The document compares how The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath, A Doll's House by Henrik Ibsen, and Power Politics by Margaret Atwood portray female protagonists struggling against the restrictive expectations of patriarchal societies. All three works illustrate how the women attempt to establish independent identities separate from their prescribed social roles, using symbolic elements and the protagonists' growing self-awareness of their oppression.

1. Compare the way in which Sylvia Plath’s The Bell Jar, Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House
and Margaret Atwood’s Power Politics explore female protagonists as victims of
society.
The perennial struggle between men and women has been incessantly prolonged due to
corrupt patriarchal societies that contrive oppressive distinctions amid each gender. Sylvia
Plath’s novel ‘The Bell Jar’, Henrik Ibsen’s play ‘A Doll’s House’ and Margaret Atwood’s
anthology ‘Power Politics’ illustrate the female protagonist’s plight for identity amongst the
inimical restraints forcibly imposed by society and coercively enforced by men. All three
contentious pieces depict the pernicious influence and derogatory expectations of a male-
dominated culture – a concept prevalent within their eras - that profusely damages their
female protagonist. The texts raise the pertinent issues of feminism and sexism through
pragmatic exposition of “the glass ceiling that plagued woman during this time”
(Montgomery, 2007). All three authors embark on emancipating their female protagonist
from “the stifling existence of domesticity” (Monaco)with the use of an intrepid style and
incisive diction fitting to their candid tone. All authors encompass a realistic or confessional
style that enables them to manifest on the female protagonist’s struggle for a true identity
free from the subordinate regulations of a morally depraved society.
Plath, Ibsen and Atwood depict the unprecedented antithesis amid each gender in order to
expose the oppressive expectations of their female protagonist. All portray the regimented
society of their time and “the division between conventional masculine and feminine
behaviour” (Baxter, 1995).The Bell Jar’s Esther Greenwood has a “thwarted longing for
relatedness with others” (Bonds, 1990) which remains unattainable due to her inability to
obey the patriarchal archetype stipulated by society. Throughout the novel Plath alludes to
her own personal turmoil through the eyes of Esther in 1950’s New York, a period in which
“deadly and diverse threats [were] posed to American norms” (Gill, 2008) and thus despotic
expectations were infiltrated into the female. Plath attains to “evoke the tense climate of the
age” (Gill, 2008) whilst insinuating the “destructive tendencies of the men and women” (Gill,
2008), suffocating the female protagonist. Esther invariably realises that she “was supposed
to be” like the other girls at the Amazon Hotel; Plath repetitively conveying a contemptuous
tone emphasises that Esther comprehends the need to conform to monotonous social
standards – metaphorically articulated through repetition of “brown eyes...brown hair...brown
mascara” - yet has no poignant desire to “get married to some career man”. Plath’s sardonic
diction, accentuated with the word “some” suggests women yearn to obtain marriage
regardless of love, which once again highlights the corrupt culture of the time and the
“intensification of an idealised domestic ideology” (Gill, 2008) that Esther is unable to
conform to. This concept alludes to Nora, the female protagonist in Ibsen’s A Doll’s House
who also is strictly confined by “two kinds of moral laws...one for men and one quite different
for women” (Baxter, 1995).Although both Esther and Nora are severely oppressed by the
debauched society in which they live in, Nora initially embraces her regimented role within
the Norwegian household and feels that females should seek “the right man to work for”.
