Aufgabe I

Sum up the text.

(30%)

Examine how the author presents Thomas’s character. Focus on narrative perspective and use of language.

(30%)

Choose one of the following tasks.

3.1

You are taking part in an international social science workshop on “Changing Gender Roles.” You have been asked to contribute an article for the workshop’s website commenting on the following statement about “toxic masculinity” by artist Luke Humphris:

“It’s how a patriarchal society is harmful to men by denying unmasculine traits and rewarding anger, violence, and destructive habits. Left unattended, toxic masculinity can cause men to hurt themselves or others.”

Write the article, also referring to the text at hand and materials studied in class, such as William Shakespeare’s play Hamlet.

3.2

Using the message of the cartoon as a starting point, assess to what extent expectations of behavior are still shaped by gender norms.

"An Illustrated Guide to the Double Standards of Parenting" Zugriff am 17.01.2024.

(30%)

Excerpt from Ani Katz, A Good Man (2020)

The protagonist of the novel is Thomas Martin, who has recently got married to Miriam, a young Jewish woman from Paris.

Miriam’s parents were the first problem. They didn’t bother to come to the wedding –

they saw no point in dragging themselves across the Atlantic for a civil ceremony –

but Miriam prevailed upon them to visit that December, her first Chanukah away from

home.

Their taxi pulled up just before sundown. From our front door, we could see their

dour faces peering out at the street, as if they were afraid to leave the car. Miriam’s

mother was a small and elegant woman, her thick dark hair shot through with white;

she said very little, communicating through endless touches on her daughter’s arms

and shoulders. Her father was neatly dressed, reserved and unsmiling. He shook my

hand firmly, and I met his eyes for a full three beats before he looked away.

I tried to curry favor over dinner as I told them about the house we would buy very

soon, my upcoming promotion and raise. They nodded distractedly as Miriam babbled

in a torrent of French and English, translating furiously, until her father sighed and

held up his hand. […]

When I think of that visit, I mostly think of Miriam’s anxious expression, her eyes

flitting back and forth between her parents and me, her husband, as she recognized the

sundering between her old life and her new one. I felt a palpable sense of relief when

these strangers finally went home, leaving my wife and me alone together.

Her parents may have been the first imperfection in our fairy tale, but as soon as

Miriam got pregnant we relapsed into bliss. I always thought it was a cliché to say that

women glow when they’re expecting – and I’m sure that for most women, it’s not true

at all – but Miriam really did glow. […] It excited me to think that I was responsible

for changing her, that I was the one who had altered her body so markedly.

I only have one bad memory from those months. It was early summer, her second

trimester. We were still living in Brooklyn, and I was coming home from work […]. I

turned our corner and saw her down the block. She was in a cornflower blue maternity

dress, facing away from the street, looking into someone else’s garden. Miri, my wife.

I came up behind her and put my hand on her elbow, and when she turned I saw that

she was smoking a cigarette. It trembled in her fingers for a brief moment before I

knocked it out of her hand.

What are you doing? I said. She took a step back from me.

I’m sorry.

Are you crazy?

I said I’m sorry!

I knew we were making a scene, right there on our pleasant street, and the shame of

the spectacle inflamed me further.

How could you?

I needed one, she said. Just one.

You needed one?

I couldn’t help it, I’m just so, so –

She couldn’t finish her sentence. She began to cry, and after a few moments of

watching her thin frame heave with sobs, I folded her into my arms, the gentle mound

of our baby pressed against me.

It’s okay, I said. I forgive you.

That was when I decided it was time to get serious about buying a house, as I had

promised Miriam’s parents. The apartment was barely big enough for the two of us,

and it was time to start living like adults. Like a family. House hunting would give us

a project, a constructive outlet for Miriam’s anxiety, which was beginning to mount.

She refused to buy anything for the baby or do more than the bare minimum of re-

search, citing superstitions, the evil eye, other nonsense.

A house would be different. A home was something to look forward to.

