Verbesserung der 1. Schularbeit

There are so many different types of families, extended families, nuclear families, foster and adoptive families and also more and more single parent families or same sex families. But which one is the perfect family? A family has to be loving and warm. It’s absolutely unimportant what kind of family it is, because each has the potential to make you feel loved. And that’s what makes a family perfect.

The play “virgins” presents a nuclear family. Superficially they are normal, living in a suburban terraced house like many others. But I’m still quite certain, that they are a negative example. There are so many problems, for example the parents. The woman is the provider, who calls the shots, while her husband is a push man, who seems to have problems with his role. Especially the father-son-relationship is really bad. The father even insults his son, doesn’t understand or trust him. In addition, the son has a lack of respect and is cheeky. Everyone in this family doesn’t fit here style and cannot express the feelings, apart from Zoe, who is somewhat different.
Therefore, when you analyse this family, you can see that it’s really important to have a clear role in the family. It’s not important who is the provider and who the homemaker. Both mother and father, have to be satisfied. Of cause, there are single-parent- families, where one person has to be both, but also such people should feel good in their role, because unhappy parents mean difficult family situations. In my opinion parenthood and marriage should be together, but sometimes it’s better to split up, because a happy mother or father is better than unhappy parents.
Children are the soul of a family. Without children it’s not really a family. But how many children does the perfect one have? I think it has to be more than one, because children shouldn’t be alone, as nothing is more horrible than a latchkey child. Moreover brothers and sisters are important for a good upbringing, because that’s how they learn how to fight and to share. Although I like big families there shouldn’t be so many children that parents don’t have got enough time for each of them. A child shouldn’t feel like I-am-just-one-of-many-others.
Upbringing is one of the most important things in society. Both parents, if there are two, have the same rights and should try to do the best. Furthermore it should be clear how they define a good upbringing. Parents can be strict or not but they have to love their children trust them and help them whenever they need help. In many cases people with a good and warm upbringing do the same for their children, which is important for a good society.

To conclude, I want to say that I strongly believe that every kind of family can be a perfect one. A family loves you whatever you do. They forgive and try to understand you. A perfect family tries to do the best to make you feel at home.

Letter of complaint --> sexist advertisement

Gartenstraße 24
A- 6840 Götzis

December 4th, 2008


RTL Television GmbH
50858 Köln



Dear RTL- Team,


advertisements you broadcast


I am often watching your channel. But I had to notice that you broadcast many dubious advertisements since a few weeks. I want to complain about how you present women in such advertisements and how you create a wrong image.

A large percentage of the advertisements you broadcast are things for women, which should help them to look younger, slimmer, and fresher. Is this the only way to look good? We can see many semi-nude girls with a perfect (of cause retouching) body, which has nearly nothing to do with a natural look anymore. There are unnatural men too, but not as intensive as women.

Do you know what you are doing to many young girls? You create a wrong idea of how they should look like and so many poor girls try to reach this impossible look. I’m sorry to say this, but things like that are blame for beauty craze, more and more plastic surgeries and anorexia. Women lose their self-confidences and lose their ways. And also men start to believe that a woman should/can look like this, which is even worse. In my opinion such advertisements are sexist and discriminative.

I can only try to talk to people like you. I hope I present my concern understandable and I would be very glad, if you decide to limit this kind of advertisements.


Yours sincerely,

Anna De Gaspari

PLASTIC SURGERY

Pro:

-when you’ve got an accident and are disfigured you could try to get back (nearly) your look before it back.

-when you’re inborn with something (e.g. a hair let): with a surgery you could have a more normal life

-when you’re ill (e.g. breast cancer) you’re able to rebuild parts of the body

-If you’ve got mental or physical problems with your look or get bullied because of it a surgery could help

-when you’re very unhappy with your looking, get discriminated and can’t live longer with your body surgeries could help.


Con:

-when you’re too young and still growing a plastic surgery could destroy your body or cause pain

-it’s becoming normal to have a plastic/cosmetic surgery, but you don’t think about the risks

-it’s dangerous too because there are too many incompetent surgeons who do a botched job

-often it’s just a waste of money (money could be used e.g. for poor people…)

-after a plastic surgery most of the patients have an unnatural look

-young people with surgeries might change their opinion about this decision when they’re older


Additional thoughts:

-plastic surgeries shouldn’t be that usual as nowadays

-people who consider a plastic/cosmetic surgery should be more sceptical

-society should change the meaning of beauty -old age should be accepted

-especially teenagers shouldn’t try to imitate their idols-more working places, more hospitals are built


Anna, Larissa, Ruth

CITY - COUNTRY

The country lifestyles and the city lifestyles have a lot of differences. Both have positive and negative sides. In my opinion there are four fundamental varieties. Let my discuss the facts about these lifestyles below.

