Act I Analysis: Patriarchy and Privilege

      Henrik Ibsen's A Doll's House is an examination of the effects of ignorance on a seemingly ideal household.  Ignorance is a broad theme of the play; it can be understood as the lack of empathy between a man and his wife, or a general lack of important information that causes Nora to make sloppy mistakes. 
      The influence of the patriarchy--that is, a society dominated by male influence and leadership--shaped Nora's actions.  In the nineteenth century, a woman was not to question her husband, no matter his intent or foolishness.  Nora comments that, "it was tremendous fun sitting there working and earning money.  It was almost like being a man..." (p 162).  This demonstrates that she has cunning, despite her aloof persona.  Torvald accuses Nora of squandering money on frivolous items, but never investigates.  The condescending tone that Torvald speaks to Nora with establishes that he does not think she could make independent choices.  One such interaction is as follows:
           "HELMER: So my little obstinate one's out of her depth, and wants someone to rescue her?
             NORA: Yes, Torvald, I can't do anything without you to help me." (p 178)
Nora takes advantage of Torvald's lack of expectations.  Because of this, she is able to take out a significant loan, lie about its origin, skim money from the household funds, and amortize the loan without suspicion.  The patriarchal society gives Nora no power to negotiate life on her own terms, but the assumption by men that women are incapable lets her deceive her husband.  It should be noted, however, that Nora seems to admire her husband in spite of his superior attitude towards her.  
      A negative effect of Nora's patriarchal, upper class society is that it leaves her very unaccustomed to real life.  She was born in relative wealth, and married into relative wealth; Nora never needed to work full time in order to make ends meet.  This left her severely lacking in understanding of business negotiations, money, and empathy towards those less fortunate.  She is incredulous to hear that a widowed friend was left nothing by her husband: 
        "NORA: Nothing at all?
         LINDE: Not even any regrets to break my heart over.
         NORA: Oh, but Kristina, that can't be true.
         LINDE: It happens like that sometimes..." (p 154)
Because of her privileged status, Nora does not understand corruption or manipulation.  It does not occur to her that she has dated her father's signature after his death, and this can be attributed to her lack of experience in high-pressure scenarios.  This ignorance created by circumstance/lack of exposure is similar to the argument made by lawyers defending Ethan Couch.  Couch was arrested for killing pedestrians while driving drunk; his lawyers argued that Couch did not understand his actions were wrong because he was afflicted with "affluenza", or a lack of common sense due to his wealthy upbringing.  Ibsen impresses on the reader the foolishness of certain white collar crime.  Torvald was too proud to take out loans, even though it would have saved his life.  His wife was moved to crime because of his pride in the matter, which likely would not have afflicted someone of lower standing.
       Is the villain of A Doll's House Krogstad, the desperate man seeking to keep his job, or Torvald, the husband whose pride forces Nora to go to extremes in order to save his life?  Is the true villain the patriarchy, which made Nora a victim of circumstance, or should she have obeyed her husband and the law?