【段落大意】：

第一段：

以前人们认为nationalism与feminism是没有关系的，通常是把两个领域分开研究。但最近B学者认为两者是有关系的，她认为 nationalism可以促进feminism。接着，列举挪威和瑞典的例子，证明more democratic 的国家也越倾向于赋予妇女选举权。

(1)Norway,(+) 通过从国家独立的时候就伴随着广泛的公民权，妇女也获得了选举权，progressive，总之是通过间接的对国家的整体的entity的贡献，促进了feminism。

挪威在一战后极力想摆脱挪威的统治，为了达到这一目标，大力宣扬国家主义，同时提倡女权，给予成年妇女与男子平等的选举权。这样国家主义和女权主义就共同发展了。

(2)Sweden,(-)however采取的是一种aggressive 的策略，直接以选举权为目的feminism，结果适得其反，从1900年初，到1945年才初见成效。可见不同的策略产生不同的结果。

与此同时，瑞典也在急切地想增加国家凝聚力，但是采取了相反的方法：极力保全男权主义，不给妇女参政议政权。这样二者就一个发展一个抑制了。

第二段：

举了印度(+)的例子，又举了日本(-)的例子，说明直接的aggressive的feminism策略不可行。

【问题】

Q1: 主旨题

Q2: 日本的例子的目的是什么?

Q3: 瑞士的nationalism与挪威的nationalism有什么不一样?

V2【段落大意】：

第一段：

大家通常认为feminism 和 P 开头的一个主义相近，但是实际上早期的英国Fenimisme 在P和Royalism 的斗争当中，偏向于Royalism

第二段：

有个C历史学家以一个dutchess 作为模版研究为什么，说这个Dutchess 写了一本书，在当时已经非常ambitious 了，但是她是royalist。在她的小说里，她构建了她自己对世界的绝对统治(absolu athority)，然后说，这个世界只围着她转而不是Obiting muscule political world。(题目：问可以推测当时的世界是怎样的世界?)

【疑似原文】

Comparing nation states – Norway and Sweden

The political union between Norway and Sweden was a result of the Napoleonic wars and lasted until 1905 when, after increasing problems with the viability of the union, the two countries formed independent nation states.[7]

Comparing Swedish and Norwegian nation building makes it obvious that the two forms of nationalism were decisive for which groups were accepted as responsible members of the nation. The most conservative and aggressive Swedish nationalists were against incorporating all men in the nation through general suffrage. For them, women’s right to vote was not even on the agenda.

Norwegian nationalists, on the contrary, whether they were conservative or liberal, for or against a military solution, had all accepted general male suffrage around the turn of the century. Some of the liberals even worked for women’s suffrage.

In both countries, the Social Democrats were opposed to the use of military force. The Swedish Socialists saw general male suffrage as one of their important goals, but did not care much about women’s suffrage.

The Norwegian Socialists won general male suffrage in 1898 and were positive to women’s suffrage, although male suffrage had been more important also to them.

One could establish a gliding scale with the Swedish Conservatives at one end, and the Norwegian Social Democrats at other. In Sweden, Conservatives, men and women alike, agreed that only men, and not even all men, should be accepted as members of the nation through enfranchisement. The hierarchical thinking was clear. The Norwegian Social Democrats at the other end of the scale fought for the widest possible definition of citizenship, including also all women. The liberal nationalists, who were very pronounced in Norway, ranged somewhere in the middle.

How should such national differences be understood? Despite all the resemblance between the two Scandinavian countries, Norway and Sweden, historical differences are important. The political developments in the two nations must be taken into consideration. The nineteenth century saw a more democratic system emerge in Norway than in Sweden. Norway had a one-chamber parliament, as opposed to the Swedish two-chamber system. Parliamentarianism became an accepted ideal in Norway in 1884, in Sweden not until 1911. General male suffrage was introduced in Norway in 1898, in Sweden in 1909, and general female suffrage followed in Norway in 1913, in Sweden in 1921.

The differences mirror the stronger Swedish upper classes, consisting partly of an aristocratic nobility with traditions of an important European power. An increasingly industrialised economy there also marked a difference to Norway. The still mainly agrarian Norwegian economy was the basis for a poorer, but socially more homogeneous population than in Sweden. In Norway, due to centuries of political union, first with Denmark, later with Sweden, the nobility had long lost all importance. Businessmen and academics formed a very small upper class, with less of a distance from the rest of the population than in Sweden.

It should be stressed that citizenship through the vote is, of course, not the only way to be accepted as a member of the nation. Neither is it enough to safeguard democracy. Economic resources and other means of social prestige have kept up social hierarchies within nations. But as long as suffrage was not universal, it was seen as an important key to membership in the nation. In the debate around general male suffrage in 1898, one of the Norwegian members of parliament put it this way: ‘Also people who own nothing and who are in a subordinate position in society are important parts of the nation, whom the constitution should guarantee participation in the legislative power.’ Another example: in 1905, Norwegian women who had not yet gained the vote, were excluded from the important plebiscite deciding the abrogation of the union with Sweden. The response of one woman, writing in the most influential feminist journal, was to ask: ‘Are we women not part of the Norwegian nation?’ Without the vote, anybody, in this case women, might feel excluded from the nation.