Mo2men
Dear GMATNinja
I do not understand the answer for question # 1.
Let's start with the passage itself:
Quote:
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.
The author immediately tells us two things here:
- The forerunners of modern feminism are almost all identified with Royalists.
- This is odd.
Next, the author spells out
why this is odd:
Quote:
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.
- Royalist ideology is often associated with Filmer's partriarchalism.
- Filmer's patriarchalism asserts the absolute power of the male in kingdom and family.
- Yet, the earliest extended criticism of absolute subordination of women was done by Royalist women.
So,
why does the author refer to Robert Filmer? In order to spell out this puzzling, odd contradiction. The writings of these women go against Filmer's theory. Yet, the women themselves associate with the Royalists who are associated with Filmer's theory.
Here's choice (D) again:
Quote:
(D) highlight an apparent tension between Royalist ideology and the ideas of early feminists
This matches what we know about
why the author brings Filmer into the passage.
Responding to doubts about "tension":Mo2men
As per the passage, the women sided with Royalist ideology so there is not tension between them.
Hi mikemcgarry
On q1 , i did not chose D because the of one word Tension
a) I don't see how tension can be between two ideologies per se ...isn't tension normally between people, not ideologies ?
b) Also , Just because two ideologies are starkly different, does not mean necessarily there is "TENSION" between the people with these different ideologies ... Proof : the followers of these different ideologies were eventually on the same team (Royalists were associated with Feminists) ...if there was "TENSION", they would not be on the same team
Any suggestions on where i am going wrong with my interpretation of choice D
(a) In fact, tension
can exist between ideologies or ideas, so this use of "tension" is fine.
(b) Tensions can exist within groups or between groups.
- Taking a political side or joining a specific group doesn't eliminate the possibility of tension. Since folks around here seem to love Game of Thrones, think about Jon Snow joining the Night's Watch. He immediately faced tension within the group despite taking the same vow as everyone else on that side. This tension was present from his very first day at Castle Black.
- We can also approach this strictly through logic: If I identify with one side of a conflict, you cannot conclude that I agree 100% with that side's ideology, or have zero tension with that ideology. I'd have to give you more explicit information for you to conclude that no tension exists.
- The author is not simply presenting two ideologies that are simply different. The author is presenting two ideologies that seem to directly contradict each other, yet are associated with each other.
Remember, Question 1 asks us
why the author refers to Filmer. Given the purpose of the paragraph, it makes sense to say that the author is referring to Filmer primarily to highlight an apparent tension between Royalist ideology and early feminist ideas. So at the very least, we should keep choice (D) around as we finish the process of elimination.
I hope this helps!
I selected option B. "qualify...form the basis.....". The reason I chose this option is because of 3-4 words in the passage(highlighted in yellow below). The passage says :
—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"
: 1. Royalist ideology is linked to radical patriarchalism by the use of 'associated' and 'since'- some time in past, and the gentleman Robert Filmer is explaining this after a '-', and thus in a way is qualifying the preceding line.
2. Since its location specific question, not to refer to the whole passage for answering this particular question.