V1【段落大意】：

　　第一段：

　　一个学者不同意投票权导致了女权的高涨(1920)，one of the ironies of American history of politics是女性获得选举权以后就没啥动静了;反而保守的politics占了上风一段时间。

　　第二段：

　　it is true that 的确有一些变化，比如关于妇女和儿童的 topics被更多的加入到政治的范围里来，比如the old veteran of the women movement搞了一些program等等：这些来自于一些new research的 argue.(有题：为何提到new research)

　　第三段：

　　转折, nonetheless, 总之妇女获得选举权的胜利以后，动静没有期盼的那么大。最后一句说美国妇女得到选举权之所以会成功就是因为没有立即引起强烈的改变。

　　V2【段落大意】：

　　1920 年之前，美国妇女没有选举权(suffrage)，但是美国妇女对政治的影响力其实还是挺大的。这些妇女组织了个Congress of national mothers (类似妇女社团大会)，由于她们没有选举权，所以很独立公正(对一些法案的立场等)，结果影响超大。

　　1920 年后，妇女获得的选举权，但是妇女对政治的影响力反而下降了，因为一部分妇女认为她们可以用Voter来支持她们的意愿，这样那个类似妇女大会的东东就没人积极参与了。还说，这一点儿在一个叫T的法案上表现的尤其突出，本来那帮政治人物担心妇女来捣乱，结果发现妇女投票的变现情况已经和男人们的一样了，这帮人松了一口气。所以，说等到Late of 1920S这个法案在做renew的时候，他们已经完全不担心妇女来反对什么之类的。

　　【问题】

　　Q1：态度题

　　Q2：weaken作者对这个例子的观点：

　　【参考资料1】

　　But achieving the right to vote, while ending one phase of the women’s rights movement, set the stage for the equally arduous process of securing women a measure of power in local and national political office. Scholars have debated whether the women’s movement underwent fundamental change or sustained continuity in the years before and after 1920.10 However, most agree that Rankin and those who followed her into Congress during the 1920s faced a Herculean task in consolidating their power and in sustaining legislation that was important to women. Several factors contributed to these conditions.

　　Sculptor Adelaide Johnson’s Portrait Monument to Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Susan B. Anthony, honors three of the suffrage movement’s leaders. Unveiled in 1921, the monument is featured prominently in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol.View Larger

　　Image courtesy of the Architect of the Capitol

　　Sculptor Adelaide Johnson’s Portrait Monument to Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Susan B. Anthony, honors three of the suffrage movement’s leaders. Unveiled in 1921, the monument is featured prominently in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol.

　　The Progressive Era, in which several waves of activists, moving from the local to national level, pursued democratic reforms within political, social, and cultural contexts, had helped sustain the women’s rights movement. But the Progressive Era waned after the U.S. entered World War I. With its passing, the public enthusiasm for further efforts decreased, contributing to women’s difficulty in the early 1920s to use their new political gain as an instrument for social change.

　　Just when women gained the vote, voter participation declined nationally. Fewer men and women were attuned to national political issues which, increasingly, were defined by special-interest groups and lobbies.

　　As Carrie Chapman Catt pointed out, in winning the vote reformers lost the single unifying cause that appealed to a broad constituency of women. The amalgam of the other reform causes tended to splinter the women’s rights movement, because smaller communities of women were investing their energies across a larger field of competing programs.

　　【参考资料2】

　　10Historians debate this point vigorously. William L. O’Neill, in his Feminism in America: A History 2nd revised ed. (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1989), argues that feminists themselves were responsible for the failure to mobilize women voters in the 1920s. O’Neill believes that the decision taken in the 20th century to focus on the vote to the exclusion of other “social” issues ultimately undermined feminist reform efforts 1) prolonging the suffrage struggle and 2) depriving the movement of cohesiveness after the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920. Nancy Cott, in The Grounding of Modern Feminism (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1988), challenged O’Neill’s assertions about the shortcomings of the feminist movement, insisting in part that though the movement struggled in the arena of electoral politics after 1920, it flourished among a host of new volunteer and civic women’s organizations. In this regard, Cott sees more continuity between the pre- and post-1920 eras than does either O’Neill or William Chafe, in The Paradox of Change: American Women in the 20th Century (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991). Both O’Neill and Chafe stress discontinuity, particularly Chafe, who suggests that women “were caught in a no-win situation” because a shift away from mass political participation had devalued the importance of the ballot. “It appears that the entire political culture was shifting, and even though supposed progress had been made in democratizing the electoral process during the 1910s through direct election of senators, the initiative, referendum and reform, direct primaries, and woman suffrage, the actual value of casting votes at the ballot box had diminished substantially.”