by ohthatpatrick Wed Jun 21, 2017 2:39 pm
2 things mess with us on this dual passage:
1. The author's tone in psg A is actually pretty nuanced, and we tend to overvalue the "Sigh .... , I wonder what we've lost" negative musing at the end. He doesn't HATE gender studies.
2. Psg B is obviously CRAZY different, and so we're searching for what we should be applying, carrying over from psg A.
These currents come together in Q18.
The question stem asks for one of the approaches to historical analysis described in psg A.
What approaches to historical analysis were described in psg A?
- analyzing women vs. analyzing gender
- exploring the social systems that underlay relationships btwn men and women
- uncover the history of women
- analyze men in terms of how masculinity shapes thought and action
- analyze women in terms of how domesticity shaped culture and politics
Paragraphs 2 and 3 in Psg A are probably off-limits for these answer choices, since they are not DESCRIPTIONS of approaches to historical analysis.
P2 and P3 are EVALUATIONS of the new gender-based approach.
So you could get rid of (E) both because there's no reason the author needs to bodyslam the first paragraph of Psg B, and because (E) does not even qualify as an approach to historical analysis.
In terms of (B) vs. (D), I think it's pretty tough.
According to lines 12-13, articles about men evaluated what (D) is talking about.
And P1 of psg B is definitely about a man, Augustus.
Still, it behooves us to focus less on the cheap trick of "was it about a man or a woman" and instead focus on the more substantive question of:
"is this dealing with how masculinity regulated thought and action"
or
"how a concept of domesticity shapes culture and politics"
There is more direct textual support for the latter, since 38-43 focus on relocating women in "this domestic context".
Remember, we're thinking that this is a GENDER study, not a study about individuals. So, sure, Augustus may have had his thoughts and actions regulated by masculinity, but did MEN of his era? That's what gender studies would care about.
We are saying more about WOMEN in this society than about MEN. We only discuss one man, but we hear how his leadership/laws would potentially inform the gender roles of WOMEN.
If an emperor is promoting laws and social narrative that relocate women into a domestic context, then that narrative of "Rome depends on the integrity of the Roman family, and on women holdin' it down as wives and moms in particular" is very likely to be shaping culture (we KNOW it shaped politics because it led to laws being passed).
Hope this helps.