The Homework Help Thread

[Emma_B]

Can anyone tell me the sorts of words and stereotypes they associate with Germans? I need a general picture of how German people are seen by people from other countries. I am especially interested in what young people have to say, and also non-British, but any help would be greatly appreciated!

I think I know what kind of answers I might get.......

Thanks

xxxx

[Eli]

Okay, here's a few things I think is typical:

-They have a incredibly good informationsystem (Not including Frankfurt International Airport and Lufthansa airways) . If you get lost on a German highway you deserve it.

-The traffic is a nightmare

-I associate them with LIDL (a store chain)

-The men have sideburns

-They love beer

-They listen to classical music

-They are very friendly, especially to Scandinavian people

[Emma_B]

Thanks Eli, that is really useful. I think English people in general have a very negative view of Germans, it is good to know that you think they are friendly.

[Eli]

I find germans really nice (even though I HATE Lufthansa airways). It was kind of funny actually, I was offered alchol twice during my flight from Frankfurt to Vancouver, and I wasn't even sixteen

And everyone I have talked to that are germen are really nice. I used to watch Schloss Einstein, and Oliver Kahn is my favourite football player. But to equal all the love I have to say I hate (and boycott) LIDL, and Frankfurt International Airport is a mess.

For those who have a bad feeling about Germans, remember: Hitler was from Austria!

Oh, and I've also heard that Germans think a lot about environment and global heating.

[Jess]

Germans...

- ALDI (another German supermarket chain)

- people who are fanatical about beach towels

- frankfurter sausages

- the Berlin Wall

[Guevara01]

You just need to look at England-Germany football matches to know that a lot of Uk-ers (not everyone) still harbour some sort of resentment against the Germans - for example singing the Great Escape theme tune, and it now being banned at football matches.

Although it may not purposely be to **** the Germans off, and a lot of people, myself included, realise that most Germans are ordinary, nice people. However, i would say that a lot of people still see Germany as the country that created the Nazi party, killed millions of people worldwide, created a lot of anti-semitic feelings, bombed Britain heavily and ultimately led to the loss of the Empire.

[As a history student, i now know that that there are a lot of mistruths about what "normal" people think in association to the Nazis, for instance, contrary to popular belief, anti-semitic hatred had been around for thousands of years before the Nazis, even to the extent that back in medieval times, disease used to be blame on the Jewish peoples. Also, for exmple in retaliation to the bombings of London, the bombing by England on Germany was actually done to a far greater extent and created much more damge. The Empire was in danger due to economic reasons more than anything else, and the war was only a catalyst. There are many other mistruths, but it would take me a while to type them all]

I think it's verging on 'political correctness' gone mad for people to say that they do not at least associate the Germans with the war. I know i do, although as already explained, not still in a blaming sense. But it's still so much a part of our culture, kids are taught about it in schools, there are plenty of war films about, and it is a huge part of our/and Germany's history. (Please do not think that i assume all Germans are Nazis, that is not what i think at all, but you have to admit that to some extent, Germany as a country, and its peoples, will still, by a lot of people, be associated with the Nazi party). I don't think the war can be denied in the sense that, i think, it will always be associated with the German peoples, even as times change, and generations pass, as with everything else.

I hope i have explained myself okay xxx

[MarMar]

I've typed up and, horribly so, translated one of my exams - this one's on Simone de Beauvoir and her philosophy of gender relations. Please ignore the odd typo.

Simone de Beauvoir was born into a middle class family in France in 1908. She early decided to become an author and passed the highest exam in philosophy at the Sorbonne - ranges second after Sartre, who would become her companion till his death, six years before hers, in 1980. People seem to overlook the fact that Sartre had failed the same exam the year before, and that she passed it after one year of study compared to the usual two - which only supports her philosophy on gender relations which I'll present to you in this essay.

Most commonly used encyclopedias define de Beauvoir as "female author", and she has claimed that she as well declare her start by declaring her femininity before letting all other statements about her person derive from it. This made her ponder why this is so. The answer arrived in the form of a book, the pioneering "Le Deuxième Sexe", or, "The Second Sex", which was published in French in 1949.

She say that the human race (man) is a masculine term. The woman is then something different. If the woman is something else, the man must be"the first". all cultures define woman from man - Eve was created from Adam's excess rib, and it has been said that the woman is a defect man. It was believed that the children come from the man in Ancient Greece, and the woman was only necessary as an incubator - this has led to the attitude toward women which de Beauvoir presents in "The Second Sex".

Men has defined the world, and the man defines himself - his body is what separates him from the world he see. He's the watcher; the subject. The man then goes on to define the woman from himself, she's an object, a thing among other things. You can say the woman is immanent while the man is transcendent. She's passive (the being in itself) as a result from the socialization she's been exposed to.

De Beauvoir claims that it is our historic-cultural background which is the reason for the woman's lacking freedom, a socialization that says "be woman, stay woman, become woman". Despite this, white over class women do not identify with black women of another caste - it's easier to identify with the Afro-American people's rebellion against the slavery; both groups are trapped in a safety they both want and has to have.

