Defenders of special protective labor legislation for women often maintain that eliminating such laws would destroy the fruits of a century-long struggle for the protection of women workers. Even a brief examination of the historic practice of courts and employers would show that the fruit of such laws has been bitter: they are, in practice, more of a curse than a blessing.

Sex-defined protective laws have often been based on stereotypical assumptions concerning women’s needs and abilities and employers have frequently used them as legal excuses for discriminating against women. After the Second World War, for example, businesses and government sought to persuade women to vacate jobs in factories, thus making room in the labor force for returning veterans. The revival or passage of state laws limiting the daily or weekly work hours of women conveniently accomplished this. Employers had only to declare that overtime hours were a necessary condition of employment or promotion in their factory, and women could be quite legally fired, refused jobs, or kept at low wage levels, all in the name of “protecting” their health. By validating such laws when they are challenged by lawsuits, the courts have colluded over the years in establishing different, less advantageous employment terms for women than for men, thus reducing women’s competitiveness on the job market. At the same time, even the most well-intentioned lawmakers, courts, and employers have often been blind to the real needs of women. The lawmakers and the courts continue to permit employers to offer employee health insurance plans that cover all known human medical disabilities except those relating to pregnancy and childbirth.

Finally, labor laws protecting only special groups are often ineffective at protecting the workers who are actually in the workplace. Some chemicals, for example, pose reproductive risks for women of childbearing years: manufacturers using the chemicals comply with laws protecting women against these hazards by refusing to hire them. Thus the sex-defined legislation protects the hypothetical female worker, but has no effect whatever on the safety of any actual employee. The health risks to male employees in such industries cannot be negligible, since chemicals toxic enough to cause birth defects in fetuses or sterility in women are presumably harmful to the human metabolism. Protective laws aimed at changing production materials or techniques in order to reduce such hazards would benefit all employees without discriminating against any.

In sum, protective labor laws for women are discriminatory and do not meet their intended purpose. Legislators should recognize that women are in the work force to stay and that their needs — good health care, a decent wage, and a safe workplace — are the needs of all workers. Laws that ignore these facts violate women’s rights for equal protection in employment.

1. According to the author, which of the following resulted from the passage or revival of state laws limiting the work hours of women workers?

[A] Women workers were compelled to leave their jobs in factories.

[B] Many employers had difficulty in providing jobs for returning veterans.

[C] Many employers found it hard to attract women workers.

[D] The health of most women factory workers improved.

2. The author places the word “protecting” in quotation marks in line 9, paragraph 2 most likely in order to suggest that

[A] she is quoting the actual wording of the laws in question.

[B] the protective nature of the laws in question should not be overlooked.

[C] protecting the health of workers is important to those who support protective labor laws.

[D] the laws in question were really used to the detriment of women workers, despite being overtly protective in intent.

3. The text suggests that which of the following is a shortcoming of protective labor laws that single out a particular group of workers for protection?

[A] Such laws are often too weak to be effective at protecting the group in question.

[B] Such laws are usually drafted by legislators who do not have the best interests of workers at heart.

[C] Such laws exert no pressure on employers to eliminate hazards in the workplace.

[D] Compliance with such laws is often costly for employers and provokes lawsuits by employees claiming discrimination.

4. According to the first paragraph of the text, the author considers which of the following to be most helpful in determining the value of special protective labor legislation for women?

[A] A comparative study of patterns of work-related illnesses in states that had such laws and in states that did not.

[B] An estimate of how many women workers are in favor of such laws.

[C] An analysis of the cost to employers of complying with such laws.

[D] A study of the actual effects that such laws have had in the past on women workers.

5. The author implies that which of the following is characteristic of many employee health insurance plans?

[A] They cover all the common medical conditions affecting men, but only some of those affecting women.

[B] They lack the special provisions for women workers that proposed special labor laws for women would provide.

[C] They pay the medical costs associated with pregnancy and childbirth only for the spouses of male employees, not for female employees.

[D] They meet minimum legal requirements, but do not adequately safeguard the health of either male or female employees.

