It's just this play was written before feminism even existed. So that was the message women everywhere, especially of a higher class got. Heck, you can even read a book like Pink Think and realize women got that kind of message a lot in the 50s: pretend to be stupid, don't act smarter than the man, men hate that, that sort of thing is still around even these days.
I don't think it was right for her to leave her kids, but you have to understand it in the context of the time period she belonged to, one where she wouldn't have the right to take her kids in the first place, one where she had no choice but to marry an idiot for money as you say because marrying for love is kind of a recent phenomenon that wasn't an option in the bad old days.

I would also encourage you to think about the context it was written in.

I agree. Nora is perhaps the worst example of an early femenist in literary history. I couldn't stand her 3 pages into the play.

I agree also. I found Nora to be very annoying and nagging. She did live a lie and should have just been herself. I agree with Kristina that this could be the worst example of feminism.

i agree. From the beginnnig of the book Nora got on my last nerve. She's always nagging and it really agitated me. She also annoyed me because she's fake. AS said above, she's a supposed intelligent women who almost seems to play dumb in order to impress her husband

I totally agree with this review. To me, Nora seems to be too into herself and what she wants instead of thinking for others such as her children who she abandons. Nora seemed to be a lot into the rights of women a lot and did not want to follow the ideas at the time period. Every time Nora said something selfish, it made me not want to read the book at all. Readers usually want to read about someone who is exciting and the opposite of what Nora is.

This play wasn't written to advocate behavior like Nora's. Instead, Ibsen likely intended to have us grow an understanding, relationship and bond to each character (to each reader his/her own). With these devices of character development, Ibsen compelled the reader to gain insight on life through literature, as, according to your last paragraph, inclined you to think more deeply about feminism. You should have rated this play five stars since it illustrated Nora's behavior in a negative light by introducing Nora as an aggravating character to follow. It seems as if Ibsen wouldn't like Nora in person just as much as you wouldn't.

Yup.

Nora clearly states she leaves the children because she is of no use to them because all her beliefs about the 'miracle' were wrong! Yikes... do people actually read things or see what they want!!!

"A real feminist would not marry for money..." Um, do you know when this book was written? Any idea what the ideology behind marriage was in the 1800s? Have you read any Jane Eyre? The whole point of finding a suitable match was how much money they had. And it makes sense: finding a man was like finding a job nowadays--it was your source of social class and income for you and your children. Obviously this book should not be taught to high schoolers because SOMEONE needs a history lesson badly. Oh, and people hate feminists for two reasons 1)they are ignorant and 2) they are misogynists--not because all feminists "abandon children." I think you fall into the ignorant/uneducated category.

Wait, so ALL feminists are 1 and 2?

Moral is that everyone most and for all is an individual, not a woman/man, not a child/parent, not a muslim/christian/atheist etc., not a lawyer/teacher... And feminism is about giving women a choice, about making society respect the choice, while maybe not agreeing with it. That is all.

Perhaps in theory that is what feminism represents, but in practice I have found it oppressive and intolerant. For example, a lot of feminists nowadays tout the "women should have control over their bodies" mantra while simultaneously mocking women who freely choose to embody values they have chosen not to espouse, such as opposing contraception and abortion and choosing to respect their husbands as head of their households.

I don't know, it's just, why should the HUSBAND be the head though? That doesn't make sense. And it's all well and good for them to oppose contraception and abortion for themselves, but why force it on other people?

Plus again, why should the husband be the head? Why can't we both be the head?

I was more using that as an example than espousing those values (though I do think abortion and contraception are, at their roots, selfish decisions). The point I was trying to make is that feminism has been distorted simply from giving women a choice.
As for the husband thing, it's something I think about a lot as well. I often find myself rather juxtaposed between my fundamentalist friends and my progressive ones on this issue. I understand that perhaps there is a need for one partner to have a deciding voice if there is a true disagreement. Also, I have never seen a true partnership of equal authority between husband and wife--even if they claim it to be so. I have also seen families exist peacefully and productively with the husband at the head. But it's certainly a question I'm still exploring.
P.S. I only really meant to make clear that I didn't necessarily think the husband thing was the case, just that I was giving those examples as a point upon which feminists don't seem to embody their values. I probably shouldn't have subjected you to my random musings!! :P