按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
said； from referring to the troops as‘our boys’。
2 ‘Girls’； by contrast； is derogatory and demeaning。 This was only to be expected； the authors pointed out； from an institution that enjoys ‘partial’exemption from equal opportunities legislation—and thus can exclude its ‘girls’ from some direct bat positions。 How chauvinist can you get？
But hold on： do women really want to turn Dad’s Army into Mum’s Army； a posse of latterday Amazons braving the front line； cheek by jowl with their male counterparts？ We don’t want to stand beside the boys and fire rifles into the whites of Iraqi eyes。 Nor are we gasping for a chance to be blasted to smithereens by a cluster bomb。 I may not be crazy about being called ‘girl’；
3 Yet this kind of jobequality —if Jack can do it； Jill sure as hell can do it better—has long been cherished by social planners； feminist or not。 For decades； menonly enclaves gave women their battle cry： let me in there！ The exclusion zone in those days ranged from smart clubs； manual work； the Church of England and the armed forces。
Now it has shrunk to a few fields in clubland； the golfers’ paradise — the Royal and Ancient Club of St Andrews； the Roman Catholic priesthood； and frontline bat。
The head of the Stock Exchange is a woman； female plumbers are growing in numbers （including that Oxford graduate； Nicola Gillison； who made headlines recently because she ditched her consultancy job for a mole wrench）； and one in 12 of the Army is female。 As for women lorry drivers； that should be no surprise。 Women drivers have such a sterling record that insurance panies now offer cheaper premiums in return for the promise that no man will e anywhere near the four wheels of their car。
4 As the foreigner chewed his dumplings at some dire Intourist restaurant in the Soviet Union； his （or her） surprised gaze might alight upon the workers outside in their drab overalls。 Who were those stocky muscular figures clambering up the scaffolding with buckets of primrose yellow paint to freshen up the crumbling facades of the surrounding buildings？ Women。 Who was heaving the garbage containers into the dilapidated rubbish truck？ Women。 Who was shovelling up the piles of dirt and grit left in the melted snow by the side of the road？ Women。
And what of the Israeli army； which believes women as well as men should face enemy fire？ That idea has proved a disaster — with men behaving suicidally to protect the women； casualties mounting； and the government now considering legislation to keep women away from the front。 It’s been a dire tale in the American military too； with physical strength tests rigged to acmodate women soldiers who with the best will in the world cannot throw a hand grenade to a safe distance。
There’s nothing wrong with a handful of supertough modernday GI Janes being hooked on Jane’s Guide to Extra Lethal Infantry Weapons； or wasting their weekends playing war games； the modern military needs women to boost its flagging recruits； and if supply now matches demands； I am sure we can all rest more easily in the shadow of the Axis of Evil。
5
［A］Social engineering that fixes men and women in the same post； at all costs； makes no sense。
［B］Given such progress； only rabid equalitarian would argue that they cannot rest until women have the right to be windbagged by some old geezer reading Horse and Hound by the fire； or risk death or a war wound through their rightful place on the front line。
［C］but that doesn’t mean I want to be mowed down with the ‘boys’ in the killing fields。
［D］They want to get on with dealing the most humiliating defeat upon the remaining enemy： foes such as those employers who pay women less than parable men； the corporations with an allmale hierarchy at the top； and of course the men who tiresomely persist in sexist words or behaviour。
［E］‘Boys’； it seems； is a good； encouraging； matey kind of word。
［F］But a woman does not need to be in the firing line to feel as good as a man。 That is an equality too far。
［G］The army is slammed for sexism； but do we want a ‘Mum’s Army？
答案及解析
1。D。从文章开头，我们可以看到本文主要讨论了现代性别歧视问题，空白处前一句话表明，这场平等之战的赢家并不想浪费宝贵的时间去欢呼。这就暗示了这场战争还未完结，顺着这个逻辑思路，不难看到选项D是符合上下文的。
2。E。从下文“Girls， by contrast； is derogatory and demeaning。” 得知上文是与这句“by contrast” 的。所以对应来说大致的意思就应该为“既然‘姑娘们’这个称呼是贬义的，有辱人格的，那么‘小伙子们’就是鼓舞人心的，表示友好的称呼”，所以应选E。
3。C。本段开头用一个否定表示作者并不认为所谓的平等就是与那些“小伙子们”并肩战斗，浴血战场。而且在字里行间也一直贯穿着这个意思，所以最后一句也不会偏离这个语境，选项C用在这里衔接很自然。
4。A。此处空白是段首句，而上一段作者列举了种种女性勇往直前的工作领域，其后又用讽刺的笔调描画了苏联所谓男女平等的社会工作的滑稽可笑的情境，由此而见，作者并不赞成女性盲目地追求形式上的平等。而选项A意为“千方百计让男女干同样工作的社会工程毫无意义”，即起到了承前的作用，又开启了下文。
5。F。此处为本文结束语，前一段作者认为女性作为兵源的补充是合情合理的。最后一段作为全篇总结，既要与上一段呼应又要回扣题目“我不会为平等而送死。”抓住“战争”、“平等”两个关键词，我们不难锁定选项F为正确答案。
中心思想
本文作者以轻松诙谐的笔调探讨了什么是男女间真正的平等。作者抓住军队这个大环境，用一系列的假设和举例阐述了自己的观点，即女性应该去追求两性平等，但没有必要处处要求平等，更没有必要单纯为了平等而平等。只有合情合理的平等才能造就和谐的社会和心灵。
译文
七十五年前，所有英国妇女最终获得了选举权，而英国男性比她们早了十年。令人称奇的是，力排众阻而首先追踪报道此事件的竟是《太阳报》（颇具讽刺意味的是，《太阳报》“庆贺”妇女们的解放；但不加掩饰地表达了他们对丰乳肥臀的莫大兴趣）。
似乎未曾有人注意到，这场平等权之争的赢家根本不愿浪费宝贵的时间来欢呼喝彩；因为，他们想与一些曾令他们蒙受败绩之辱的对手再战，诸如那些给女性雇员支付低于其男性同事工资的雇主，那些高层管理人员均为男性的企业公司，