Ibsen “strove to present objective reality” (Baxter, 1995) and gradually illustrates Nora
understanding that she has “had enough of what most people say”; she begins to
comprehend that Helmer has “done [her] great wrong” and she has merely “existed to
perform” her diminutive role as a subordinate housewife. Ibsen explores Nora’s cognitive
dissonance of her relationship with her husband; primarily, Nora adores Helmer
pretentiously calling her his “little songbird” or “squirrel”, even when his neologisms become

2. progressively derogatory as the plot evolves – such as when he begins to refer to his wife as
“little miss helpless” or a “little creature” in Act Two – yet Nora enjoys gratifying the male
fantasy. The persistent repetition of “little” emphasises Nora’s subordinate role not only
within the household, but being metaphorically minor within society. Nora even takes it upon
herself to ask “vewwy nithely” in an attempt to manipulate her husband, but this also shows
Ibsen conveying child-like diction in order to emphasise Nora as Helmer’s “dolly-wife”; Ibsen
reiterates Nora acquiescing to Torvald’s power through several stage directions, such as
Nora repeatedly “going to him” and “running to him with open arms”. Ibsen “paints a bleak
picture of the sacrificial role” (Varela) held not only by Nora, but all women during this time;
his iconoclastic perception of the 19th
century perpetually exposes the moral depravity within
the Helmer household. Eventually, Nora recognises that the ‘miracle’ does not exist once
Torvald discovers her deceit and brands her a “criminal...[whose] killed [his] happiness”.
Nora declaring “no more fancy dress” metaphorically serves as Ibsen stripping the female
protagonist’s verbosity, infantilism and exuberant exhortations and instead revealing a
vulnerable, damaged women severely oppressed by the expectations imposed by her
dissolute society. Margaret Atwood’s “Power Politics” also delineates the “predicament of
women in a sexist society” (Onley, 1974) due to its patriarchal, monotheistic expectations.
Like Plath, Atwood was also engulfed by the detrimental, cultural antithesis amid genders in
the 1950s and both “challenge the idea of necessity or fixedness” (Howells, 2006). The
jarring and ominous tone conveyed in ‘yes at first you’ exposes the female persona’s
arduous struggle of conforming to a male-dominated culture; Atwood’s cacophonic diction of
“kick”, “brutal” and “splinters” emphasises this plight and evokes raw visual and kinesthetic
imagery of female victimization. This sharply juxtaposes the preceding stanza in which the
persona admits “you go down smooth as pills” and shows submission by “all of me breaths
you in”; the tactile and gustatory imagery momentarily exhibits a more euphonic tone, yet
Atwood dissipates this harmonious concept and exposes the “violent duality of oppositional
forces” (Howells, 2006) with a “kick in the head”. The sharp antithetical diction amid the
stanzas could relate to the evolving cognition of Nora in A Doll’s House who primarily
believes “every idea I have seems silly” due to submissive conditioning by society and her
unremittingly capitulating to the patriarchal dominance of her husband. However, when
Helmer proclaims she has “killed [his] happiness” Nora finally comprehends the corrupt
nature of the 19th
century culture and realises her husband wasn’t “the man [she’d]
imagined.” Atwood also depicts the destructive consequences of gender juxtaposition in ‘you
are the sun’ in which the female persona suffers “role-engulfment as an omnipresent fate”
(Onley, 1974) due to the coercive demands of society. The incessant repetition of “you”
emphasises patriarchal dominance upon the female persona, who “lie[s] mutilated beside”
the suggested male; Atwood “awakens readers to the true nature of this role” (Poudrier,
2013) with violent, hyperbole diction and an abrupt tone which severely exposes the “reality
defined and deformed by the patriarchal mind” (Howells, 2006) and symbolically evokes
feminist suffering during the 1950’s. Overall, the three texts explore how the sinister and
inauspicious magnitude of gender antithesis and societal expectations perpetually
detriments their female protagonist.
All three authors convey emblematic undertones for the characters of their pieces that
emphasises the anchoritic, reclusive nature of the female protagonist from the oppressive
culture in which she abides. Plath, Ibsen and Atwood “question the contrasting principles”
(Montgomery, 2007)dictated by society by administering several archetypal symbols that
either reflect the female protagonist or other characters within their piece. Sylvia Plath’s The

3. Bell Jar encompasses numerous allegorical references to emphasise the formidable plight of
Esther and other female characters. The most protrusive symbol in the novel evidently lies in
the title; Plath exemplifies the ingrained societal demands of her time by exploring how
females “sat under bell jars of a sort”. The ‘jar’ connotes to confinement and restriction,
concepts that Plath abidingly illustrates Esther attempting to elude from. The ‘bell jar’
henceforth becomes an impervious motif throughout the novel, portraying how “tracks of
hope in a landscape growing increasingly darker” (Conoboy, 2012)leave the female
protagonist “stewing in [her] own sour air”. The erroneous female exertion against patriarchal
tyranny is also defined in Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House, which explicates “the repressive
cultural mould that has trapped many” (Monaco) through similar symptomatic references.
