GRE Prep Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
It is an odd but indisputabl
[#permalink]
12 May 2020, 09:04
12 May 2020, 09:04
1
Expert Reply
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.
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.
1. The author of the passage refers to Robert Filmer primarily in order to
(A) show that Royalist ideology was somewhat more radical than most historians appear to realize
(B) qualify the claim that patriarchalism formed the basis of Royalist ideology
(C) question the view that most early feminists were associated with the Royalist faction
(D) highlight an apparent tension between Royalist ideology and the ideas of early feminists
(E) argue that Royalists held conflicting opinions on issues of family organization and women's political rights
Show: ::
D
2. The passage suggests which of the following about the seventeenth-century English women mentioned in line 2?
A: Their status as forerunners of modern feminism is not entirely justified.
B: They did not openly challenge the radical patriarchalism of Royalist Filmerian ideology.
C: Cavendish was the first among these women to criticize women's subordination in marriage and assert women's equality with men.
D: Their views on family organization and women's political rights were diametrically opposed to those of both Royalist and Parliamentarian ideology.
E: Historians would be less puzzled if more of them were identified with the Parliamentarian side in the English Civil Wars.
Show: ::
OA:E
3. The passage suggests that Margaret Cavendish's decision to become an author was motivated, at least in part, by a desire to
A: justify her support for the Royalist cause
B: encourage her readers to work toward eradicating Filmerian patriarchalism
C: persuade other women to break free from their political and social isolation
D: analyze the causes for women's exclusion from the pursuit of power
E: create a world over which she could exercise total control
Show: ::
OA:E
4. The phrase "a satellite orbiting a dominant male planet" refers most directly to
A: Cavendish's concept that each woman is a sovereign self
B: the complete political and social isolation of absolute singularity
C: the immaterial world that a writer can create on paper
D: the absolute subordination of women in a patriarchal society
E: the metaphorical figure of the absolute monarch
Show: ::
OA:D
5. Which of the following, if true, would most clearly undermine Gallagher`s explanation of the link between Royalism and feminism?
(A) Because of their privileged backgrounds, Royalist women were generally better educated than were their Parliamentarian counterparts.
(B) Filmer himself had read some Cavendish's early writings and was highly critical of her ideas.
(C) Cavendish's views were highly individual and were not shared by other Royalist women who wrote early feminist works.
(D) The Royalist and Parliamentarian ideologies were largely in agreement on issues of family organization and women's political rights.
(E) The Royalist side included a sizable minority faction that was opposed to the more radical tendencies of Filmerian patriarchalism.
Show: ::
C
6. The primary purpose of the passage is to:
(A) trace the historical roots of a modern sociopolitical movement
(B) present one scholar's explanation for a puzzling historical phenomenon
(C) contrast two interpretations of the ideological origins of a political conflict
(D) establish a link between the ideology of an influential political theorist and that of a notoriously eccentric writer
(E) call attention to some points of agreement between opposing sides in an ideological debate
Show: ::
B
Re: It is an odd but indisputabl
[#permalink]
12 May 2020, 09:05
12 May 2020, 09:05
Expert Reply
Post A Detailed Correct Solution For The Above Questions And Get A Kudos.
Question From Our New Project: Great Opportunity To Earn Kudos!!!
Question From Our New Project: Great Opportunity To Earn Kudos!!!
Re: It is an odd but indisputabl
[#permalink]
15 Jul 2020, 13:03
15 Jul 2020, 13:03
@Carcass
Hello again!
I just saw a video that you posted about GreGmat where he explains the three strategies and i am trying to implement them.
I am a bit confussed in the black part...
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.
Why should the historians be "understandably puzzled"? What I understand is that women inside the Royal were the ones would suffer the most patriarchalism. Hence, I guess it would be normal if they start writing against them.
What am I missing?, could you please give me some help here?
Kind regards!
Hello again!
I just saw a video that you posted about GreGmat where he explains the three strategies and i am trying to implement them.
I am a bit confussed in the black part...
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.
Why should the historians be "understandably puzzled"? What I understand is that women inside the Royal were the ones would suffer the most patriarchalism. Hence, I guess it would be normal if they start writing against them.
What am I missing?, could you please give me some help here?
Kind regards!
