Recent feminist scholarship concerning the United States in the 1920s challenges earlier interpretations that assessed the 1920s in terms of the unkept “promises” of the women’s suffrage movement. This new scholarship disputes the long-held view that because a women’s voting bloc did not materialize after women gained the right to vote in 1920, suffrage failed to produce long-term political gains for women. These feminist scholars also challenge the old view that pronounced suffrage a failure for not delivering on the promise that the women’s vote would bring about moral, corruption-free governance. Asked whether women’s suffrage was a failure, these scholars cite the words of turn-of-the-century social reformer Jane Addams, “Why don’t you ask if suffrage in general is failing?”
In some ways, however, these scholars still present the 1920s as a period of decline. After suffrage, they argue, the feminist movement lost its cohesiveness, and gender consciousness waned. After the mid-1920s, few successes could be claimed by feminist reformers: little could be seen in the way of legislative victories.
During this decade, however, there was intense activism aimed at achieving increased autonomy for women, broadening the spheres within which they lived their daily lives. Women’s organizations worked to establish opportunities for women: they strove to secure for women the full entitlements of citizenship, including the right to hold office and the right to serve on juries.
It can be inferred that the author of the passage disagrees with the “new scholarship” mentioned in line 5 regarding the
degree to which the “promises” of the suffrage movement remained unkept
degree to which suffrage for women improved the morality of governance
degree to which the 1920s represented a period of decline for the feminist movement
degree of legislative success achieved by feminist reformers during the 1920s
accuracy of the view that a women’s voting bloc did not materialize once suffrage was achieved
此讲解的内容由AI生成,还未经人工审阅,仅供参考。
正确答案是 E。该文章论述的是1920年代妇女参政权的讨论。作者挑战长期以来的观点,即妇女获得投票权后没有形成一个妇女投票群体,因此妇女参政权没有给妇女带来长期的政治利益。这表明,作者不同意新学术观点,即妇女投票群体没有出现,即选项E“关于妇女获得投票权后没有形成一个妇女投票群体的观点是准确的”是正确的。其他选项A、B、C、D都不符合原文内容。
个人感觉文章大概是这样:老学者;女权选举运动没有履行或者达到承诺的权利,所以失败。 新学者;选举权运动整个就是废物,没用还导致了女权衰退。作者;选举权运动没有错,还有有积极影响的。 就是a说a,b说b,c说你们都对了一半。
你这偏的有点远? 第一段几乎引述的几乎都是早期选举运动未兑现承诺的解释,只说了新学者一直在反驳、在挑战,但是并没有说新学者自己具体观点的内容是什么(这个我也觉得很懵);第二段转折了,新学者自己也承认那个时候是衰退期,并没有什么拿得出手的成就;第三段再转折,作者认为,那段时间女权主义的成就还是可圈可点,有些东西。
哈?我怎么觉得咱俩说的都是一件事?文章结构基本就是这样啊,老的说有点局限,新的说全错,作者说还是不能说全错是有意义的。不过新学者我记着有表态,语意基本就是全盘否定。这篇我当时全对了,但不记得具体内容了
时间太久了,不过也可能当时总结的不是很精确,我一般阅读都是大框架,可能有些小出入,细节捕捉除非细节题在看,一般捕捉不利落,可能确实需要加强哎
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论