【阅读】0603起悦读寂静整理（0611日更新）

masakishinobu

一、【暂无考古】Management Skill
二、【考古】欧洲女权
三、【考古】同位素
四、【考古】早期作品
五、【考古】脊椎动物呼吸
六、【本月原始更新】甲烷
七、【考古】金星地球
八、【考古】泰勒的科学管理
九、【考古】加拿大铁路
十、【考古】KT event
十一、【考古】卡特尔
十二、 【考古】陶艺策展人
十三、【考古】博弈论和狩猎
十四、【考古更换】暗物质
十五、【考古】girl scout
十六、【考古】穷富国的资本流
十七、【考古】年轮
十八、【考古】青蛙卵和UV
十九、【考古】压力和免疫系统
二十、【考古】R&D
二十一【考古】、鲸鱼
二十二、【考古】公司税
二十三、【考古】蟾蜍死活水
二十四、【考古】Piecemeal Ads
二十五、【考古】火箭燃料
二十六、【考古】地幔
二十七、【考古】kinship
二十八、【考古】印第安hopi
二十九、【考古】企业集中
三十、 【暂无考古】英国澳洲法律

三十一、【考古】乌龟听力

三十二、【考古】chaos theory

0603日
更新3篇原始，一篇考古。


0604日
更新7篇原始，7篇考古。

0606日
更新2篇原始，2篇考古。
0608日更新
新增3篇原始，3篇考古。第十四篇考古更换。
0609日
更新5篇原始，4篇考古，第六篇本月原始更新

0611日更新2篇原始，两篇考古，第二十八篇的本月原始有新增。

杀伐四方

感谢分享！               

qqqqqqqqqq09876

棒棒棒棒

erikzhangzhui

感谢分享！               

sensitive

能否麻烦告知下今天更新的是哪集篇呀~

rodgepeng

版主 PDF还没有更新啊

justinene

我看应该是有四篇女权，除了前面那两篇，还有一个是什么religion和self-expression的，另外一个是女性结婚前是爸爸的附属啊之类的，我没找到

justinene

又一篇女权
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.

justinene

关于女权的那篇文章，看构筑们u回忆，我觉得和og上的这篇挺像，求鉴定
Jacob Burckhardt's view that Renaissance European women "stood on a footing of perfect equality" with Renaissance men has been repeatedly cited by feminist scholars as a prelude to their presentation of rich historical evidence of women's inequality. In striking contrast to Burckhardt, Joan Kelly in her famous 1977 essay, "Did Women Have a Renaissance?" argued that the Renaissance was a period of economic and social decline for women relative both to Renaissance men and to medieval women. Recently, however, a significant trend among feminist scholars has entailed a rejection of both Kelly's dark vision of the Renaissance and Burckhardt's rosy one. Many recent works by these scholars stress the ways in which differences among Renaissance women—especially in terms of social status and religion—work to complicate the kinds of generalizations both Burckhardt and Kelly made on the basis of their observations about upper-class Italian women.

The trend is also evident, however, in works focusing on those middle- and upper-class European women whose ability to write gives them disproportionate representation in the historical record. Such women were, simply by virtue of their literacy, members of a tiny minority of the population, so it is risky to take their descriptions of their experiences as typical of "female experience" in any general sense. Tina Krontiris, for example, in her fascinating study of six Renaissance women writers, does tend at times to conflate "women" and "women writers," assuming that women's gender, irrespective of other social differences, including literacy, allows us to view women as a homogeneous social group and make that group an object of analysis. Nonetheless, Krontiris makes a significant contribution to the field and is representative of those authors who offer what might be called a cautiously optimistic assessment of Renaissance women's achievements, although she also stresses the social obstacles Renaissance women faced when they sought to raise their "oppositional voices." Krontiris is concerned to show women intentionally negotiating some power for themselves (at least in the realm of public discourse) against potentially constraining ideologies, but in her sober and thoughtful concluding remarks, she suggests that such verbal opposition to cultural stereotypes was highly circumscribed; women seldom attacked the basic assumptions in the ideologies that oppressed them

独白

楼主 辛苦了！小问题，pdf不是最新的，黑洞的那个考古 word和pdf都还是原来的