2018年广外基英Cloze

yuyiyang

Strength is one of the few ways that men, on average, exceed the abilities of women – but if that changed, it would in fact be a continuation of the way that male identity and \'traditional\' masculinity is already being challenged in the real world. In the past 50 years, women have become more independent and, in many cases, have overtaken men in earnings, achievements and success. Technology is also muting gender differences, making historically male-dominated fields such as manufacturing and the military open to women, who can now rely on intellect and hand-eye coordination rather than upper body strength, for example, to build cars or engage in combat.
        As a result, some men cling to their gender’s generally greater capacity for physical power as justification that “somehow, men are still more entitled to power,” argues Jackson Katz, an author, lecturer and president of MVP Strategies, a company that （provides原文）offers training and education on gender violence prevention. “As women have started competing with men in areas that men had historically excluded them from, some men have retreated into this world where physical size （试卷上好像打印的是____ and physical strength ）and strength matters even more, because it’s the one area where they continue to hold advantage over women.”
Katz argues that this might help to explain some of the popularity and growth of American football, boxing, MMA and other violent sports. “A man might not be able to understand or articulate this, but the thinking comes down to, ‘Yes, a woman may make more money than me, my boss might be a woman, my wife might have better job than me, but none of them can play football,’” Katz says. He notes, though, that obsession with gladiator-type masculinity tends to be a predominantly American phenomenon.
     On the plus side, if women were stronger, they would immediately become less subject to male harassment and violence, and rape would go down “by orders of magnitude,” says Katz.
However, it might be wrong to assume that women’s superior strength would be benign. They are still capable of violence: 17-45% of lesbians report physical abuse at the hands of a female partner, for example, and in heterosexual couples – while women do suffer higher overall rates of victimisation – 19% of men say they have been assaulted by a partner at least once. So, while male-on-female domestic abuse would likely decrease, female-on-male cases would probably increase. “Men abuse women because they can – that’s the deal with being strong,” Fairbairn says. “I like women a lot, but I don’t think we’re perfect.”
       How inequalities and gender-based discrimination in the workplace might be affected is less clear. It is true that masculine traits have long been associated with positions of power – think Margaret Thatcher training herself to speak with a deeper voice to sound more authoritative, for example, or the rise of the pantsuit among 1970s businesswomen as a means of seeking respect and acceptance from male colleagues. Should women no longer have to use fashion, body language and voice training to masculinise themselves – should they naturally tower over male colleagues – then gender-based discrimination, Fairbairn believes, would begin to disappear.  
      Gardiner doesn’t think it would be so straightforward, however. She points out that physical size and strength are not necessarily factors in sustaining inequalities. “Whites are not larger and stronger, on average, than people of colour,” she says. “Yet white supremacy has managed to hang on, without any obvious physical base.