2015年6月gmat閱讀機經：女權主義

　　2015年6月份gmat測驗已停止，網GMAT頻道小編特為列位考生整頓了2015年6月gmat測驗瀏覽部門機經，以供門生們參考!

　　女權主義

　　【段落大意】：

　　第一段：

　　曩昔人們以為nationalism與feminism是沒有幹系的，一般為把兩個範疇離開研討。但比來B學者以為二者是有幹系的，她以為 nationalism可以增進feminism。接著，枚舉挪威和瑞典的例子，證實more democratic 的國度也越偏向於付與主婦推舉權。

　　(1)Norway,(+) 經由過程從國度自力的時刻就伴跟著普遍的國民權，主婦也得到了推舉權，progressive，總之是經由過程間接的對國度的團體的entity的進獻，增進了feminism。

　　挪威在一戰後死力想解脫挪威的統治，為了到達這一目的，鼎力宣傳國度主義，同時倡導女權，賜與成年主婦與須眉同等的推舉權。如許國度主義和女權主義就配合成長了。

　　(2)Sweden,(-)however采用的是一種aggressive 的計謀，直接以推舉權為目標feminism，成果拔苗助長，從1900歲首年月，到1945年才初見結果。可見分歧的計謀發生分歧的成果。

　　與此同時，瑞典也在迫切地想增長國度凝集力，然則采用了相反的辦法：死力顧全男權主義，不給主婦參政議政權。如許兩者就一個成長一個克制了。

　　第二段：

　　舉了印度(+)的例子，又舉了日本(-)的例子，解釋直接的aggressive的feminism策稍不可行。

　　【題目】

　　Q1: 宗旨題

　　Q2: 日本的例子的目標是甚麽?

　　Q3: 瑞士的nationalism與挪威的nationalism有甚麽不同樣?

　　V2【段落大意】：

　　第一段：

　　眾人平日以為feminism 和 P 開首的一個主義鄰近，然則現實上初期的英國Fenimisme 在P和Royalism 的奮斗傍邊，傾向於Royalism

　　第二段：

　　有個C汗青學家以一個dutchess 作為模版研討為何，說這個Dutchess 寫了一本書，在其時已異常ambitious 了，然則她是royalist。在她的小說裏，她構建了她本身對天下的絕對統治(absoluathority)，然後說，這個天下只圍著她轉而不是Obiting muscule political world。(標題：問可以推想其時的天下是如何的天下?)

　　【疑似原文】

　　Comparing nation states – Norway and Sweden

　　The political union between Norway and Sweden was a result of the Napoleonic wars and lasteduntil 1905 when, after increasing problems with the viability of the union, the two countriesformed independent nation states.[7]

　　Comparing Swedish and Norwegian nation building makes it obvious that the two forms ofnationalism were decisive for which groups were accepted as responsible members of thenation. The most conservative and aggressive Swedish nationalists were againstincorporating all men in the nation through general suffrage. For them, women’s right to votewas not even on the agenda.

　　Norwegian nationalists, on the contrary, whether they were conservative or liberal, for oragainst a military solution, had all accepted general male suffrage around the turn of thecentury. Some of the liberals even worked for women’s suffrage.

　　In both countries, the Social Democrats were opposed to the use of military force. TheSwedish Socialists saw general male suffrage as one of their important goals, but did not caremuch about women’s suffrage.

　　The Norwegian Socialists won general male suffrage in 1898 and were positive to women’ssuffrage, although male suffrage had been more important also to them.

　　One could establish a gliding scale with the Swedish Conservatives at one end, and theNorwegian Social Democrats at other. In Sweden, Conservatives, men and women alike, agreedthat only men, and not even all men, should be accepted as members of the nation throughenfranchisement. The hierarchical thinking was clear. The Norwegian Social Democrats at theother end of the scale fought for the widest possible definition of citizenship, including also allwomen. The liberal nationalists, who were very pronounced in Norway, ranged somewhere inthe middle.

　　How should such national differences be understood? Despite all the resemblance between thetwo Scandinavian countries, Norway and Sweden, historical differences are important. Thepolitical developments in the two nations must be taken into consideration. The nineteenthcentury saw a more democratic system emerge in Norway than in Sweden. Norway had a one-chamber parliament, as opposed to the Swedish two-chamber system. Parliamentarianismbecame an accepted ideal in Norway in 1884, in Sweden not until 1911. General male suffragewas introduced in Norway in 1898, in Sweden in 1909, and general female suffrage followed inNorway in 1913, in Sweden in 1921.

　　The differences mirror the stronger Swedish upper classes, consisting partly of an aristocraticnobility with traditions of an important European power. An increasingly industrialised economythere also marked a difference to Norway. The still mainly agrarian Norwegian economy was thebasis for a poorer, but socially more homogeneous population than in Sweden. In Norway,due to centuries of political union, first with Denmark, later with Sweden, the nobility had longlost all importance. Businessmen and academics formed a very small upper class, with less of adistance from the rest of the population than in Sweden.

　　It should be stressed that citizenship through the vote is, of course, not the only way to beaccepted as a member of the nation. Neither is it enough to safeguard democracy. Economicresources and other means of social prestige have kept up social hierarchies within nations.But as long as suffrage was not universal, it was seen as an important key to membership inthe nation. In the debate around general male suffrage in 1898, one of the Norwegianmembers of parliament put it this way: ‘Also people who own nothing and who are in asubordinate position in society are important parts of the nation, whom the constitutionshould guarantee participation in the legislative power.’ Another example: in 1905,Norwegian women who had not yet gained the vote, were excluded from the importantplebiscite deciding the abrogation of the union with Sweden. The response of one woman,writing in the most influential feminist journal, was to ask: ‘Are we women not part of theNorwegian nation?’ Without the vote, anybody, in this case women, might feel excluded fromthe nation.

　　欲懂得更多gmat測驗瀏覽機經，獲得更多gmat測驗備考材料，敬請存眷gmat測驗頻道。網預祝考生2015年gmat測驗獲得好成就!