We’d gone to a few open houses out on Long Island earlier that spring, just to get a

feel for the market, but now I kicked the search into high gear, broker and all, and we

spent the summer scouring the hamlets of the North Shore.

Finally, on a warm Sunday in September, we pulled up to 26 Harbor Lane, a Dutch

Colonial with a wide porch and dormer windows, half an hour northwest of the house

where I’d grown up. Golden light soaked the lush lawn. Looking at the house, I could

imagine the sound of footsteps and happy shouts, could see first-day-of-school photos

taken on the porch, trick-or-treaters congregating in the doorway, Christmas lights

strung up in the towering apple tree in the front yard. I could smell Miriam’s cooking

in the renovated open kitchen, feel the warmth of fires I’d build in the living room

hearth. I could see a life lived – our life.

Miriam needed a little more persuasion. She’d gone along gamely with the search,

but when it was time to make an offer she balked. She wasn’t ready to abandon the

idea of a larger place in Brooklyn, even though I’d told her again and again that with

our budget those kinds of places didn’t exist, and that staying in the city wouldn’t make

sense for us in the long run. Still, she resisted. It was her trust fund, and the down

payment on the house would eat up most of the principal, leaving us house poor aside

from my income. But it was what we wanted. She kept asking if we were sure, and I

kept reminding her yes, of course we were sure.

We closed in early November, a few weeks before Miriam’s due date, and after

leaving the lawyer’s office we stopped by the house that was finally ours, just the two

of us. In the front vestibule I popped open a bottle of celebratory champagne, the cork

bouncing away from me into the dark and empty living room, ricocheting off the wall.

To us, I said, raising my plastic cup.

To us, Miriam repeated.

She took one sip, then poured the contents of her cup into mine.

(993 words)

From: Ani Katz. A Good Man. London: Windmill, 2021. 74 –78.

Weiter lernen mit SchulLV-PLUS!

monatlich kündbarSchulLV-PLUS-Vorteile im ÜberblickDu hast bereits einen Account?

Newlyweds Miriam and Thomas receive a visit from Miriam’s parents, who have traveled from France.
The encounter turns out to be uncomfortable.
Thomas is relieved when her parents finally leave.
His joy increases when he learns Miriam is pregnant.
Thomas later finds Miriam smoking a cigarette.
When he reproaches her in front of others, Miriam breaks down in tears.
Despite Miriam wanting to stay in Brooklyn, Thomas begins the search for a home on Long Island.
In the end, they purchase a house using Miriam’s money, following Thomas’s preference.
They celebrate the purchase with a toast.

The author presents Thomas Martin’s character through a first-person narrative, which allows readers to see events solely from Thomas’s perspective. This limited viewpoint, combined with specific language choices, highlights Thomas's possessiveness, emotional distance, and his concern with appearances, while also revealing his desire to be seen as responsible and in control.

Introduction

The use of a first-person narrator limits the reader to Thomas’s point of view, excluding Miriam’s perspective and subtly indicating his lack of empathy.
Thomas is portrayed as an unreliable narrator, offering biased evaluations and judgments (e.g., describing the “endless touches on her daughter’s arms,” l. 8, and referring to Miriam’s parents as “strangers,” l. 18), which presents him as both possessive and emotionally distant.

