- Joined
- Mar 24, 2012
- Messages
- 2,264
- Reaction score
- 537
So for EK VR 101 passages. I am working on Test 3, Passage 3, Question 15. I have a question about a passage and I think my answer is right and EK's is wrong.
The passage is about Sigmund Freud's theories and mentions the development of civilization and how it is related to the invention of fire by man. I decided in the end to copy the entire passage:
"Sigmund Freud, the "Father of Psychotherapy," is often criticized by modern psychology for the fanciful nature of his theories, which do not seem to have any verifiable basis in either psychological experimentation or normal people's conscious thoughts. For example the "Oedipal complex" (which supposedly drives all men to desire to kill their father, in order to mate with their mother) seems to appear only in a single Greek myth, rather than in real life ... Correctly, American psychotherapy has largely rejected Freud's theories, but his lively and inventive story-telling ability ensures that his influence lingers on in the popular understanding, with serious implications for women. Freud's famous remark that "anatomy is destiny" means that a woman's anatomical "limitations" (the vagina is seen as a lack of a penis, supposedly a cause of "penal envy") doom her to contribute little towards civilization's material progress.
In Civilization and its Discontents, Freud sums up civilization largely in terms of increasing technology, leisure, and protection from nature. Accordingly, he states that the taming of fire was the first step to civilization. But then, Freud invents a bizarre theory of why it had to be a man who first tamed fire: men, he says, view flame as a rival phallus, and instinctively desire to extinguish it by urinating on it, which gives them the subconscious impression of winning a quasi-homosexual competition. Under Freud's theories, in order for a person to create contributions to civilization "sublimation" must occur. That is, the instinct toward sexual gratification must be suppressed, so that sexual energy can be channeled into materially productive work. The male alone, because of his penis's long-range urinating capability, had the ability to put out the fire. This ability was unimportant in itself, except that it carried with it the simultaneous possibility of not utilizing that ability ("self-suppression"), whic hwould make sublimation possible. Women, because they could not fulfill the instinct, could not suppress or sublimate it either, so they were assigned the role of guardian of a hearth-flame that they were powerless to extinguish. Freud's presentation of his theory deliberately complicates tracing the "role" given to women back to any particular agent, so that their inferior role is meant (note: grammar error did not include the word "to") be seen as natural and immutable.
What implications does this have for women? It seems directly targeted at them, since it presents no limitations for men in creating civilization but ascribes to women a necessarily lower potential for sublimination-induced achievements, such as art and science. The female's supposed protectiveness towards the fire which the male wants to extinguish, and the resulting competition of the male's ambition against the female's possessiveness predicts a natural antagonism between the sexes. Furthermore, this perpetuates the common ascription of passivity to women and activity to men, a mote (note?) that Freud finds unapaltable in other works but overlooks in his own. The results of women's limits being attributed to a natural inequality, are that any differences in the social status of women are (i) made to seem beyond correction, (ii) made to be beyond grievance, since the agent is nature itself, and (iii) permanent. These combine to make Freud's role for women a true "destiny," in that it is made to seem irrevocable.
Feminist theorists, like Simone de Beauvior, have made some inroads against the influence of Freudians. While de Beauvior concedes that women might be at a slight biological disadvantage by the demands and dangers of pregnancy and menstruation, she argues this slight difference is insufficient to account for the completely inferior role assigned to women by social constructions. Her Second Sex progresses from "biology" to the greater influence of societal constructions. The book rejects biological theories as biased by sexual politics, noting that Freud invented a "sexual" anatomy separate from biological anatomy, and practised a type of biology that labels female anatomy with a bias toward controlling it by presenting women's bodies as either incomplete, inactive, or weak, and thus in need of men to give meaning to their existence. Faced with a biology that merely reaffirms social prejudices, de Beauvior rejects it as an objective science and explores societal prejudices directly. This is what she means when she says, "one is not born, one becomes, a woman".
The question is 15. According to the author, which of the following is most likely to be true about the relationship between the "fire" and "women"?
A: Freud proved that women were protective towards the hearth-fire.
B: There is no relationship between women and the fire
C: Men will continually put out the fire by urinating on it.
D: Women have been assigned the role of guardian of the hearth-fire
My answer was D, because it seemed to me like the answer was taken almost directly from the passage.
However EK said the answer was B. Yet the answer explanations were all the same, and completely unrelated to the question at hand, poor editing if you ask me.
EK's explanation for B: "This is most likely to be true according to what the author says and how the author says it. The author does not believe Freud and thinks that his ideas are "fanciful". The author provides that "American psychotherapy has largely rejected Freud's theories" (lines 9-10)
EK's explanation for D: "This is not likely to be true according to the author The author does not believe Freud and thinks that his ideas are "fanciful". The author provides that "American psychotherapy has largely rejected Freud's theories" (lines 9-10)
Their explanations seem to be copy and pasted and were from a different question.. It didn't help explain the answer.
