1910AS 历史

文章分析：

Blurb: 知道是两百年前讲女权的。。

对这种两百年前的语言习惯，我尽量接地气的转述大意。

Cui Bono 

考场上别指望认识了。。这谁能认识。。

Passage 1

para 1: 我们（女性）要实际的权利；

para 2: women要投票权；

para 3: 下面要开始解释原因：

para 4: 女性有投票权才能保护自己，才能两性平等，男性才会做个人；

para 5: 这样女性不仅可以拯救一个性别，而是整个人类；

para 6: 有了投票权，有三个法律就不用了；

para 7: 有了这些权利，法律才真的有道德。

statute: a written law passed by a legilative body

•  /ˈstætʃuːt/ 

可以先做Passage 1 的前5题：

31 独立循证。这个专题已经做过了，到方法论去找~

32 直接细节，就看找定位了。题干问qualifications needed，定位在line 5

33 间接细节，易错题。这一题的干扰在于题干中的ultimately特别容易引向Line 40. 但是这里的定位对应不了A里的certain practices. 所以这一题真得结合34的定位范围同步来解。耗时，且不讨好。

34 上一题定位

35 词汇题

Passage 2

para 1: 女性内部对于投票权的态度有很大区别，大部分女性都不嗷嗷叫要投票权，难道她们就傻吗？

para 2: 这些女性发现恰恰是在女性内部出现刺耳的相互批评抨击的声音，而男性才是女性做真诚的伙伴，如果女性真的有了投票权，能从根本上（女性自身）改变女性的劣势吗？

para 3: 女性的道德能力可以影响世界，男性的政治权威会对女性大献殷勤。可是同样的，女性在影响男性并成为准男性的过程中，男性对女性的尊重、爱、崇敬的这种感情也会逐渐减少直至消失。在追求权利的同时，女性也要明智谨慎，别让自己身上出现她们原本所摒弃的男性身上的自负和傲慢。

再看p2的3题

36 间接细节，但是好做，来自第一段

37 结构题，仍然是第一段内容，需要对第一段主旨有相当的把握

38 看着像结构题，其实是主旨题，问的是Cooper的主要观点。赛达速拍里有非常好的解析：

是时候用正确的小程序了。我会出一期使用说明~

最后三题在读懂文章的基础上，就是用两篇文章主旨来解题了。

39 异中找同是比较难，不过这一题用排除法相对好做，BCD中都有两方中没有的元素；

40 找不同就相对容易，对冲立场；

41 词汇用法题，仍然需要结合passage 2的第一段主旨。所以阅读中的前紧后松真的非常重要。

背景拓展：

Caroline Wells Healey Dall (June 22, 1822 – December 17, 1912) was an American feminist writer, transcendentalist, and reformer. She was affiliated with the National Women's Rights Convention, the New England Women's Club, and the American Social Science Association. Her associates included Elizabeth Peabody and Margaret Fuller, as well as members of the Transcendentalist movement in Boston.

关于第二篇文章，网上找到一篇关于它的论文，正好当做文章解读了（来源

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/174894，作者Lisa Cochran Higgins）：

In an 1872 anti-suffrage essay for the Overland Monthly entitled "Woman Suffrage—Cui Bono?" (who benefits?), Mrs. Sarah Cooper, like other anti-suffrage writers of the period, contends that only women of the worst sort would deign to vote, making public elections inappropriate for true women: "Womanhood—cultured, sensitive, and refined—would instinctively shrink from encountering such an element in the body-politic; and thus the dissolute, the depraved, and the vicious, 'emballoted' and bold, would dominate the weak, the timid, and the vacillating, and thus occupy the field" (160).1 The author implies that enfranchisement would inappropriately sexualize women, creating a promiscuous mingling of male and female bodies in the "body-politic." Although Cooper believes that women of the "depraved" sort mostly come from the lower, immigrant classes, she claims to be even more concerned with "a lamentable increase of the Mrs. Potiphar-type of womanhood" that has women lobbying for the vote within the more "refined" classes (160).

