimilation is oppressive, and therefore unjust. Even though it is not a crime, yet, official oppression might as well be. Indirectly, it is nonphysical abuse. Forced assimilation makes people erase their background just to fit in, making them a dying plant when their roots were just fine. She believes in the power of a language, an accent, a country. If one could fear a culture so bad, then therefore they have much power over the fearful.

Personally, I agree with most of her view points, including the unforeseen fear in which people of a place different that “common” emitted. Surely enough, it’s not globally seen as a fear. However, by the definitions “to have a reverential awe of” and “to expect with alarm” from the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the term “fear” only seems fitting. The sooner the general public understand and accept this, I figure that they’d realize how imbecilic the concept is. Sure! power is an impossible thing to give back. It really is motive to rise, and many a times have past leaders used this fear of to corruption.

In this situation, per contra, they fear a whole other culture because they don’t understand, nay refuse to. Many think that the English language is the master key, yet a mere 12.5(ish)% of the entire world speak it. Even this mentality ripples waves into all those who don’t. I, for example, know some people who mock others for not speaking English “correctly”. HOW MANY LANGUAGES CAN YOU SPEAK? If these situations were reversed into knowing an amount of languages and dialects, those who think they hold power would, essentially, fall apart. I pray you see the irony in such case.

How might you inflict a sense of unintentional intolerance upon others? And how could you be more aware of yourself?