My question is, do you guys think the answer ought to be D or B? Unfortunately EK can't provide a proper explanation since they didn't hire an editor...
Thanks for the help
The passage is about Sigmund Freud's theories and mentions the development of civilization and how it is related to the invention of fire by man. I decided in the end to copy the entire passage:
"Sigmund Freud, the "Father of Psychotherapy," is often criticized by modern psychology for the fanciful nature of his theories, which do not seem to have any verifiable basis in either psychological experimentation or normal people's conscious thoughts. For example the "Oedipal complex" (which supposedly drives all men to desire to kill their father, in order to mate with their mother) seems to appear only in a single Greek myth, rather than in real life ... Correctly, American psychotherapy has largely rejected Freud's theories, but his lively and inventive story-telling ability ensures that his influence lingers on in the popular understanding, with serious implications for women. Freud's famous remark that "anatomy is destiny" means that a woman's anatomical "limitations" (the vagina is seen as a lack of a penis, supposedly a cause of "penal envy") doom her to contribute little towards civilization's material progress.
In Civilization and its Discontents, Freud sums up civilization largely in terms of increasing technology, leisure, and protection from nature. Accordingly, he states that the taming of fire was the first step to civilization. But then, Freud invents a bizarre theory of why it had to be a man who first tamed fire: men, he says, view flame as a rival phallus, and instinctively desire to extinguish it by urinating on it, which gives them the subconscious impression of winning a quasi-homosexual competition. Under Freud's theories, in order for a person to create contributions to civilization "sublimation" must occur. That is, the instinct toward sexual gratification must be suppressed, so that sexual energy can be channeled into materially productive work. The male alone, because of his penis's long-range urinating capability, had the ability to put out the fire. This ability was unimportant in itself, except that it carried with it the simultaneous possibility of not utilizing that ability ("self-suppression"), whic hwould make sublimation possible. Women, because they could not fulfill the instinct, could not suppress or sublimate it either, so they were assigned the role of guardian of a hearth-flame that they were powerless to extinguish. Freud's presentation of his theory deliberately complicates tracing the "role" given to women back to any particular agent, so that their inferior role is meant (note: grammar error did not include the word "to") be seen as natural and immutable.
What implications does this have for women? It seems directly targeted at them, since it presents no limitations for men in creating civilization but ascribes to women a necessarily lower potential for sublimination-induced achievements, such as art and science. The female's supposed protectiveness towards the fire which the male wants to extinguish, and the resulting competition of the male's ambition against the female's possessiveness predicts a natural antagonism between the sexes. Furthermore, this perpetuates the common ascription of passivity to women and activity to men, a mote (note?) that Freud finds unapaltable in other works but overlooks in his own. The results of women's limits being attributed to a natural inequality, are that any differences in the social status of women are (i) made to seem beyond correction, (ii) made to be beyond grievance, since the agent is nature itself, and (iii) permanent. These combine to make Freud's role for women a true "destiny," in that it is made to seem irrevocable.
Feminist theorists, like Simone de Beauvior, have made some inroads against the influence of Freudians. While de Beauvior concedes that women might be at a slight biological disadvantage by the demands and dangers of pregnancy and menstruation, she argues this slight difference is insufficient to account for the completely inferior role assigned to women by social constructions. Her Second Sex progresses from "biology" to the greater influence of societal constructions. The book rejects biological theories as biased by sexual politics, noting that Freud invented a "sexual" anatomy separate from biological anatomy, and practised a type of biology that labels female anatomy with a bias toward controlling it by presenting women's bodies as either incomplete, inactive, or weak, and thus in need of men to give meaning to their existence. Faced with a biology that merely reaffirms social prejudices, de Beauvior rejects it as an objective science and explores societal prejudices directly. This is what she means when she says, "one is not born, one becomes, a woman".
The question is 15. According to the author, which of the following is most likely to be true about the relationship between the "fire" and "women"?
A: Freud proved that women were protective towards the hearth-fire.
B: There is no relationship between women and the fire
C: Men will continually put out the fire by urinating on it.
D: Women have been assigned the role of guardian of the hearth-fire
My answer was D, because it seemed to me like the answer was taken almost directly from the passage.
However EK said the answer was B. Yet the answer explanations were all the same, and completely unrelated to the question at hand, poor editing if you ask me.
EK's explanation for B: "This is most likely to be true according to what the author says and how the author says it. The author does not believe Freud and thinks that his ideas are "fanciful". The author provides that "American psychotherapy has largely rejected Freud's theories" (lines 9-10)
EK's explanation for D: "This is not likely to be true according to the author The author does not believe Freud and thinks that his ideas are "fanciful". The author provides that "American psychotherapy has largely rejected Freud's theories" (lines 9-10)
Their explanations seem to be copy and pasted and were from a different question.. It didn't help explain the answer.
My question is, do you guys think the answer ought to be D or B? Unfortunately EK can't provide a proper explanation since they didn't hire an editor...
Thanks for the help
Last edited:
