文章分析：

Blurb: 知道是兩百年前講女權(quán)的。。

對這種兩百年前的語言習(xí)慣，我盡量接地氣的轉(zhuǎn)述大意。

Cui?Bono?

考場上別指望認(rèn)識了。。這誰能認(rèn)識。。

Passage 1

para 1:?我們（女性）要實(shí)際的權(quán)利；

para 2: women要投票權(quán)；

para 3:?下面要開始解釋原因：

para 4: 女性有投票權(quán)才能保護(hù)自己，才能兩性平等，男性才會做個人；

para 5: 這樣女性不僅可以拯救一個性別，而是整個人類；

para 6:?有了投票權(quán)，有三個法律就不用了；

para 7:?有了這些權(quán)利，法律才真的有道德。

statute: a?written law passed by a legilative body

• ?/?st?t?u?t/?

可以先做Passage 1 的前5題：

31 獨(dú)立循證。這個專題已經(jīng)做過了，到方法論去找~

32 直接細(xì)節(jié)，就看找定位了。題干問qualifications needed，定位在line 5

33 間接細(xì)節(jié)，易錯題。這一題的干擾在于題干中的ultimately特別容易引向Line 40. 但是這里的定位對應(yīng)不了A里的certain practices. 所以這一題真得結(jié)合34的定位范圍同步來解。耗時，且不討好。

34 上一題定位

35 詞匯題

Passage 2

para 1: 女性內(nèi)部對于投票權(quán)的態(tài)度有很大區(qū)別，大部分女性都不嗷嗷叫要投票權(quán)，難道她們就傻嗎？

para 2: 這些女性發(fā)現(xiàn)恰恰是在女性內(nèi)部出現(xiàn)刺耳的相互批評抨擊的聲音，而男性才是女性做真誠的伙伴，如果女性真的有了投票權(quán)，能從根本上（女性自身）改變女性的劣勢嗎？

para 3:?女性的道德能力可以影響世界，男性的政治權(quán)威會對女性大獻(xiàn)殷勤?？墒峭瑯拥?，女性在影響男性并成為準(zhǔn)男性的過程中，男性對女性的尊重、愛、崇敬的這種感情也會逐漸減少直至消失。在追求權(quán)利的同時，女性也要明智謹(jǐn)慎，別讓自己身上出現(xiàn)她們原本所摒棄的男性身上的自負(fù)和傲慢。

再看p2的3題

36 間接細(xì)節(jié)，但是好做，來自第一段

37 結(jié)構(gòu)題，仍然是第一段內(nèi)容，需要對第一段主旨有相當(dāng)?shù)陌盐?/p>

38 看著像結(jié)構(gòu)題，其實(shí)是主旨題，問的是Cooper的主要觀點(diǎn)。賽達(dá)速拍里有非常好的解析：

是時候用正確的小程序了。我會出一期使用說明~

最后三題在讀懂文章的基礎(chǔ)上，就是用兩篇文章主旨來解題了。

39 異中找同是比較難，不過這一題用排除法相對好做，BCD中都有兩方中沒有的元素；

40?找不同就相對容易，對沖立場；

41 詞匯用法題，仍然需要結(jié)合passage 2的第一段主旨。所以閱讀中的前緊后松真的非常重要。

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.

關(guān)于第二篇文章，網(wǎng)上找到一篇關(guān)于它的論文，正好當(dāng)做文章解讀了（來源

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 是一位反參政女權(quán)主義者，她認(rèn)為最低等的女性才會要投票權(quán)，而且投票權(quán)反而會使女性更加性別區(qū)化，導(dǎo)致政體中男性女性的混亂結(jié)構(gòu)。盡管庫珀認(rèn)為，“墮落”的女性大多來自較低的移民階層，但她聲稱自己更關(guān)心“波提法夫人式女性身份的可悲增加”，這種女性身份促使女性在更“高雅”的階層中游說爭取投票權(quán)。（關(guān)于波提法夫人，文章最后有補(bǔ)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).

她擔(dān)心那些地位低下的外來移民女性，其實(shí)并非愛國，看起來有教養(yǎng)，實(shí)際上就是被一些不純潔的性別欲望所驅(qū)使。

差不多到這我們可以大致知曉Sarah Cooper的觀點(diǎn)來源。

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...

波提法的妻子與約瑟(Joseph and Potiphar's wife)

這個故事出自圣經(jīng)的《創(chuàng)世紀(jì)》。約瑟是舊約中的一個先知，在青年時候他被賣到埃及為奴，在當(dāng)?shù)毓賳T波提法家中做事。約瑟一心向著上帝，因此事事順利，加上很能干，被主人提拔為管家。這時主人的夫人看上了約瑟，多次引誘約瑟與她通奸。但約瑟對主人很忠誠，總是拒絕她。有一次，波提法夫人故意支開其他仆人，然后把約瑟召喚到她的臥室，約瑟一走進(jìn)房間就發(fā)現(xiàn)夫人脫光了衣服躺在床上，然而約瑟就像柳下惠一樣不為所動。他拒絕了夫人的引誘，立馬退出房間。就在這時，波提法夫人一把抓住約瑟的衣角，把他的外套扯了下來。約瑟顧不了這么多，沒拿回衣服就走了。結(jié)果，等到主人波提法回來，夫人竟然反過來指控約瑟強(qiáng)行進(jìn)入她房間想強(qiáng)暴她，她還指著那件衣服說這就是證據(jù)！主人波提法只能把約瑟關(guān)進(jìn)監(jiān)獄里。但是，因?yàn)榧s瑟的先知能力（其實(shí)是解夢），他后來受到埃及法老的賞識，于是他被放出來了并且成為了埃及的一個高官。

來自公眾號 假裝在發(fā)呆 ，非常好的一個講西方藝術(shù)與文化故事的嚴(yán)肅吐槽，推薦~