Nora’s “struggle to harmonise with society’s expectations” (Tanvir, 2010) climaxes when she
frantically performs the tarantella dance; Ibsen depicts this performance at the height of the
female protagonist’s fear and hysteria of Krogstad’s threat. Ibsen depicts this anxiety
through stage directions such as Nora dancing “ever more wildly”, being completely
“engrossed in the dance.” The mythology of the tarantella suggests that she is
metaphorically ridding herself of a ‘deadly poison’; the manic dance frenetically enacted by
Nora therefore “resonates with the apocalyptic tremors of Ibsen’s time” (Historical Context,
1999) due to her futilely challenging the inimical restraints promulgated by Helmer and her
licentious society. The unavailing struggle against patriarchal prepotency is a concept also
depicted in Atwood’s ‘hesitations outside the door’ with the use of distinct allegorical
mechanisms. The foreboding and detached tone when depicting the “house” which she can’t
“find [her] way around” presents Atwood portraying the female persona as “locked inside a
series of cultural representations that he created” (Howells, 2006) and therefore
emphasising patriarchal dominance upon susceptible females. The “house” symbolically
represents the relationship between the suggested female and male, and the “door” which is
“closed” metaphorically alludes to female emancipation being intangible and unattainable.
Atwood proceeds to define the ‘house’ as something “neither of us owns” which therefore
could suggest society possessing despotic sovereignty over both genders due to the corrupt
inhibitions it imposes. Atwood declares “fulfilment mean[ing] incarnation within the
archetype” (Onley, 1974) an oppressive state also suffered by Nora in A Doll’s House; Ibsen
portrays the stove in the play as the heart of the domestic space, and therefore the integral
reside of the female protagonist. Ibsen highlights the 19th
century “subordinat[ing] women to
a masculine narcissism” (Anderson, 2003) by symbolising the stove as Nora’s place as a
wife when conforming to societal demands. Ibsen exhibits this symbol predominantly
through stage directions such as Nora “going towards the stove” and when she “begins
stirring up the stove”; Nora mainly resumes her subsidiary role within her household when
her husband discusses finance and business, subjects anomalous to her role due to
society’s prohibitive impositions. Esther Greenwood also dismally comprehends how
females were “forced to fulfil their womanly duty in a compromising position” (Monaco)and
can’t abdicate from the demand to conform to due to the perennial presence of media
indoctrination. Throughout the novel, Plath’s symbolic use of news and media reinforces the
conventional values of 1950’s New York; the need to “mutilate or deform herself through
marriage and motherhood” (Bonds, 1990)is metaphorically suggested when Mrs Greenwood
sends Esther a chastity pamphlet or when Esther reads magazines about motherhood in the
doctor’s waiting room – her repulsion of domesticity is exhibited through her repetition of
“babies” -shows the “multiplicity of influences which stimulated girls to do what was expected
of them” (Watts P. R., 2008). Both incidents allegorically allude to the moral depravity of
patriarchal culture when regarding the female. The persistent reminder of the obligation to

4. pursue societal expectations demonstrates Esther’s “deeply ingrained sense of belonging
nowhere” (Gill, 2008) due to the antithesis she felt between her actual life and the glamour
and romance portrayed in magazines. Margaret Atwood also “identifies social discourse as a
deliberately constructed artifice” (Howells, 2006) through incisive allegorical references once
again in ‘hesitations outside the door’. Atwood depicts the suggested male beholding a
“crown of shining blood”; ‘crown’ implies power and sovereignty, which alludes to the
patriarchal oppression present within the time Atwood was writing. The visual imagery of
“shining blood” adjusts the poem to a more violent and passionate tone, which symbolically
exhibits Atwood exposing the encumbrances and flaws of societal expectations. The
continual repetition of “your” reiterates the theme of patriarchal supremacy; masculine
ascendancy becomes an integral motif throughout “Power Politics” that emphasises the
female persona’s “journey through a refracted landscape of distortion and menace”
(Howells, 2006). Overall, Plath, Ibsen and Atwood attain to evoke morally distorted gender
roles within a sexist culture by utilising allegorical allusions and emblematical motifs.
