|
MingLiU","serif"; mso-fareast-language: ZH-TW; mso-hansi-font-family: 华文中宋; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Tahoma;">考了一下古,觉得和美国妇女产权说的很象,请考过的同学看看确认下 MingLiU","serif"; mso-fareast-language: ZH-TW; mso-hansi-font-family: 华文中宋; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Tahoma;">美國婦女權利的文章。 MingLiU","serif"; mso-fareast-language: ZH-TW; mso-hansi-font-family: 华文中宋; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Tahoma;">1800sMingLiU","serif"; mso-fareast-language: ZH-TW; mso-hansi-font-family: 华文中宋; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Tahoma;">的時候婦女被當成是男人的財產，男人可以自由支配女人的所有東西。後來有個equity lawMingLiU","serif"; mso-fareast-language: ZH-TW; mso-hansi-font-family: 华文中宋; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Tahoma;">，改變了這一現象，之後是講對婦女好處的方面。第二段有一個人反對這一觀點，舉了很多例子。屬於觀點對比類。
MingLiU","serif"; mso-fareast-language: ZH-TW; mso-hansi-font-family: Tahoma; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Tahoma;">美國法律對已婚婦女的財產權力的保護問題-MingLiU","serif"; mso-fareast-language: ZH-TW; mso-hansi-font-family: Tahoma; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Tahoma;">主要是講歷史沿革和學者的觀點對比： MingLiU","serif"; mso-fareast-language: ZH-TW; mso-hansi-font-family: Tahoma; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Tahoma;">第一段：是說美國在以前的某個時期，婦女結婚後財產就歸丈夫所有了。 MingLiU","serif"; mso-fareast-language: ZH-TW; mso-hansi-font-family: Tahoma; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Tahoma;">第二段：講從某個時期起，不少州開始立法保護已婚婦女的財產權。（注意:MingLiU","serif"; mso-fareast-language: ZH-TW; mso-hansi-font-family: Tahoma; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Tahoma;">說的是銀行大批倒閉的時期，不少丈夫破產把妻子的財產也陪進去了，這個在後面的題裏面考了這些州立法的原因是什麼。）還講了一個具體的法律（這個法律是什麼，年代，在後面也是考點）。 第三段：講了不同學者間的評價。忘了講了2個人還?個。但是考了兩個人，第一個人認為法律的轉變起到了積極作用。第二個人認為並沒有起到什麼作用，舉了好多例子：很多州，像康涅狄可州，和很多傳統保守實力，反對這種社會、法律發展的趨勢。（後面有道題考這些法律你能infer出什麼，我選了not universal in all states，我覺得universial這個改寫還soso。反正請大家讀的時候，注意這種法律變化有什麼社會影響，該怎麼評價）最後一句話，講了有些人願意接受這種法律，也是為了破產的丈夫把財產轉移給妻子，賴債權人的錢。除了上述出題點，還有主旨題：我認為應該選提到了“講述社會變化，對比學者觀點”的那個選項，事實上，文章的重心是在第二個學者的言論，應該屬於present觀點的文章，一定要突出這個。
第一段是概括某一新法案M實施前的狀況，有一題是關於婚後財產是歸老公支配的。
第二段是某人a的觀點，裏面有一題。
第三段先是某人b的觀點，裏面有一題，是他認為在M實施前另一法案N已經可以達到保護婦女財產的作用了。然後是某人c反對b的觀點，裏面還有一題，是說N的實施並不普遍，並且對它的接受不大好
（版本2）關於十九世紀美國婦女的財產權的長文，大概有兩片短文的長度。講狀況及一些學者的評論。
第一段是概括某一新法案M實施前的狀況，在common law的情況下，此時丈夫對妻子的財產有很大的支配權利。婦女只有通過一個似乎叫equity court的機構才有可能得到對自己財產的權利。
第二段是講十九世紀中期，因為husbands擔心破產會連帶將妻子的財產也失去，於是出來了一個新的法案。S的觀點是這個法案極大的改變了婦女的status and 對自己結婚前後的財產的權利。
第三段第一句話是某人b的觀點，是他認為在M實施前已經有remedy可以達到保護婦女財產的作用了。然後是S繼續反對b的觀點。
說以前的equity court在不同的州開展的情況不一樣。ie 。Connectic 和 Mass 州。
（版本3）Married women's property rights and their social status.
Saying in the 18 and early 19 century, common laws dictated that when a woman is married, her husband takes over all her properties. The man had control the right to use the woman's properties while she lived and became the owner of the properties upon the woman's death. Only one thing can prevent this from happening, something like "pre-marriage settlement"
Then..some law about women's right of property was finally established!! then blah blah blah, how good the law was and things like that. Then, a scholar named
Sammas? said this law substantially changed women's status.
BUT, another scholar named Beard? disagreed with Sammas and said the effects of this new law was overstated because before this new law was established, there always existed "equity court" that serve the same purpose.
BUT, a third scholar named Salmon came out to challenge Beard. Salmon said equitty court can't do much because most states were very hostile against equity court and in the cases where the court gave women the right of properties, some were attempts made by men to transfer all properties to their women to avoid consequences of bankruptcy.
題目有...
1. purpose of the passage
answer should be to cronicle laws regarding women's right of properties and examine the implication to women's status.
2. inferred from the passage, what would Beard mostly likely think of equity court
answer should be it substantially improve women's status
| 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2009-2-11 15:29:00
楼主