求教0G40，新问题，拜请nn解答。。。

ozymendias

Passage 40

In an unfinished but highly suggestive series of essays, the late Sarah Eisentein has focused


attention on the evolution of working women’s values from the turn of the century to the First World War. Eisenstein argues that turn-of-the-century women neither wholly accepted nor rejected what she calls the dominant “ideology of domesticity,” but rather took this and other available ideologies-feminism, socialism, trade unionism-and modified or adapted them in light of their won experiences and needs. In thus maintaining that wages-work helped to produce a new “consciousness” among women, Eisenstein to some extent challenges the recent, controversial proposal by Leslie Tentler that for women the work experience only served to reinforce the attractiveness of the dominant ideology. According to the Tentler, the degrading conditions under which many female wage earners worked made them view the family as a source of power and esteem available nowhere else in their social world. In contrast, Eisenstein’s study insists that wage-work had other implications for women’s identities and consciousness. Most importantly, her work aims to demonstrate that wage-work enabled women to become aware of themselves as a distinct social group capable of defining their collective circumstance. Eisenstein insists that as a group working-class women were not able to come to collective consciousness of their situation until they began entering the labor force, because domestic work tended to isolate them from one


another.


Unfortunately, Eisenstein’s unfinished study does not develop these ideas in sufficient depth or detail, offering tantalizing hints rather than an exhaustive analysis. Whatever Eisenstein’s overall plan may have been, in its current form her study suffers from the limited nature of the sources she depended on. She use the speeches and writings of reformers and labor organizers, who she acknowledges were far from representative, as the voice of the typical woman worker. And there is less than adequate attention given to the differing values of immigrant groups that made up a significant proportion of the population under investigation. While raising important questions, Eisenstein’s essays do not provide definitive answer, and it remains for others to take up the challenges they offer.
想请问红色字体，最后一道题来自此句。这句话应该怎么理解呢？那个as是理解为比较还是什么呢？因为如果是比较的话，as就是这样  far from。。。。as。。。但是仔细看句子比较的对象应该是the speeches and writings of reformers and labor organizers 和 the voice of the typical woman worker 但是，他的定语从句用了who，就是表人，而后面却把代指人而不是speech和writing的who与voice相比较，高的我看不清句意所以做错题。现在还是不明白，为什么他把指人的who和voice比较呢？用的far  from。。。as。。。。
请nn解答，拜谢。。。。。

detectiveyangs

我觉得这句话的意思是：
她采用了改革者和劳动组织者的演讲和文章作为典型的妇女工作者的心声，但这些人她也承认是远不具有代表性的。
这里好像没有比较也
句型是：she use。。。as。。。 中间多了个插入语

ozymendias

谢谢解答，但是看了在一个帖子里说的：
差不多吧，更准确地说那些reformers and labor organizers 的东西还远不够typical

woman worker的voice具有代表性。所以作者认为Eisenstein在这方面是有欠缺的。

所以以为有比较，只是找不到比较的词。私以为，海谷说的是有理的，但是结合题目看应

该怎么理解呢？我觉得voice of  typical woman worker应该speech和writing并列的，作

为一种resource而不是心声。

daoyinger

啊？这怎么能是并列捏？
你可以结合前面几句一起来理解
你看：这段话的大意其实是这样子滴
非常不幸，Eisenstein的研究没有把她的观点阐述地更深入更细致，（为什么会这样捏）

因为她当时可以依靠的nature（可能是第一手那种意思吧）资料是limited的，（然后就接

了这句话）：她采用了改革者和劳动组织者的演讲和文章作为典型的妇女工作者的心声，

但这些人她也承认是远不具有代表性的。
所以，这道题问你，哪个最有可能被认证为她的研究的延续
那就B最合理了，因为typical female wage earners的letters和diaries是最有代表性的，并且弥补了由于当时材料不足而不能深入阐明观点的遗憾

ozymendias

啊，原来如此，谢谢LZ，受教了，明白了明白了。。。