De Beauvoir argue that it is a man's world. She claims that all means to be able to transcend, develop and reach new goals are of the man, for the man. With socialization that makes it hard for the woman to break from her immanent position, which is why I find it peculiar how one in our days say the educational system has to be more adapted to the boys so that they can achieve better results. The school in itself was for the boys, not the girls! Not so very long ago, few girls got their high school diplomas (in Norway), and when you finished middle school the boys dominated the good grades. It was said that the girls didn't have to perform, as they'd only get a job as a sales-girl before getting married anyway. "Be woman, stay woman, become woman."

The socialization girls - and young women are exposed traps her inside the lines the man draws around her, whether he is brother, father of husband. To make a parallel to earlier examples: the Afro-American slaves in the America of the civil war was under the rule of the plantation owners who provided them with shelter and food. They needed the plantation owner, and to be able to continue to receive the modest "gifts" they had to obey and respect the rules which he set. Due to socialization many women are depending on the man for safety, both economic and other. De Beauvoir then say that man and woman are mutual dependent on each other. She needs him for safety and he needs her to be able to continue a fairly comfortable existence; someone to clean and cook. As you can see in other cultures, it's only when the woman rebel against the rules that the trouble starts. Someone calls this a crime of passion when they kill daughters and sister who doesn't do as they are told. Here you can see that the man defines the woman as an object for him to control. She dared to cross his boundaries and he feels threatened.

The woman will not be free until she choose to move over to the man's area and play his game, but outside his rules. An example de Beauvoir uses for this is how a female author she knew was asked to pose for a photograph for a series of photographs of female authors. She turned the offer down. She didn't want to be placed amongst "female" authors, but have her books read and judged on the same grounds as books written by men. De Beauvoir say that you will not have real equality until we dare turn down the security of our existence.

De Beauvoir said she didn't have children because she didn't want to be pulled between the child and writing. She said women can only be free if they renounce the responsibility of marriage and childbirth. If she does that, she will no longer be in need of the security he has to offer and can, more easily, step into his arena.

De Beauvoir belonged to the philosophical tradition known as Existentialism, and a central term is "existence before essence" - you yourself decide and therefore you control your destiny. De Beauvoir claim that even though you have been exposed to socialization saying not to perform or stand up for yourself, it is possible to do so. When she passed the exam there had only been a few women to do so before her. She defied her socialization and showed women that it is possible to be economically independent from man and family.

From de Beauvoir's philosophy on gender relations I can see clear parallels to Martin Buber who published his book "I and Thou" from 1923.

Buber says that all real life is encounter, and upon encounters it is up to man [sic] how they shall address each other.Buber believes that you can treat other people as subjects or objects, and this is what he deals with in the book. As de Beauvoir's book, it was very pioneering upon publication. It addressed themes ahead of its time, like pollution- and environmental issues, and it would be of great importance in the years to come.

If you treat another human being as an equal, you're in an Ich-Du (I-You) relationship, and communication is possible, but if you are in an Ich-Es (I-it) relationship, you look upon yourself as the subject while the other person is an object for you to observe. De Beauvoir say that when two people meet they will both try to redice the other to an object. Through years of socialization inflicted by men, women has been forced to be the objects. The man has "by natural means" been transcendent, the woman immanent. An equal Ich-Du relationship has therefore not been possible. By daring to defy it, it is possible for the woman to be transcendent. Buber thins, with other words, what you shall address others in a Ich-Du encounter, while de Beauvoir claim that this is not possible until one is no longer socialized to accept being the object. In her book she says that "You are not born a woman. You become one.". As an existentialist she claims it is not biology which decide that you shall be immanent as a woman.

Kant's law of moral say that what you choose to be right shall be a law upon everyone. If you choose to steal, you have to accept everyone else to do so as well, and look upon it as "right". De Beauvoir say you can only be free by not having children and marriage to force you into staying inside the rules of the man as his object. Does that mean she thinks no one should have children?

Like Kant's law of moral is not always valid (if you shouldn't lie, what to do if you hide a fugitive bound for execution?), de Beauvouir's thoughts about how you cannot transcend out of the paternalism induced by historic-cultural socialization if you're a mother are not valid either? More than half the students in today's colleges and universities are female, and these rank higher than their male counterparts. There are loud voices claiming the schools are no longer suited for the boys - is this a proof that women are starting to threaten the man's position by moving more onto their arena? I will claim that yes, women are starting to do so. Thanks to a few women daring to like de Beauvoir want them to do we have begun to turn the socialization around. Women are no longer as much of an object that she used to be.

De Beauvoir was not the first feminist, nor will she be the last, but her book "The Second Sex" has led many a woman to fight for her rights. By saying that women view their bodies as "something else", de Beauvoir turns the female body into a battle field for her feminist battle. She fought for contraceptive rights and free abortion, but has also been criticized for contradictions. She is more known as an author than a philosopher, but through her books she addressed, subtly, current philosophical issues, and she is able to capture more readers than those who normally have an interest in philosophy and thereby make philosophy more easily accessible. De Beauvoir burned as a torch for feminism, but was forgotten during the "feminists' second wave" in the 1970's. Yet, she is read by feminists and others worldwide.

[Jess]

Wow! Mar...that's amazing...*claps*

[MarMar]

It is? Thanks I'm not completely satisfied myself, but it gave me a B

[Emma_B]

Thanks everyone - that was so helpful.

Mar, the essay is really good. I don't even have to write my literature essays in the foreign language - I would never pass! Your degree scares me!