Paper , Order, or Assignment Requirements

Question 1:

In the study of paternal filicide of Kaladelfos (2013), the significance of her

central point came to be articulated through a contrast of two ways of being a

man in Australia, based on her reading of Australian scholars on the issue. Her

perspective on which explanation deserves more attention takes into account the

evidence of reported responses to particular cases (among the relatives,

neighbours, onlookers, judges and perpetrators) of paternal child murder. The

first is more readily able to process grave violence in relation to national myths

of what is a real Australian man; the second is a challenge that Kaladelfos

maintains is important for us to come to terms with in our understanding of

paternal child homicide in Australia. These are:

Select one:

1. (1) The harsh, wild conditions of early Australia have promoted a culture of

rugged masculinity, hostile to family life and the sober duties of fatherhood,

resulting in outbursts of murderous male rage against domesticity and the need

to provide; (2) models of Australian masculinity have promoted a deep

commitment to family life and its duties of loving fatherhood and economic

provision, and violence in the home (even murder) could make sense in relation

to these intensely-felt family ties on the part of the father.

1. (1) The Christian cosmology of Good and Evil, highly valued by all European

cultures, promotes a model of masculinity that is all about morality and paternal

authority, resulting in Australian men who are conscientious providers, strict

fathers, and righteousness citizens, so that a man who murdered his own

children would be wickedly irreligious; (2), models of Australian masculinity

promoting faith, the Protestant work ethic, and authoritarianism over fatherly

love, result in a patriarchal-capitalist family, provoking outbursts of shocking

indifference that are just the extreme end of a normal paternal disregard for the

fate and suffering of a man’s own children.

1. (1) The Christian ideal of Fatherly Love, highly valued by all European cultures,

promotes a model of masculinity that is all about emotionality and paternal care,

resulting in Australian men who are happy providers, loving fathers, and churchgoing

citizens, so that a man who murdered his own children would be coldly

lacking in feeling; (2), models of Australian masculinity promoting the primacy

of faith and a Protestant-capitalist work ethic over fatherly love, result in a lack

of feeling and a lack of commitment to family, provoking outbursts of murderous

indifference that are just the extreme end of a normal paternal disregard for the

fate and suffering of a man’s own children.

1. (1) The Enlightenment ideal of Reason, highly valued by all European cultures,

promotes a model of masculinity that is all about rationality and self control,

resulting in Australian men who are disciplined providers, emotionally reserved

fathers, and mentally stable citizens, so that a man who murdered his own

children would be clinically insane; (2), models of Australian masculinity

promoting rationality, self control and emotional distance from family have been

psychologically damaging for all men, provoking outbursts of murderous

insanity involving paranoid delusions of the family as one’s mortal enemy.

Question 2:

Which of the following statements on whiteness in South Africa would be right,

according to Nicky Falkof (2013)?

Select one:

1. South African whiteness is both visible and invisible because to be white is to

actively set oneself apart from and above indigenous races whilst at the same

time assuming an inherent, standard-bearing status as generic Human: it is a

complex double act.

1. South African whiteness is invisible because to be white is to be normal,

standardised and standardising: it can be taken for granted and remains the

generic Human at all times.

1. South African whiteness is visible because to be white has to be performed and

reasserted at all times: the colonial context means it can never be taken for

granted, or standardised as generic Human.

1. South African whiteness is neither visible nor invisible because to be Afrikaner

is not to be white at all: Afrikaans-speaking descendents of Dutch settlers make

up one of many mixed-race ethnic groups in South Africa.

Question 3:

What is the connection Nicky Falkof makes between apartheid and the spate of

family murders committed by white fathers in South Africa 1983-1994?

Select one:

1. Apartheid caused the 1983-1994 family murders, with its racial oppression

being unjust and unsustainable: the prospect of an imminent loss of white power

and privilege within the nation led to the apocalyptic and self-destructive acts of

white males in fits of desperation and misdirected rage.

1. The 1983-1994 family murders caused apartheid to be doubted by white

South Africans, with glimpses of its unjust and unsustainable racial oppression

made possible in moments of public soul-searching in journalistic and social

science commentary; however it was only a partial recognition, and apartheid

ideologies could also be seen to strengthen during that time.

1. The 1983-1994 family murders caused apartheid to end, with its unjust racial

oppression becoming unsustainable in the face of apocalyptic and selfdestructive

acts of white males: the prospect of an imminent loss of white power

was symbolically played out within the family with the collapse of patriarchal

privilege standing in for and precipitating the collapse of racial privilege.

1. Apartheid did not cause the 1983-1994 family murders, as it was patriarchal

oppression that was unjust and unsustainable: the prospect of an imminent loss

of male power and privilege within the family led to the apocalyptic and selfdestructive

acts of white males in fits of desperation and rage directed squarely

at ‘their’ women and children.