Standard history texts rarely contain more than a few scattered and pedestrian passages discussing male-female relations during the nineteenth and...
GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions
Standard history texts rarely contain more than a few scattered and pedestrian passages discussing male-female relations during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries—the critical period of feminist activism. The discussion in the available passages is usually restricted to the United States and Britain, limited primarily to the bare legal and social facts, and heavily weighted toward the later phases of the suffrage movement. So narrow a focus inevitably makes the suffragists appear a transient and extraordinary phenomenon, for it screens out the gathering momentum of the women's rights movement throughout the nineteenth century. A fair survey of feminism would see the pressure for women's emancipation building from the 1830's and 1840's and reaching well beyond the issue of suffrage. In fact, the well-documented militant suffrage campaign emerged late in the movement and its bitterness derived from the fact that, by the turn of the century, the vote had become a symbol—to both men and women—of much more than electoral equality.
The customarily perfunctory presentation of feminism ignores the fact that a major shift in sex relations (let alone transformations so rapid and revolutionary as those industrialism has caused in the West) necessarily produces severe cultural trauma. What touches on conventions of manliness and womanliness risks intruding on the most sensitive human situations of all personal relationships between men and women. Although the women's rights movement therefore had nearly universal ramifications, most historians have treated it as a relatively minor, circumscribed phenomenon.
Surely, it should be easy to see that by the late nineteenth century—in the wake of at least two generations of feminist organization and crusading—this supposedly marginal curiosity, called by its unperceptive opponents the woman problem had become an earth-shaking debate of the Western world, fully as serious as contemporaneous class or national conflicts. After all, the world's largest oppressed minority was threatening mutiny—something no thinking person could ignore. None did. Even where feminist activity was minor or nonexistent, it nevertheless provoked deep concern and much discussion. Tolstoi, for example, in a Russia nearly untouched by feminism, was as worried about keeping women in their place as was Britain's William Gladstone. The woman problem was argued, shouted, and agonized about endlessly. By the final decades of the century, it permeated everything. It is difficult to find any major cultural figures of the period who did not passionately address the subject of the rights of women. As for lesser figures, the quantity of writings produced by now-forgotten feminists and antifeminists surely outweighs the material on any other modern social issue. For some—thinkers of the caliber of Nietzsche, Ibsen, Shaw—the debate over sexual roles became an ever-recurring theme in their work, if not an obsession.
The author's primary purpose in the passage is to
1. Passage Analysis:
Progressive Passage Analysis
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Standard history texts rarely contain more than a few scattered and pedestrian passages discussing male-female relations during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries—the critical period of feminist activism. | What it says: History books barely cover women's issues during the 1800s and 1900s, which was when feminism was most important. What it does: Sets up the central problem - inadequate coverage of an important topic Source/Type: Author's factual observation about historical texts Connection to Previous Sentences: First sentence - establishes the foundation of the argument Visualization: Imagine 100 history textbooks: only 5-10 contain brief, boring sections about women's rights during the crucial 200-year period Reading Strategy Insight: This opening clearly signals what the passage will criticize - inadequate historical coverage |
2. Passage Summary:
Author's Purpose:
To criticize how historians have poorly covered the women's rights movement and to show that feminism was actually one of the most important cultural issues of the late 1800s and early 1900s.
Summary of Passage Structure:
The author builds their argument by first showing what's wrong with current history books, then proving how important feminism really was:
- First, the author points out that history textbooks barely cover women's issues during the most important period for feminism, and when they do, the coverage is narrow and superficial.
- Next, the author explains why this bad coverage is a problem - it makes feminism look like a brief, unusual event instead of a long, broad movement that actually started in the 1830s and covered much more than just voting rights.
- Then, the author explains why feminism had to be so significant - it was part of massive social changes that affected the most personal aspects of people's lives, including relationships between men and women.
- Finally, the author piles up evidence to prove feminism was universally important - it was discussed everywhere, by everyone from major thinkers to ordinary people, and generated more writing than any other social issue of the time.
Main Point:
Historians have completely misrepresented feminism by treating it as a minor issue, when it was actually one of the biggest and most important cultural debates in the Western world during the late 1800s and early 1900s.
Why It's Wrong:
- The passage doesn't focus specifically on legal history being "misreported" - it criticizes the overall treatment and scope of coverage
- The author's concern is about inadequate attention and narrow focus, not about factual errors in legal reporting
- The passage addresses much broader issues than just legal aspects - it emphasizes cultural, social, and personal impacts
Why It's Wrong:
- The author doesn't suggest alternative screening methods - they argue for broader, more comprehensive coverage
- "Screening information" implies filtering or selecting data, but the author wants more inclusion, not different selection criteria
- The passage is primarily critical rather than constructive - not offering specific methodological alternatives
Why It's Wrong:
- The author doesn't focus on explaining why the movement was inevitable
- While the author mentions industrialism created conditions for change, this isn't the primary purpose
- The passage is more concerned with correcting historical treatment than explaining historical causation
Why It's Wrong:
- The author doesn't just compare early vs. later phases - they argue the entire movement has been inadequately covered
- While the passage mentions early phases were important, this is part of a larger argument about overall historical treatment
- The focus is on comprehensive inadequacy of coverage, not specifically on rehabilitating the early phase
Why It's Right:
- The entire passage structure is built around criticizing how "most historians have treated it as a relatively minor, circumscribed phenomenon"
- The author systematically challenges the "customarily perfunctory presentation of feminism" and shows why this treatment is wrong
- The passage moves from identifying problems with current historical treatment to providing evidence that contradicts this treatment
Key Evidence: "Although the women's rights movement therefore had nearly universal ramifications, most historians have treated it as a relatively minor, circumscribed phenomenon." This sentence captures the author's central criticism and primary purpose - challenging the prevalent historical treatment.