The first difference is the outdoor surrounding. When you leave your house in the country you’re in nature. There are trees and other small houses. However in a city there are nearly no “real nature” left. There you can find big and high buildings next to busy streets. But most cities have parks, where you can go and enjoy nature whenever you want. On the other hand the air will always be different. While the air in the country in fresh, the air in the city is full of exhaust gases and stench, which takes me to the next big difference.
Townsmen and countrymen have different requirement of locomotion, what influences the traffic. For example, without a car in the country can be a problem. There are further distances between e.g. shops. The national traffic system isn’t as good as in the city, where buses and the metro drive more often and till late in the night. This is very important if we look at the lack of parking area and the jams.
Another difference between country and city is the crime. It is certain that the city life is in most cases more dangerous than country life. Because differ from the quiet and mostly innocent country, in cities live many people of every social class. Sure, in countries can be crimes to and it can happed every time and everywhere, but in general the city life is seen as the “dangerous life”.
The last difference is the entertainment. Cities are full with it. There are many, many museums, restaurants, concerts, exhibitions, bars or whatever you looking fore. Cities can give you many different cultures. In contrast to the cities is it difficult to find entertainment you really like in countries. You haven’t as much choice as in a metropolis. Countries often have a lack of diversity.


To conclude I just want to say, that I would like both. In my opinion it’s a question of the age. City life can be wonderful if you are young and interested in culture and change. But in the childhood or old age I would prefer the country with the meadow in front of the house. But in the end you have to feel you at home.

MY LIFESTYLE

It’s not easy to describe your own style, especially when you think you haven’t one. How to describe what you are, if you aren’t tend to a special group and never think about your “style” before? Now I have to do that and I’ll try.

My clothes and my hairstyle are very simple. I think I wear “normal” things. I never wear flashy clothes, no gaudy colours like pink or yellow. I like black, white, grey, brown and sometimes crimson. I never dye my hair or use slides or hair bands. I just wear my hair straight or sometimes a ponytail. I also have a fringe. Maybe some people thing a look boring. But for special events I like to dress me up glamorous, but not for workaday life.

Music is something that can tell a lot about a person and his/her style or behaviour. It’s nearly impossible to say what kind of music I like, because unlike most people, music means nearly nothing to me. But if I listen to music it’s nearly everything. Of cause there are kinds of music I prefer, like Indie, Rock, or Soundtracks. I’m not really into Hip Hop and Techno, although I’m open for new. Music just has to be up with my temper.

I have a clear outlook of life. In terms of politic I am very liberal, neither right nor left. In my opinion everyone should have an aim to fight for. We have just one life and we should use it for whatever we want. But when we are old and we look back we should be able to say: “I made bad and good things, but I learned a lot. I am who I want to be and I didn’t blow my life.”

There are so many things which influence us and make us who we are. In my opinion there are tree things which make me Anna. First, are the media, advertisement, and many trendsetters. I really belief, that subconscious all this let my wear certain clothes and buy special products, even if I don’t want to. The second are my fellow men and my circumstances. If all that would change, I’m sure I also would. And the last one is all the people I love, my family and friends make me who I am, because they are an important part of me.

I think I found my lifestyle. Maybe it will change in my life a few times, but at the moment I’m happy how I am.

CONFLICT - MAP

CHARACTR-DESCRIPTION

Charlie


Charlie is a special person. He is one of these inconspicuous high-school students, who haven’t an easy-going life. He is very sensitive, soft and introverted. Sometimes he is an extreme cry-baby.
He is interested in books and music. It seems to help him to think about the meaning of life. He often mixes tapes and it seems that he thinks that special moments need special music. He also mixes tapes for his friend, maybe he wants them to feel what he feels.
Charlie really loves his family. He like the feeling of being a part of it and that he has a special relationship to every one of them. It’s important for him to see them happy.
As much as Charlie loves his family, he loves his friends. He wants to be needed and to make them feel good. He would do nearly everything for them. They trust him, because he keeps a secret and he is a good listener. He always wants to make things right and try to come up to everyone's expectations.
Sometimes he forgets himself and tries to fill his emotional emptiness with alcohol or drugs. There are days Charlie feels really horrible, especially when he is scared to lose his friends. He is a person who hates to be alone, because he wants to be a part of a group. Because of his past Charlie has a weak personality and fights a lot with himself. But he wants to feel better and to come over his horrible past. All he wants is to be loved like everybody else.