The forbidding restraints imposed by corrupt patriarchal cultures have evolved the collective
fight for identity. Plath, Ibsen and Atwood all expose the female protagonist “constricted by
the...universal opinion that woman's place would be in the home” (Watts P. R., 2008) and
therefore desperately attempting to redeem individuality from this derogatory expectation.
The Bell Jar exhibits the prevailing struggle of Esther Greenwood obtaining freedom from
the subordinate future her life awaits; Esther’s unconventionality and reclusiveness is
disparaged by characters such as her mother and the girls at the Amazon Hotel, who do
nothing but prolong the “hullabaloo”, of pursuing an identity while she is socially labelled as
one of “those who fall out the norm” (Gill, 2008). Esther frantically trying to understand her
path in life is allegorically explored in the symbolic “fig tree” which metaphorically
demonstrates Esther futilely debating “which of the figs [she] would choose”. Throughout the
novel Esther questions which route she wants to take against the path she must take; the
juxtaposing ideals leave her “flat and full of shattered visions” from “the stereotyped world
she inhabits” (Saunder, 2009). The fragmentary plight on distinguishing individuality amid a
repressive culture is also conveyed in A Doll’s House; Nora is refrained from exploring her
own identity due to being a “victim of masculine egotism” (Gosse, 1889). Ibsen symbolically
exhibits the lack of ‘self’ in the female protagonist in Act 1 by stating that the “dolly-wife”
must ring a bell to enter her own home; the subtle stage direction utilised by Ibsen reveals
Nora’s power inadequacy and how she was “rarely permitted to act independently” (Baxter,
1995). Predominantly in the play, Nora succumbs to societal expectation and “her husband’s
value system” (Baxter, 1995);she appears to passively overlook Helmer’s derogatory insults,
such as referring to his wife as “a silly empty-headed little woman” – a comment that
encapsulates the corrupt stance of society - whilst Nora’s vacant response highlights how
“obedience was the main trait that defined women” (Noelle, 2010). In the Act 1 and 2, Nora
feels compelled to perform what 19th
century Norway regarded as “her duties as a
citizen…being an ideal housewife” (Watts R. , 2009). She accepts that her husband has
“given her life, identity”, a concept reflective of ‘I can’t tell you my name’ by Margaret
Atwood. The suggested female futilely engages in “an on-going process of re-creating the
self” (Howells, 2006), a plight made metaphorically elusive with Atwood imposing that “the
sea is on your side”. “Your” seems to imply a male persona, one that is repetitively
mentioned throughout the poem, which therefore suggests patriarchal dominance
subjugating the female. The ‘sea’ as an archetype symbolises power and strength, which
further exposes “the entrapped female psyche” (Howells, 2006) whose ‘name’ is never

5. discovered as she states “you don’t believe I have one”. Atwood’s metonymical diction
exhibits masculine tyranny, a concept becoming gradually indigenous to the time in which
she was writing; the undisclosed name symbolically represents the “structured misogyny”
(Killian, 1996) mutilating the female protagonist to conform to the 1950’s “narrow standards
of normalcy” (Davies, 2010), leaving her with no identity. Deficient individuality of a female
protagonist is also explored in ‘I look up, you are standing’; patriarchal despotism once again
becomes Atwood’s motif for exploring the corrupt nature of societal impositions. The
repetition of “you descend on me” reiterates the idea of “male dominance and female
subservience” (University, 2005) believed to have existed in Atwood’s era. The “denigration
of women” (Catalano, 2002) is also explored with Atwood’s antithesis of diction and
pronouns; when referring to “you”, the suggested male, Atwood depicts superiority and
power, such as him “ris[ing]” and “standing”. “I” is instead “summoned”; the female persona
is provocatively depicted more subordinate and “vanishes” wherever “it [he] touches me”. All
these concepts highlight the female persona struggling to emancipate herself from female
“essentialism” (Wesselius), a belief glorified and severely imposed by males and society as
a collective. Overall, all three authors convey how the plight for a less subservient and
vacant identity is intangible due to oppressive masculine regulations and corrupt societal
inhibitions.