Sarah Cooper 是一位反参政女权主义者，她认为最低等的女性才会要投票权，而且投票权反而会使女性更加性别区化，导致政体中男性女性的混乱结构。尽管库珀认为，“堕落”的女性大多来自较低的移民阶层，但她声称自己更关心“波提法夫人式女性身份的可悲增加”，这种女性身份促使女性在更“高雅”的阶层中游说争取投票权。（关于波提法夫人，文章最后有补充）

Cooper's allusion aligns women's rights advocates with Potiphar's wife, the biblical woman who failed to seduce Joseph, her husband's most trusted slave. Much as Cooper fears the electoral influence of lower-class immigrant women—warning that they will be no more patriotic than their male counterparts who "sell their votes to the highest bidder" and "vote early and often" (158 , 162)—she focuses her attention on the "female-lobbyist": a woman who, like Mrs. Potiphar, may appear cultured but is actually driven by impure sexual desires (160). Still, the author takes a sympathetic tone in regard to lower-class women, arguing that fallen women "starving for bread ... can not resist the temptation to sin" (161). However, there are no excuses for the existence of the suffragist: "We have no just reason to suppose that Mrs. Potiphar was hungry for bread; carnal appetite held sway, and there are not a few, to-day, cursed with the same inherent tendency to 'moral vertigo'" (161).

她担心那些地位低下的外来移民女性，其实并非爱国，看起来有教养，实际上就是被一些不纯洁的性别欲望所驱使。

差不多到这我们可以大致知晓Sarah Cooper的观点来源。

Cooper was far from alone in her fear that the right to vote would trigger the "carnal appetite" of women like Mrs. Potiphar and lead to the "moral vertigo" of America. As I contend in this essay, few realize how shrewdly anti-suffragists used the specter of female adultery to argue against what to them was a startling—and threatening—new form of female individualism. To many anti-suffragists, a woman who cast a ballot was not rising up to grasp democracy's most essential right; she was abandoning her [End Page 193] natural role as the central pillar of domestic life. Her brash entrance into the public sphere could only undermine the nation's most important institution, the family, and open a Pandora's box of other, even more selfish desires.

Read more than a century later, this strain of anti-suffrage literature can seem alarmist and even comical; however, it was not so at the time. The anti-suffragists exploited serious anxieties concerning women's roles and the preservation of gender, race, and class hierarchies in an expanding nation. Through the rhetorical use of female adultery within the suffrage debate, conservative writers negatively associated woman's vote with some of the most controversial "foreign" movements of the period, including Fourierism, Socialism, and Free Love.

As I argue, reading anti-suffrage literature provides insight into the complexity of both the suffrage debate and current debates over women's rights. While the tendency today may be to assume that women in the past were simply for or against women's rights, the actual situation was much more complex, leading me to suggest that among the varying perspectives were three major camps of political thought in regard to woman's suffrage in the nineteenth century: Traditionalism, Domestic Feminism, and Public Feminism. In addition, while the suffrage debate is long over, many of the anti-suffrage rhetorical strategies live on. Similar arguments continue to be employed in the anti-feminism of today.

Anti-suffrage writers like Cooper represented the desire to enfranchise women as an expression of a selfish and adulterous individualism that would destroy America by undermining society's...

波提法的妻子与约瑟(Joseph and Potiphar's wife)

这个故事出自圣经的《创世纪》。约瑟是旧约中的一个先知，在青年时候他被卖到埃及为奴，在当地官员波提法家中做事。约瑟一心向着上帝，因此事事顺利，加上很能干，被主人提拔为管家。这时主人的夫人看上了约瑟，多次引诱约瑟与她通奸。但约瑟对主人很忠诚，总是拒绝她。有一次，波提法夫人故意支开其他仆人，然后把约瑟召唤到她的卧室，约瑟一走进房间就发现夫人脱光了衣服躺在床上，然而约瑟就像柳下惠一样不为所动。他拒绝了夫人的引诱，立马退出房间。就在这时，波提法夫人一把抓住约瑟的衣角，把他的外套扯了下来。约瑟顾不了这么多，没拿回衣服就走了。结果，等到主人波提法回来，夫人竟然反过来指控约瑟强行进入她房间想强暴她，她还指着那件衣服说这就是证据！主人波提法只能把约瑟关进监狱里。但是，因为约瑟的先知能力（其实是解梦），他后来受到埃及法老的赏识，于是他被放出来了并且成为了埃及的一个高官。

来自公众号 假装在发呆 ，非常好的一个讲西方艺术与文化故事的严肃吐槽，推荐~