It is an odd but indisputable fact that the seventeenth-century English women who are generally regarded as among the forerunners of modern feminism are almost all identified with the Royalist side in the conflict between Royalists and Parliamentarians known as the English Civil Wars. Since Royalist ideology is often associated with the radical patriarchalism of seventeenth-century political theorist Robert Filmer—a patriarchalism that equates family and kingdom and asserts the divinely ordained absolute power of the king and, by analogy, of the male head of the household—historians have been understandably puzzled by the fact that Royalist women wrote the earliest extended criticisms of the absolute subordination of women in marriage and the earliest systematic assertions of women's rational and moral equality with men. Some historians have questioned the facile equation of Royalist ideology with Filmerian patriarchalism; and indeed, there may have been no consistent differences between Royalists and Parliamentarians on issues of family organization and women's political rights, but in that case one would expect early feminists to be equally divided between the two sides.
Catherine Gallagher argues that Royalism engendered feminism because the ideology of absolute monarchy provided a transition to an ideology of the absolute self. She cites the example of the notoriously eccentric author Margaret Cavendish (1626–1673), duchess of Newcastle. Cavendish claimed to be as ambitious as any woman could be, but knowing that as a woman she was excluded from the pursuit of power in the real world, she resolved to be mistress of her own world, the "immaterial world" that any person can create within her own mind—and, as a writer, on paper. In proclaiming what she called her "singularity," Cavendish insisted that she was a self-sufficient being within her mental empire, the center of her own subjective universe rather than a satellite orbiting a dominant male planet. In justifying this absolute singularity, Cavendish repeatedly invoked the model of the absolute monarch, a figure that became a metaphor for the self-enclosed, autonomous nature of the individual person. Cavendish's successors among early feminists retained her notion of woman's sovereign self, but they also sought to break free from the complete political and social isolation that her absolute singularity entailed.
Which of the following, if true, would most clearly undermine Gallagher's explanation of the link between Royalism and feminism?
Because of their privileged backgrounds, Royalist women were generally better educated than were their Parliamentarian counterparts.
Filmer himself had read some of Cavendish's early writings and was highly critical of her ideas.
Cavendish's views were highly individual and were not shared by the other Royalist women who wrote early feminist works.
The Royalist and Parliamentarian ideologies were largely in agreement on issues of family organization and women's political rights.
The Royalist side included a sizable minority faction that was opposed to the more radical tendencies of Filmerian patriarchalism.
题目分析:
文章推断题:以下哪一点最能削弱CG关于保皇党和女权联系的解释?
(CG认为保皇党产生了女权主义者)
选项分析:
A选项:由于特权背景,保皇党女性比议会党女性受到更好的教育:与教育无关。
B选项:Filmer自己读了一些C的书并且强烈不满:这并不能解释女权是否起源于保皇党。
C选项:正确。C的观点很独立,也没有被保皇党的女性看到:如果保皇党的女性没有看到C的作品,那保皇党出现女权主义者的几率就会降低,削弱了保皇党和女权主义的联系。
D选项:保皇党和议会党在家庭、女性政权问题上很一致:无关。
E选项:保皇党有一小部分人反对父权主义:这个加强了CG的观点。
share the view指的是认同该观点,不是被别人看到,答案翻译有问题
CG对此的解释中,以MC的理念为例,但C选项的意思是,MC的理念只是他个人的理念,并没有被其他女权主义者认同和接受,所以undermine了CG关于royalist产生feminism的解释
D选项,这道题undermine的是royalist产生feminism,至于parliamentarian是否产生(或怎么产生)feminism与此题无关
不是要undermine“为什么feminist几乎都是royalist而非parliamentarian”这件事,而是undermine “royalist是怎么产生feminism”这件事
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论