As each plot evolves, the female protagonists incisively comprehend the need to break from
society’s “gender identities” (Ravari, 2010) construed by the patriarchal mind; each author
explores how their female protagonist fights against cultural norms further oppressing their
pre-determined lifestyles in order to attain individuality. Plath lugubriously alludes to her own
turbulent background and the “suffocating isolation” (Agonia, 2003) she herself experienced
during the 1950s era. Plath unremittingly explores Esther confronting “her own unrecognised
or distorted image” (Bonds, 1990) through potent, emblematic metaphors. Towards the end
of The Bell Jar, Esther’s mental deterioration prevails as her plight for individuality from the
“inimical world” (Monaco) she endures becomes increasingly elusive as she realises she
wasn’t “steering anything, not even myself”. The idea of achieving freedom from subordinate
obligations evolves to intrinsically detriment the mental state of the female protagonist;
Plath’s symbolic use of mirrors in the novel exhibits this plight as Ether begins to believe her
“voice sounded strange and hollow in [her] ears” and instead regards herself as a “smudgy-
eyed Chinese woman”. Plath’s detached and perhaps sardonic tone explores the female
protagonist’s “disconnection from reality” (Conoboy, 2012), whilst her use of metaphorical
diction exposes the proliferation of damage caused by society and her conformed peers.
Similarly, Nora comprehends how she has “existed to perform” to the patriarchal ideal
extolled by her husband; In Act 3, Nora courageously explains to Torvald how he has
“blocked [her] life” by infiltrating gendered regulations leaving “no opportunity to express
[her] own identity” (Pinerová, 2012); Ibsen maintains Nora’s tone as detached and
foreshadowing to her ultimate departure from societal and masculine constraints impeding
her individuality. Ibsen’s pragmatic choice of tone and diction for the female protagonist
sharply juxtaposes her giddy, jubilant self in the preceding acts; this harsh antithesis further
exposes to the audience Nora’s comprehension of the cultural discrimination she became
accustomed to. She establishes how, to her callous husband, she “has never been subject,
only object” (Johnston, 2000); Helmer epitomises the “gendered patterns of power in a
patriarchal society” (Langas, 2006), similarly to the male persona’s depicted in Atwood’s
‘hesitations outside the door’, who also discriminate females by imposing monotonous
identity regulations. The assertive and factious tone conveyed is antithetical of previous

6. poems in ‘Power Politics’ that exhibit more submissive, isolate imagery – such as ‘they are
hostile nations’ in which the female persona admits she will “surrender” and “forgive”; this
therefore implies Atwood depicting the female persona attempting to rid herself of the social
obligation of pursuing a patriarchal lifestyle. The female prays for the suggested male to
“leave [her] alone” which highlights the poignant desire for her “essential self to break free“
(Howells, 2006); the kinesthetic imagery of “you cover me” exposes the reclusive, enclosed
and detrimental effect a male-dominated culture has on the female persona. Atwood
expresses “the feeling of loss of self” (Atwood, 2012), also explored in Plath’s The Bell Jar.
Esther futilely attempts to grasp freedom from gendered guidelines through establishing the
pseudonym “Elly Higginbottom”; although the female protagonist succeeds in establishing a
palpable identity, the “foreign identity” (Schommer, 2009) ultimately foils her own character
and she omits to create an augmented personality for herself. Esther neglecting her true
‘self’ fundamentally prolongs her mental instability and prevents her from attaining her
genuine, indubitable identity; she appears to do nothing but internally perpetuate her
struggle and gradually becomes “lost between several stereotypes” (Saunder, 2009).