words: 263

REVIEW

The Perks of Being a Wallflower


The Perks of Being a Wallflower is written by Stephen Chbosky. He was born in 1970 in Pennsylvania in the USA. The book tells the story about the high-school student Charlie. Charlie writes letters to an unknown person, but starts always with “dear friend”. In these letters he tells about his life. He is a very sentimental guy, who tries to cope growing up, friendships and love. Charlie is a trustworthy boy and everyone can lean on him. He wants to be a good friend, good son and a good brother. But there are things, which are happened in his past, which he has to come over and finds his own right way to society.


It’s a really naturalistic book, which shows all the horrible and great, important and unimportant, easy and complicated events in a teenager’s life. In this book you can find nearly every problem a young person could have with love, friendship and finding the right way. The reader goes with Charlie through all his bad and good times. This is a very exciting and startling story. It’s a book which is able to make you thinking. It’s a book full of hope and confidence, and Charlie can (with his philosophic appendage) touch your heart more than once. It’s a book about learning to be like you want to be, never give up and finally how important it is to be loved (particularly for Charlie). I think it’s a really advisable book. We have to thank Stephen Chbosky.


words: 251

second exam correction

Writing task:


Violence in our world and in the media is a controversial topic. It’s everywhere, in movies, schools and also in some families. But where are the problems and what can we do?

Michael Medved is an opponent of violent movies and there are some ideas I agree, but also one I disagree with. He says that Hollywood tells us four big lies. The first one is that only a few people are influenced by these movies. I totally agree with Michael Medved, who thinks that there enough copycat killers. There are always some who believe that it’s funny to shoot someone just because a movie shows it like this. In my opinion also the second argument of the advocates is a big lie. Medved claims that it’s absolutely wrong to argue that violent in movies only show the reality. Reality isn’t like this. For example, nearly no one saw a real murder, but everyone watches hundreds of them on TV. In addition, it’s also absolute rubbish that only violent movies are successful, which is (like Medved think) the third big lie. I also agree with this point. If we look at the most really successful movies we can find mainly family or romantic movies, for example “The Lion King”. Finally, there is one lie left and in contrast to the others I disagree with Medved’s at this lie. Hollywood claims, that nobody is forced to watch violent movies. The argument of Medved is that we don’t have to watch it to know what kind of horrible things happen. But I think that it’s not the same. There is a difference between watching this films and hear about it.

We also have to wonder why we are living in a violent society. First, I think that violence is something we learn. Children learn from their parents and their surroundings. In addition, it’s also an instinct. People always were violent and they will be. Maybe violence is something to save our lives. Morover, violence is a reaction. If someone is violent to someone else, it is to expect that one day the victim also gets violent.

If we look at our children, we can notice that also there is a lot of violence. In my opinion there are two things to do, which can stop or reduce that. First we have to stop showing violence on TV. Children should not be allowed to watch that. And the other one is,, that we have to be better role models and show them what is right and wrong.

To conclude, I want to say, that we have to be aware of violence and we should protect our children for a better world.

ESSAY

Violence in movies is a controversial topic, which splits the opinions into very different parts. There are the violent movie lover, who needs the violence for some action and this special adventure felling, and the detractor, who would like to forbid it this minute.

There are three arguments which argue to a ban on violent movies.
First, we can say, that so much violence in movies is not realistic anymore. If we look at the most violent movies, we notice, that the violence is exaggrated and dramatise and there is no real-life-violence any more. For example Kill Bill. Second, non violent movies are successful, too. There are many other things that make a movie into a successful one. In most cases violence, special unrealistic violence isn’t necessary. The last of the three arguments is that one of the “Theories of violence” say, that violence is something that we learn. We hear about violence, see it, e.g. in movies, experience it and imitate it.

There are also a few arguments against such a ban.
One argument is that the majority of people don’t get violent, because of the movies. It’s not correct to generalise it. In addition, most are so unrealistic that a normal person doesn’t copy it. Finally we can say that we don’t turn into a non violent society just because we don’t show violence. Violence will always be a part of our world and it won’t disappear, just because of a ban on violent movies.

So, if we look at all these arguments it’s difficult to say, what would be the better way. Everyone has to come to his own decision.