Main Body
Presentation through narrative perspective

Through enumeration (e.g., “I told them about the house we would buy very soon, my upcoming promotion and raise,” l. 11f.), Thomas is revealed as being highly self-assured.
His use of colloquial expressions (e.g., “I tried to curry favor,” l. 11) uncovers his desire to be seen in a positive light.
Metaphors such as “the shame of the spectacle inflamed me” (l. 36f.)
The use of derogatory language (e.g., “Miriam babbled in a torrent of French and English,” l. 12f.; “other nonsense,” l. 51) illustrates his condescending attitude and failure to take Miriam seriously.
His unrealistic view of their relationship is revealed through imagery such as “the first imperfection in our fairy tale” (l. 19)
The repeated use of first-person possessive pronouns when referring to his “wife” (l. 18 & 29) emphasizes his perception of Miriam as his possession.
Parallelism in statements such as “It excited me to think that I was responsible for changing her, that I was the one who had altered her body so markedly” (l. 22-24) reflects his satisfaction in having power over Miriam’s body.
Frequent use of first-person plural pronouns (e.g., “we relapsed into bliss,” l. 20; “it was what we wanted,” l. 70; “of course we were sure,” l. 71) underscores how Thomas imposes his thoughts and desires on Miriam, disregarding her own opinions.
Authoritative statements directed at Miriam (e.g., “Are you crazy?” l. 34; “How could you?” l. 38 , “I forgive you,” l. 45) reveal his patronizing attitude toward her.
Repeated use of the words “house” and “home” reflects Thomas’s focus on his traditional role as the provider.
The elliptical phrase “Like a family” (l. 48) reinforces his adherence to conventional family values and roles.

Presentation through use of language

Through the narrative perspective and deliberate use of language, Thomas is portrayed as a complex figure who is both caring and selfish. His inability to consider Miriam’s feelings fully, coupled with his need for control, reflects an imbalance in their relationship, suggesting that he prioritizes his own desires over fostering a truly equal partnership.

Conclusion

3.1

In today’s evolving society, discussions around gender roles often highlight the damaging effects of 'toxic masculinity,' a term that refers to how traditional male stereotypes harm both men and others. As artist Luke Humphris states, “a patriarchal society is harmful to men by denying unmasculine traits and rewarding anger, violence, and destructive habits.” This concept has deep roots in literature and culture, where male dominance and rigid gender expectations have long created significant social and emotional challenges. By examining texts like William Shakespeare’s Hamlet and contemporary narratives, we can better understand how toxic masculinity manifests and the effects it has on individuals and society.

Introduction

Societal gender norms often reinforce behaviors aligned with toxic masculinity, such as Thomas’s promotion of traditional roles in the text and the power structures driving characters’ actions in Hamlet.
Unchallenged male dominance can lead to controlling or oppressive actions, such as Thomas feeling justified in publicly reprimanding Miriam for smoking, or Hamlet’s degrading treatment of Ophelia.
The extent to which an individual can resist societal pressures also plays a role, as seen in characters like Horatio in Hamlet, who remains rational and composed.
Today’s more diverse and progressive society is gradually pushing back against toxic masculinity by embracing evolving gender roles.

Main Body
Factors influencing male behaviour

Toxic masculinity fosters unhealthy attitudes, as seen in Thomas, who portrays himself as the perfect husband but becomes oppressive, and Hamlet, who loses his sanity trying to fulfill the role of avenger.
It also forces men to suppress "feminine" traits, as shown in Hamlet’s crisis when criticized for being unmanly.
This suppression leads to emotional distress, with Hamlet’s negative views of women contributing to his mental decline.

Possible effects of toxic masculinity on men

Toxic masculinity often leads to the suppression of women, as seen in Thomas’s treatment of Miriam as a child and a possession, or in Hamlet’s harsh behavior toward Ophelia and dismissive attitude toward Gertrude.
It can also lead to exploitation, such as Thomas using Miriam’s money to purchase his dream house.
Intimidation is another effect, where individuals like Miriam feel unable to oppose Thomas’s decisions, and Ophelia is confined to a role she cannot escape from.
Toxic masculinity also obstructs equal opportunities, such as in professional settings where male dominance can prevent fairness and inclusion.

Possible effects of toxic masculinity on others

Toxic masculinity, as illustrated in both classic and modern contexts, reveals the harmful consequences of rigid gender roles, not only for women but also for men. As society continues to shift towards more inclusive and diverse understandings of gender, it becomes evident that breaking free from the confines of toxic masculinity can foster healthier, more equitable relationships. By challenging outdated norms and embracing emotional openness, men can avoid the destructive path of suppressing their true selves, benefiting both themselves and those around them.

