2. 考研
  3. Only two countries in the advanced world provide no guarantee for paid leave from work to care for a newborn child. Last spring

Only two countries in the advanced world provide no guarantee for paid leave from work to care for a newborn child. Last spring

admin2014-11-24  48
问题     Only two countries in the advanced world provide no guarantee for paid leave from work to care for a newborn child. Last spring one of the two, Australia, gave up the dubious distinction by establishing paid family leave starting in 2014. I wasn’t surprised when this didn’t make the news here in the United States—we’re now the only wealthy country without such a policy.
    The United States does have one explicit family policy, the Family and Medical Leave Act, passed in 1993. It entitles workers to as much as 12 weeks’ unpaid leave for care of a newborn or dealing with a family medical problem. Despite the modesty of the benefit, the Chamber of Commerce and other business groups fought it bitterly, describing it as "government-run personnel management" and a "dangerous precedent". In fact, every step of the way, as(usually)Democratic leaders have tried to introduce work-family balance measures into the law, business groups have been strongly opposed.
    As Yale law professor Anne Alstott argues, justifying parental support depends on defining the family as a social good that, in some sense, society must pay for. In her book No Exit: What Parents Owe Their Children and What Society Owes Parents, she argues that parents are burdened in many ways in their lives: there is "no exit" when it comes to children. "Society expects—and needs—parents to provide their children with continuity of care, meaning the intensive, intimate care that human beings need to develop their intellectual, emotional and moral capabilities. And society expects—and needs— parents to persist in their roles for 18 years, or longer if needed. "
    While most parents do this out of love, there are public penalties for not providing care. What parents do, in other words, is of deep concern to the state, for the obvious reason that caring for children is not only morally urgent but essential for the future of society. The state recognizes this in the large body of family laws that govern children’ welfare, yet parents receive little help in meeting the life-changing obligations society imposes. To classify parenting as a personal choice for which there is no collective responsibility is not merely to ignore the social benefits of good parenting; really, it is to steal those benefits because they accrue(不断积累)to the whole of society as today’s children become tomorrow’s productive citizenry(公民). In fact, by some estimates, the value of parental investments in children, investments of time and money(including lost wages), is equal to 20—30% of gross domestic product. If these investments generate huge social benefits—as they clearly do—the benefits of providing more social support for the family should be that much clearer.
Why does the author object to classifying parenting as a personal choice?
选项 A、It is regarded as a legal obligation.
B、It relies largely on social support.
C、It generates huge social benefits.
D、It is basically a social undertaking.
答案C
解析 细节题。根据题干中的classifying parenting as a personal choice将本题出处定位到末段第四句。该句提到，把抚养孩子划分为一种无集体责任的个人选择不仅忽略了高质量抚养带来的社会利益，也偷走了这些利益。结合下文的If these investments generate huge socialbenefits—as they clearly do可知，家长养育孩子所产生的社会利益是巨大的。由此可知，作者反对将养育孩子定义为个人选择，认为社会应当承担责任，是因为养育孩子给社会打来巨大利益，故答案为C项。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/5wK4777K
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)