However, Esther appears most complacent when “in a hot bath”; the female protagonist
discovers being immersed in water as a chance to dispirit and redeem herself from
experiences that symbolise the corrupt nature of society. This is evident when she interacts
with Lenny Shepherd and Doreen – a couple infatuated with themselves and the fraudulent
morals of their culture; accepting that she is unable to conform herself, Esther decides to
bathe, as “the longer [she] lay there...the purer [she] felt.” It is soon evident that the female
protagonist “has no muse or role model” (Saunder, 2009) that enables her to truly distinguish
her own identity, a conclusion perhaps antithetical to A Doll’s House in which Nora
overcomes patriarchal oppression and envisions the desire to “think things out for [her]self”.
Anti-feminist remarks such as “women [being] stupid, submissive and purely domestic
creatures” (Catalano, 2002) encapsulate the immoral attitude of 19th
century Norway shaping
the identity of Nora. The “conflict between social convention and freedom” (Liew, 2012) is
finally differentiated and understood by the female protagonist, who proclaims to her
husband that they are “both free. On both sides: freedom”; Nora boldly establishes that her
freedom has been sacrificed throughout her life – by her father and then husband – as it
proves contest to patriarchal conventions. Ibsen’s metonymical depiction of ‘freedom’
explores Nora discovering her wish to pursue a new identity free from the power imbalance
and inadequacy she endured within her socially influenced household. Much to Torvald’s
disgust and confusion, she dreams to exist as a “human being, the same as you”; her
ambition is to break free from the subservient life she was forced to acclimatize to as she
now conceives “the woman [she] is now is no wife” for Torvald, who prevails his confidence
in “social, religious and moral codes of the time” (Baxter, 1995) until the inevitable end. Once
again, Atwood’s ‘hesitations outside the door’ also depicts the female persona denouncing
her supposed “duties as a citizen” (Watts R. , 2009) in order to achieve individuality from
misogynist constraints. Atwood illustrates the female persona’s truculent and hostile tone
towards the implied male, as she proclaims he “will not listen”, and instead “challeng[es]
every form of the psyche’s insularity” (Howells, 2006) in order to subdue her existence. The
female persona embarks on attaining independency from discriminate obligations as she
ultimately establishes the “false bodies” she has become accustomed to; Atwood’s
allegorical portrayal of society further emphasises the entrapment of her female persona,
who can’t “find [her] way around” the debauched and perfidious morals of the 1950’s culture.
Atwood exposes the “destructive myths which have prevailed” (Somacarrera, 2000) to
constitute the disparaging yet “inseparable dyad” (Somacarrera, 2000) of male and female.

7. Overall, all three authors embark on freeing their female protagonist from the depreciating,
sexist values on the morally depraved society in which they endure in order to establish a
true ‘self’.
By exposing the iniquitous disposition of society that is glorified by the patriarchal mind,
Plath, Ibsen and Atwood reveal the unwarranted errors found within their admissible eras;
the female protagonists adhere to poignantly convey the revolutionary message of gender
inequality that is grievously extolled by their own culture. With the pragmatic application of
style, tone and diction, the authors effectively depict to readers and audiences alike, female
victimization as an ominous yet inevitable fate due to societal obligations.
Word count with textual references: 3743
Word count without textual references: 2791
Bibliography:
Plath, S. (1963). The Bell Jar. Faber and Faber
Ibsen, H. (1879). A Doll’s House. Cambridge University Press
Atwood, M. (1971). Power Politics. Anansi Press
Agonia,L.(2003). Identityin The Bell Jar. SanJuan,PuertoRico: Agonia.net.
Anderson,P.S.(2003, August). Autonomy,Vulnerability and Gender. RetrievedMarch2013, from
FeministTheory:Sage Journals:http://fty.sagepub.com/content/4/2/149.short
Atwood,M. (2012). Margaret Atwood,The Artof Fiction.(t.P. Mary Morris, Interviewer)
Baxter,J.(1995). A Doll's House: ResourceNotes. Cambridge Literature.
