Prep-T2-Essay 5

[lucyyeh]

Essay #5. 189 (21953-!-item-!-188;#058&00189-00)

Traditional social science models of class groups in the United States are based on economic status and assume that women's economic status derives from association with men, typically fathers or husbands, and that women therefore have more compelling common interest with men of their own economic class than with women outside it. Some feminist social scientists, by contrast, have argued that the basic division in American society is instead based on gender, and that the total female population, regardless of economic status, constitutes a distinct class. Social historian Mary Ryan, for example, has argued that in early-nineteenth-century America the identical legal status of working-class and middle-class free women outweighed the differences between women of these two classes: married women, regardless of their family's wealth, did essentially the same unpaid domestic work, and none could own property or vote. Recently, though, other feminist analysts have questioned this model, examining ways in which the condition of working-class women differs from that of middle-class women as well as from that of working-class men. Ann Oakley notes, for example, that the gap between women of different economic classes widened in the late nineteenth century: most working-class women, who performed wage labor outside the home, were excluded from the emerging middle-class ideal of femininity centered around domesticity and volunteerism.

Question #17.

It can be inferred from the passage that the most recent feminist social science research on women and class seeks to do which of the following?

(A) Introduce a divergent new theory about the relationship between legal status and gender
(B) Illustrate an implicit middle-class bias in earlier feminist models of class and gender
(C) Provide evidence for the position that gender matters more than wealth in determining class status
(D) Remedy perceived inadequacies of both traditional social science models and earlier feminist analyses of class and gender
(E) Challenge the economic definitions of class used by traditional social scientists

ANS: D
這篇文章我實在看到霧煞煞，Where can we infer from passage?

[dibert8]

文章分兩部份:
1. traditional 有兩派 -- a. 以 economic 歸類, women = men, b. 以 gender 歸類, women =/= men (e.g. MR 提 legal status 把 women 歸一類,無投票權);
2. recently, 考慮 economic + gender (e.g. AO 提 working-class =/= middle-class)

定位: Recently, though, other feminist analysts have questioned this model, examining ways in which the condition of working-class women differs from that of middle-class women as well as from that of working-class men.

削去法比較容易找答案.
(A) legal status 跳句 (應該是 economic status)
(B) 沒有 illustrate (舉例), 沒有 bias
(C) gender > wealth => tradition.b
(E) 沒有 challenge (i.e. 說 tradition 不對)

(D) 1. 修正不足: 綜合 economic + gender; 2. class and gender : working-class women, middle-class women working-class men

[zephyr_h]

補充一下，
Recently, though, other feminist analysts have questioned this model, examining ways in which the condition of working-class women[b] differs from that of middle-class women （傳統第一派，differ by 階級）as well as from that of working-class men（傳統第二派，differ by gender）.
答案D：
(Remedy perceived inadequacies of both traditional social science models and earlier feminist analyses of class and gender)。
如果覺得前面太抽象，看Ann Oakly的example或許會具體一點
[/b] Ann Oakley notes, for example, that the gap between women of different economic classes widened in the late nineteenth century: most working-class women, who performed wage labor outside the home, were excluded from the emerging middle-class ideal of femininity centered around domesticity and volunteerism.

[chris8888]

Traditional social science models of class groups in the United States are based on economic status and assume that women's economic status derives from association with men, typically fathers or husbands, and that women therefore have more compelling common interest with men of their own economic class than with women outside it.
1. 在美國傳統的社會科學模型是根據經濟地位以及假設女人的經濟地位源自於男性. (根據男性)
Some feminist social scientists, by contrast, have argued that the basic division in American society is instead based on gender, and that the total female population, regardless of economic status, constitutes a distinct class.
1. 一些女性主義社會科學家, 相反地, 主張說 : 美國社會的區分反而應該是根據性別, 且主張 : 不是經濟的地位, 而是總女性的人口構成了一個特殊的類別.(反正就是性別)
Social historian Mary Ryan, for example, has argued that in early-nineteenth-century America the identical legal status of working-class and middle-class free women outweighed the differences between women of these two classes: married women, regardless of their family's wealth, did essentially the same unpaid domestic work, and none could own property or vote.
1. 社會科學家, MR主張 : 工作階層和中產階級的自由女性的合法地位更重要於介於這兩個層級的差異性.
Recently, though, other feminist analysts have questioned this model, examining ways in which the condition of working-class women differs from that of middle-class women as well as from that of working-class men.
1. 近來, 雖然有女性主義者質疑這模型, 然後去檢視工作階層女性的狀況不同於中產階層女性還有來自於工作階層女性的狀況
Ann Oakley notes, for example, that the gap between women of different economic classes widened in the late nineteenth century: most working-class women, who performed wage labor outside the home, were excluded from the emerging middle-class ideal of femininity centered around domesticity and volunteerism.
AO說 :介於不同經濟的女性差距擴大了, 在外頭受薪的女性大部分被排除於新興的中產階級.

Question #17.

It can be inferred from the passage that the most recent feminist social science research on women and class seeks to do which of the following?
推論題, 文章沒有明講的
大部分的女性主義社會科學研究女人和分類層級會去進行以下哪一種事物?
就是會做什麼事啦!!

文章主要分成四個角色
1. 傳統的 : 女性依附男人
2. 一些女性主義社科學者 : 依照性別
2-1. 舉例MR
3. 最近, 其他的女性主義分析者質疑這個模型 <== 應該是承繼上一句話
3-1. 舉例, 說是有個gap被擴大, 大部分的女性被排除掉了

(A) Introduce a divergent new theory about the relationship between legal status and gender 沒有提到合法地位和性別的關係理論
(B) Illustrate an implicit middle-class bias in earlier feminist models of class and gender 偏見??? 沒有
(C) Provide evidence for the position that gender matters more than wealth in determining class status 證據? 不是證據, 是不同的主張argue that
(D) Remedy perceived inadequacies of both traditional social science models and earlier feminist analyses of class and gender
3-1. 舉例, 說是有個gap被擴大, 大部分的女性被排除掉了, 這句話暗示了
(E) Challenge the economic definitions of class used by traditional social scientists
挑戰, 當我看見question還真給他認為可能就是challenge, 要小心.
但是他是質疑女性主義者的主張, 不是類別的經濟定義.

[chris8888]

Question #18. 189-05 (22091-!-item-!-188;#058&000189-05)

Which of the following statements best characterizes the relationship between traditional social science models of class and Ryan's model, as described in the passage?

(A) Ryan's model differs from the traditional model by making gender, rather than economic status, the determinant of women's class status.
根據水上漂筆記
(B) The traditional social science model of class differs from Ryan's in its assumption that women are financially dependent on men.
傳統社會科學不同於Ryan's的理論在他的假設前提 -- 女人是財務上依附男人的
有嗎? 傳統理論確實認為女性依附男人, 但是Ryan不是這樣說, Ryan並沒有說女性依附或不依附男人. 這根本不是差距之所在. Ryan認為性別才是區分的關鍵, 不是依附不依附
總結 : 無關選項, 離題. 文章沒講的東西拿來比較.
(C) Ryan's model of class and the traditional social science model both assume that women work, either within the home or for pay.
(D) The traditional social science model of class differs from Ryan's in that each model focuses on a different period of American history.
(E) Both Ryan's model of class and the traditional model consider multiple factors, including wealth, marital status, and enfranchisement, in determining women's status.