[答案与考点解析]

1. 【答案】A

【考点解析】这是一道指代词题型。考生可根据题干中的“the passage or revival of state laws limiting the work hours of women workers”将本题迅速定位在第二段的第三句，该句中的指代词“this”暗示本题的正确答案应该在第二段的第二句。这样就可以找出本题的正确答案A。考生在解题时一定要注意指代词。

2. 【答案】D

【考点解析】本题是一道标点符号题。英语作为一种语文，标点符号是非常重要的。在原文中“protecting”一词被打上引号，其含义是“所谓的保护”，作者所表达的真实含义是“没有起到保护作用的保护”。由此可见本题的正确答案应该是D。考生在解题时要重视标点符号，尤其是一些特殊的标点符号。

3. 【答案】C

【考点解析】本题是一道归纳推导题型。考生可根据题干中的“protective labor laws that single out a particular group of workers for protection”将本题的答案信息迅速确定在第三段的第一句，从第三段的内容(尤其是第三段的首尾两句)判断本题的正确答案应该是C。考生在解题时首先要具备审题定位的能力，然后要善于归纳和总结段落的细节信息。

4. 【答案】D

【考点解析】这是一道细节推导题。本题的题干以将本题的答案信息来源确定在第一段，第一段的第二句是本题正确答案D的准确信息来源也是全文的中心主旨句。考生在解题时一定要时时牢记全文的中心主旨句，尤其是在迷失解题思路时。

5. 【答案】A

【考点解析】这是一道细节推导题。根据本题题干中的“employee health insurance plans”可将本题的答案信息来源迅速确定在第二段的尾句，从第二段尾句的内容可判断本题的正确答案应该是A。考生在解题时一定要把审题定位放在第一位。

[参考译文]

妇女劳动特别保护法的辩护者经常坚持认为，废除这种法律就会破坏一个世纪以来为保护妇女工人而斗争的成果。但是，只要对法庭案例和雇主的历史作短暂回顾，就能够发现这些法律的成果是多么的令人不愉快：实际上，这种法律与其说是一件好事，不如说是一种灾祸。

以性别为界限的保护性法律通常是根据有关妇女的需要和能力的陈腐性假想为基础的，而且雇主也经常使用这些法律作为他们歧视妇女的合法借口。例如，第二次世界大战之后，企业和政府都企图说服妇女离开她们的工厂中的工作，从而为回国的老兵们在劳动力市场中空出位子。恢复或通过限制妇女每天或每周工作时间的州法律，很容易地就实现了上述的目标。雇主只需声称超时加班是在他们的工厂进行工作或提升的必要条件，这样妇女就被合法地解雇，被拒绝给予工作或者保持一种较低的工资水平，所有这些都以“保护”妇女健康的名义得以实现。当受到法律诉讼时，法庭在过去数年中一直与雇主合谋共同建立一种男女不同的，对妇女更为不利的雇佣条件，从而降低了妇女在就业市场上的竞争力。同时，即使那些最善意的立法者、法庭和雇主也经常对妇女的真实需求视而不见。法律制定者和法庭都继续允许雇主向雇员提供这样的健康保险计划，它包含了所有已知的人类疾病，但却未包括那些与怀孕和生育相关的医疗内容。

最后，那些只保护特殊群体的劳动法在保护实际工作中的工人方面经常是无效的。例如，某些化学物质会对怀孕期间的妇女造成生育上的危险。使用这些化学物品的制造商们就会遵守保护妇女避免这些危险的法律而拒绝雇佣她们。因此这种特别界定的法律保护了假设中的妇女工人，但对工人实际的任何安全问题都没有作用。在这些工厂中，对男性工人健康的危险也不能被忽略，既然那些化学毒素能导致胎儿的生育缺陷或使妇女不育，那么推而广之，其必然会对人类的新陈代谢有害。目的在于减少这种危险的保护性法律，会改变生产原料或生产技术，从而给所有雇员带来好处，而又不歧视任何一类雇员。

总而言之，为妇女制定的劳动保护法是带有歧视性的，而且并没达到它们预期的目的。立法者应该认识到，妇女是劳动力的一部分，而且她们的需求(如良好的健康保健，体面的工资收入，以及安全的工作环境)同时也是所有工人的需求。那些忽略这些事实的法律就会破坏妇女在就业中享受平等保护的权利。