Conclusion

3.2

The cartoon humorously points out a double standard: a father bringing fast food is seen as "fun," while a mother doing the same is called "lazy." This reflects how traditional gender roles still shape expectations, especially in caregiving and household tasks. Despite progress in gender equality, these stereotypes continue to affect how we judge men and women differently. This essay will examine how these expectations persist, how they impact both genders, and how changing norms are challenging these views.

Introduction

Stereotypes in parenting
$\rightarrow$ Fathers are often seen as "fun" or "involved" when they engage with their children.
$\rightarrow$ Mothers, on the other hand, are expected to be more nurturing and responsible.
$\rightarrow$ The cartoon shows that when fathers take on tasks considered "feminine," they are praised.
$\rightarrow$ In contrast, mothers are judged more harshly for doing the same tasks.
$\rightarrow$ Men are more often celebrated for things like cooking or childcare, while women are criticized for any perceived shortcomings in these areas.

Household responsibilities
$\rightarrow$ Women are judged more harshly for household and caregiving tasks.
$\rightarrow$ Men, however, are often praised for doing the bare minimum, reinforcing the idea that these duties are mainly for women.
$\rightarrow$ The stereotype of the "lazy mom" vs. the "fun dad" continues because women are still seen as the main caregivers, while men are viewed as secondary or just "helping."
$\rightarrow$ This double standard puts extra pressure on women to meet higher expectations, while men are held to a lower standard in domestic roles.

Main Body
Traditional gender norms and parental roles

For Women
$\rightarrow$ Women face pressure to be the "perfect mother" or "ideal caregiver."
$\rightarrow$ This makes it harder for them to balance other aspects of life, like career and personal well-being.
$\rightarrow$ Mothers are often criticized for using convenience foods, working long hours, or not meeting homemaking expectations.
$\rightarrow$ These criticisms lead to guilt and judgment from society.

For Men
$\rightarrow$ Men are often excused from deeper involvement in household and caregiving tasks.
$\rightarrow$ This limits their chances for meaningful family engagement and reinforces the idea that these roles are "not for men."
$\rightarrow$ Men are expected to be breadwinners, which traps them in rigid roles and discourages emotional expression and nurturing.

Impact on Men and Women

Evolving family dynamics
$\rightarrow$ More households are now embracing shared caregiving and household duties.
$\rightarrow$ This shift challenges traditional gender roles and expectations.
$\rightarrow$ As gender roles become more flexible, society is beginning to accept that both men and women can share responsibilities equally without judgment.
$\rightarrow$ Different types of relationships and family structures are becoming more common, reflecting broader changes in family dynamics.

Representation in media and culture
$\rightarrow$ Media portrayals, like the cartoon, highlight double standards and encourage a reevaluation of expectations.
$\rightarrow$ More balanced representations of men and women in caregiving roles can help shift societal attitudes.
$\rightarrow$ Modern media is promoting diversity and gender equality, encouraging the breakdown of traditional norms.

Supportive policies and practices
$\rightarrow$ Policies like paternity leave and flexible work hours support breaking down traditional gender norms.
$\rightarrow$ These policies help both parents take on caregiving roles without facing judgment.
$\rightarrow$ Some schools are incorporating gender mainstreaming and new gender concepts into their curricula, helping shape a more inclusive future.
$\rightarrow$ There is growing attention to gender balance and equal participation in certain areas of work, reflecting progress in gender equality.

Shifting gender norms

In conclusion, while traditional gender norms still influence behavior expectations, especially in caregiving roles, society is gradually shifting towards more equality. Changing family dynamics, supportive policies, and increased awareness are helping to challenge outdated stereotypes. Continued efforts are essential to ensure behavior is judged by individual abilities, not gendered expectations.

Conclusion

Weiter lernen mit SchulLV-PLUS!

monatlich kündbarSchulLV-PLUS-Vorteile im ÜberblickDu hast bereits einen Account?