2016年考研英语阅读材料:Social change

　　AT FIRST glance the patriarchy appears to be thriving. More than 90% of presidents and prime ministers are male, as are nearly all big corporate bosses. Men dominate finance, technology, films, sports, music and even stand-up #edy. In much of the world they still enjoysocial and legal privileges simply because they have a Y chromosome. So it might seem odd to worry about the plight of men.

　　Yet there is plenty of cause for concern. Men cluster at the bottom as well as the top. They are far more likely than women to be jailed, estranged from their children, or to kill themselves. They earn fewer university degrees than women. Boys in the developed world are 50% more likely to flunk basic maths, reading and science entirely.

　　One group in particular is suffering. Poorly educated men in rich countries have had difficulty coping with the enormous changes in the labour market and the home over the past half-century. As technology and trade have devalued brawn, less-educated men have struggled to find a role in the workplace. Women, on the other hand, are surging into expanding sectors such as health care and education, helped by their superior skills. As education has be#e more important, boys have also fallen behind girls in school (except at the very top). Men who lose jobs in manufacturing often never work again. And men without work find it hard to attract a permanent mate. The result, for low-skilled men, is a poisonous #bination of no job, no family and no prospects.

　　Those on the political left tend to focus on economics. Shrinking job opportunities for men, they say, are entrenching poverty and destroying families. In America pay for men with only a high-school certificate fell by 21% in real terms between 1979 and 2013; for women with similar qualifications it rose by 3%. Around a fifth of working-age American men with only a high-school diploma have no job.

　　Those on the right worry about the collapse of the family. The vast majority of women would prefer to have a partner who does his bit both financially and domestically. But they would rather do without one than team up with a layabout, which may be all that is on offer: American men without jobs spend only half as much time on housework and caring for others as do women in the same situation, and much more time watching television.

　　Hence the unravelling of working-class families. The two-parent family, still the norm among the elite, is vanishing among the poor. In rich countries the proportion of births outside marriage has trebled since 1980, to 33%. In some areas where traditional manufacturing has collapsed, it has reached 70% or more. Children raised in broken homes learn less at school, are more likely to drop out and earn less later on than children from intact ones. They are also not very good at forming stable families of their own.

　　These two sides often talk past each other. But their explanations are not contradictory: both economics and social change are to blame, and the two causes reinforce each other. Moreover, these problems are likely to get worse. Technology will disrupt more industries, creating benefits for society but rendering workers who fail to update their skills redundant. The OECD, a think-tank, predicts that the absolute number of single-parent households will continue to rise in nearly all rich countries. Boys who grow up without fathers are more likely to have trouble forming lasting relationships, creating a cycle of male dysfunction.

　　参考译文:

　　父系社会现在咋一看似乎正兴盛。超过90%的国家总统总理，和几乎所有大型公司的大boss都是男性。男性统治着经济，科技，企业，体育，音乐，甚至连说相声的都基本是男的。在大多数国家里男人仅仅因为拥有一条Y染色体便享有在社会和法律上的特权，这样看来，担心男性的“悲催命运”般的困境似乎是在杞人忧天。

　　但有却又大量的原由让人不得不担心。男性群体从渣男到精英男，他们在被关进监狱啊，被他们的孩子疏远嫌弃啊，或者自杀率啊都远远大于女性，却在取得更多的大学学位上败给了女性。在发达国家中，有50%左右的男孩会在基础数学，阅读和科学学科上挂掉。

　　在男性群体中又有一类人尤其遭罪。在过去的半个世纪里，发达国家里的受教育程度低的男性已经非常难应对发生了巨变的劳工市场和家庭。现代技术革新和贸易已经使原先的靠劳力形式的肌肉男的价值直线下降，缺少教育的男性，不得不在职场中苦苦挣扎，才能博得一席之地。相反的，女性却依靠着自身出众的技能，在像医疗卫生和教育这样的领域里大放异彩。教育已经变成更重要的事情，而男孩却学校里被女孩甩在了身后(尖端领域学科除外)。从工厂失业的男性常从此不再去工作。而没有工作的男性会发现去吸引永久的伴侣是件非常难的事。由此导致低技术的男性被无工作，无家庭，无前景的“三无”剧毒环环围住。

　　支持左翼 的人倾向于专注于经济，他们认为减少男性工作的机会会加剧贫穷，并，并摧毁家庭。在美国，只有高中学历的男性的实际收入，从1979年到2013年减低了21%，而同等学历的女性，在此期间的实际收入却提高了3%。约有5分之一的只有高中学历的处在工作适龄的男性，处在失业中。

　　支持右翼的人担心着家庭的崩溃。绝大多数的女性倾向于和愿兼顾家里财政收入职能和家务劳动职能的男性成为两口子。她们宁愿单身也不愿随便和一个游手好闲的卢瑟勉强过一辈子，而这是有依据的：美国失业男性仅仅只付出同等条件下失业女性的一半的时间来做家务事和照顾彼此的生活，这些男人会花更多的时间来看电视。

　　因此工人阶级的家庭变的更易解体。双亲家庭这种形式还是精英阶层的标配，而这种家庭形式却在穷人中正在消失。在发达国家，非婚生子占新生儿的比重比1980年高出了3倍，已经达到了33%。而在一些传统制造业崩坏的地区，这一比例达到70%甚至更高。生活在破碎家庭里的孩子比起一般家庭的孩子而言，在学校里会学的更少，更可能辍学和收入较低。同时，因为不善于处理家庭问题，他们自己日后的家庭也趋于不稳定(简言之单亲家庭的孩子长大后更易于组成新的单亲家庭)。

　　这两种政治倾向的讨论话题往往会相互交叉重叠。但二者的观点却并不矛盾：经济状况和社会这二者的变革都是造成此类现状的原因，而这二者还互为因果，形成恶性循环。此外，这些问题可能变得更糟。科技将瓦解更多的行业，为社会创造更多的价值，但也将使更多的无法升级自身技能的劳动者失业。 经济合作与发展组织里的一个诸葛天团预测单亲家庭的比例定会继续在所有发达国家中上升。在没有父性角色的家庭长大的男孩，将更可能不能处理好长久关系(如夫妻关系)以至于形成新的单亲家庭，由此形成一个男性功能紊乱的死循环。