Bonds,D. S. (1990). The SeperativeSelf in Sylvia Plath'sThe Bell Jar. Routledge.
Catalano,C.(2002). "Shaping theAmerican Woman:Feminismand Advertising in the 1950s"
Constructing thePast:Vol.3:Iss.1,Article 6. IllinoisWesleyanUniversity.
Conoboy,T.(2012). The Bell Jar by SylviaPlath. TomConoboy'sWriting Blog , March 19th.
Davies,M. (2010). Defining Normal:Experts& GenderRoles in the 1950s. Historyof Madness.
Gill,J.(2008). The CambridgeIntroductionto Sylvia Plath. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Gosse,E. (1889). Ibsen'sSocialDramas. The FortnightlyReview/Twentieth-CenturyLiteraryCriticism.
Historical Context.(1999). Retrieved2013, fromJiffyNotes:
http://www.jiffynotes.com/DollsHouseA/HistoricalContext.html
Howells,C.A.(2006). The CambridgeCompanion to MargaretAtwood. Cambridge:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Johnston,I.(2000, July).OnIbsen'sA Doll'sHouse (Lecture). On Ibsen'sA Doll's House . Nanaimo,BC,
Canada: MalaspinaUniversity-College.

8. Killian,L.(1996). Poetry and theModern Woman:P.KPageand theGender of Impersonality.
CanadianLiterature.
Langas, P.U. (2006). What did Nora do?Thinking Genderwith A Doll's House. Kristiansand:Adger
UniversityCollege/Routledge.
Liew,X.(2012). FreedomVersusSocialConvention in A Doll's House,by Henrik Ibsen. helium.com.
Monaco, R. Through TheBell Jar. NewJersey:BergenCommunityCollege.
Montgomery,C.(2007). Feminismin Sylvia Plath'sThe Bell Jar.
Noelle.(2010). "A Doll House"by Henrik Ibsen:A Marxistand FeministAnalysis. SanFrancisco:
HubPages.
Onley,G.(1974). PowerPolitics in Bluebeard'sCastle. Vancouver:CanadianLiterature.
Pinerová,K.(2012). Woman and Her Identity in the Prison Subculturein the1950s . Czechoslovakia:
politicalprisoners.eu.
Poudrier,C.(2013). Victimization in Margaret Atwood'sPowerPolitics. Oklahoma:The Universityof
Science andArtsof Oklahoma.
Ravari,Z. K. (2010). "Women'sOppression through Patriarchal-CapitalistDominations"Review of
European Studies:Vol.2,No.2. MindenPulauPenang,Malaysia:School of Humanities,University
SainsMalaysia.
Saunder,S.(2009). Sylvia Plath:An Analysisof The Bell Jar.
Saunders,S.(2009). Sylvia Plath:An Analysisof The Bell Jar.
Schommer,S.(2009). The Split Identityof Esther Greenwood in Sylvia Plath'sThe Bell Jar.
Simmons,M.A Doll'sHouse by HenrikIbsenPage 14. (p.22). Quia.
Somacarrera,P. (2000). 'Barometer Couple':Balanceand Parallelism in MargaretAtwood'sPower
Politics. Sage Journals:Language andLiterature.
Tanvir,N.(2010). A Doll's Houseby Henrik Ibsen. ClassicEnglishLiterature Notes.
University,M.S. (2005). Women in the Movies:The 1950s. Michigan:https://www.msu.edu.
Varela,S.T. Lecture on A Doll's House. El Paso,Texas:Departmentof English,Universityof Texas.
Watts, P.R. (2008). Gender,Work and Education in Britain in the 1950's. ReviewsinHistory.
Watts, R. (2009). Gender, Workand Education in Britain in the 1950s (review). London:Reviewsin
History.
Wesselius,J.C. Gender IdentitywithoutGenderPrescriptions:Dealing with Essentialismand
Constructionismin FeministPolitics. Boston:Paideia,BostonUniversity.