如何看待四級考試閱讀卷公開性別歧視？

01-25

謝腰

同志，醒一醒，燈塔國還沒有佔領我們

差評！下一題

歧不歧視我不知道，提問者這閱讀能力四級肯定是過不去的

很好。

以後每次SAT必定會有一個問題「如何看待College Board性別歧視/種族歧視？」

(每次歷史雙篇幾乎必有種族歧視/性別歧視的篇目)

說句不好聽的吧，一篇閱讀都能上綱上線，你還想如何？更何況闡述的哪個不是普遍的事實？

別高潮那麼快。

別人給你看AV，你罵他變態可以理解，看到男人就高潮你罵所有男人都變態你是不是有點精神問題？

明確一件事，選取分文章不代表考試方立場，話題終結

拒絕女權審判，獨立出題！

會不會哪一天有個人跳出來說:憑什麼男廁所女生不給進，這不是赤裸裸的歧視嗎

如何看待動畫對小孩子的影響？

如何看待遊戲中的暴力場面對玩家的影響？

這就和這個問題一樣，明明是一個很大的很複雜的問題，卻拎出來一個微不足道的事物的來背鍋。說的好像現在取消四級考試就沒有性別歧視了一樣。

據說標準答案是女權即平權，答He for She也可以得滿分。

某些評論看了又好氣又好笑。

第一，某些事情可能是事實，but，是不是事實就是正確的?換句話說，如果合法權益被侵犯，要不要接受這一既定事實（註明:此處「接受」不為心態良好的意思）。

第二，覺得別人想當上帝的人，自己是不是也持有一種「上帝態度」看問題呢。

第三，說兩三句話就玻璃心?並不明白誰才是玻璃心。

這兩字已經臭了

大有變成過街老鼠的勢頭

合不合理應該有自己的價值觀，但前提得有正確的價值觀。如果單純是陳述了一個事實，就把所謂的性別歧視攪和進來難免有點小題大做了。很顯然，在現在的中國性別歧視對於絕大多數地區來說已經成為了過了，甚至在周圍自己身為一個男生感覺遠沒女生好貴。

抗議2000年英語考研題，涉及性別歧視，原文內容如下：

Being a man has always been dangerous. There are about 105 males born for every 100 females, but this ratio drops to near balance at the age of maturity, and among 70-year-olds there are twice as many women as men. But the great universal of male mortality is being changed. Now, by babies survive almost as well as girls do. This means that, for the first time, there will be an excess of boys in those crucial years when they are searching for a mate. More important, another chance for natural selection has been removed. Fifty years ago, the chance of a baby （particularly a boy baby）surviving depended on its weight. A kilogram too light or too heavy meant almost certain death. Today it makes almost no difference. Since much of the variation is due to genes one more agent of evolution has gone.

There is another way to commit evolutionary suicide: stay alive, but have fewer children. Few people are as fertile as in the past. Except in some religious communities, very few women has 15 children. Nowadays the number of births, like the age of death, has become average. Most of us have roughly the same number of offspring. Again, differences between people and the opportunity for natural selection to take advantage of it have diminished. India shows what is happening. The country offers wealth for a few in the great cities and poverty for the remaining tribal peoples. The grand mediocrity of today ---everyone being the same in survival and number of offspring---means that natural selection has lost 80% of its power in upper-middle-class India compared to the tribes.

For us, this means that evolution is over; the biological Utopia has arrived. Strangely, it has involved little physical change No other species fills so many places in nature. But in the pass 100,000 years--- even the past 100year ---our lives have been transformed but our bodies have not. We did not evolve, because machines and society did it for us. Darwin had a phrase to describe those ignorant of evolution: they "look at an organic being as a savage looks at a ship, as at something wholly beyond his comprehension." No doubt we will remember a 20th century way of life beyond comprehension for its ugliness. But however amazed our descendants may be at how far from Utopia we were, they will look just like us.

5. What used to be the danger in being a man according to the first paragraph?

［A］A lack of mates. ［B］A fierce competition.

［C］A lower survival rate. ［D］A defective gene.

6. What does the example of India illustrate?

［A］Wealthy people tend to have fewer children than poor people.

［B］Natural selection hardly works among the rich and the poor.

［C］The middle class population is 80% smaller than that of the tribes.

［D］India is one of the countries with a very high birth rate.

7. The author argues that our bodies have stopped evolving because____ .

［A］life has been improved by technological advance

［B］the number of female babies has been declining

［C］our species has reached the highest stage of evolution

［D］the difference between wealth and poverty is disappearing

8. Which of the following would be the best title for the passage?

［A］Sex Ration Changes in Human Evolution ［B］Ways of Continuing Man"s Evolution

［C］The Evolutionary Future of Nature ［D］Human Evolution Going Nowhere

如果改成以下樣式，仔細讀是不是感覺還是有些不友好呢。

男性要處理家庭和職業兩個方面，而女性不用

。

家庭和職業在這裡只是一個借代，改為**和**都可以，只要保留中間的「和」字就好。

一般這種不是作為論述社會存在性別歧視的論據嗎？

沒必要諷刺，帽子也別扣太早，有問題可以分析嘛。

男性不用平衡家庭工作而女性需要是不是事實。有答主說是進化的結果要求這樣，這是難以苟同的，畢竟社會發展至今離茹毛飲血的時代太遠了，男女的社會分工也是在改變的，現代社會男女對家庭都是應當照顧的。

男性CEO多是機遇統計學的事實，導致的原因很多，是否是因為歧視女性而為是值得商討的。單就這個文章而言，只是簡單的陳述。

男性喜歡挑戰而女性不是。就我個人感官，這樣評價對男女雙方都是不利的。可能導致男性承擔更多挑戰的壓力而女性失去挑戰的機遇，是否喜歡挑戰應當注意個人而非集體，也許在統計學上是這樣（我不清楚），但我們面對的畢竟是個人。

得出結論是女性不適合職場這個結論我不知道是題主給的還是文章說的，但這個說法明顯是錯誤的。

我只能說涉嫌歧視額→_→

文章想表達的也許是反歧視也說不定，描述一些普遍心理與事實，引起有心人的反思嘍。

（以上是基於題主的描述給出的，我不想在看原文了，因為我感覺我四級考試炸了）

前幾天看知乎問「獨生子女政策是否間接促進了男女平等」下面的回答紛紛冷嘲熱諷「很多女嬰沒機會活下來，以此換來了活下來的男女相對更加平等，這種平等我們寧可不要」

昨天看九州海上牧雲記，草原上部落之間，部落與端朝，端朝內部鬥爭的結局，都是敗的一方，成男男子統統殺掉，女子有些為奴，有些直接放掉，我在想這種部分犧牲換來另一部分地位能力提高的歷史已經綿延萬年了，你總得承認男人有些方面是理所當然的優勢吧。

當然不是說女人處處不如男人，也沒說女人理所當然要矮男人一頭。只是過去女人憑著生理的優勢（是的生育能力和較弱的體力有時候真的是優勢），比男人更安全的活了幾萬年，到現在卻不願意承認這些東西帶來的弊端，不好吧。