It is an odd but indisputable fact that the seventeenth-century English women who are generally regarded as among the forerunners...
GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions
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.
The author of the passage refers to Robert Filmer primarily in order to
1. Passage Analysis:
Progressive Passage Analysis
Text from Passage | Analysis |
---|---|
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. | What it says: Early feminist women in 1600s England were mostly Royalists (supporters of the king) rather than Parliamentarians during the English Civil Wars. What it does: Introduces the central puzzle/paradox that the entire passage will explore Source/Type: Presented as historical fact ("indisputable fact") Connection to Previous Sentences: First sentence - establishes the foundation Visualization: Imagine 10 early feminist women from 1600s England → 8-9 of them supported the King's side, only 1-2 supported Parliament Reading Strategy Insight: This is setting up a puzzle. The word "odd" signals that something unexpected is coming. What We Know So Far: Early feminists were mostly Royalists What We Don't Know Yet: Why this is "odd" or puzzling |
Why It's Wrong:
- The passage presents Filmer's patriarchalism as extreme, not as evidence that Royalist ideology was more radical than thought
- Filmer is used to explain why the situation is puzzling, not to reveal hidden radicalism in Royalist thought
- The author treats the Filmer-Royalist connection as commonly accepted ("often associated"), not as a new discovery about Royalist radicalism
Why It's Wrong:
- The author doesn't qualify or weaken the claim about patriarchalism forming the basis of Royalist ideology
- Filmer is presented as evidence supporting the connection between Royalism and patriarchalism, not questioning it
- The author later mentions that "some historians have questioned" this connection, but Filmer himself is not used for that purpose
Why It's Wrong:
- The passage accepts as fact that most early feminists were Royalists - this isn't questioned
- Filmer is used to explain why this fact is surprising, not to challenge whether the fact is true
- The entire passage is built on accepting this Royalist-feminist connection as accurate
Why It's Right:
- Filmer represents the patriarchal ideology associated with Royalism that seems to contradict feminist ideas
- His mention creates the central tension: How can supporters of male-dominated ideology become feminists?
- This apparent contradiction is exactly what makes the historical situation "odd" and "puzzling" to historians
Why It's Wrong:
- Filmer himself is not presented as holding conflicting opinions - his position is consistently patriarchal
- The passage doesn't suggest that Royalists as a group held conflicting views, but rather that their ideology seemed inconsistent with feminist outcomes
- The conflict is between ideology (Filmer's patriarchalism) and behavior (feminist writing), not within Royalist opinions themselves