题干

阅读理解

    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 bad distinction by setting up paid family leave starting in 2011. 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 (先例).” 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(定义) the family as a social good that, in some sense, society must pay for. 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. 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 punishments 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 important to the future of society. 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 (累积) to the whole of society as today's children become tomorrow's citizens. In fact, by some estimates, the value of parental investments in children, investments of time and money, is equal to 20-30% of GDP. If these investments bring huge social benefits — as they clearly do — the benefits of providing more social support for the family should be that much clearer.

上一题 下一题 0.0难度 选择题 更新时间:2018-01-10 01:11:15

答案(点此获取答案解析)

同类题3

阅读下文,回答问题

时间去哪儿了

    ①“时间都去哪儿了?还没有好好感受年轻就老了……”这首歌引起了许多人的共鸣,是啊,时间到底去哪儿了?

    ②幼年的时光去哪儿了?我们为何很难记起3岁以前的事情?研究表明,时间的感知需要儿童的注意力和短期记忆能力的完全形成,这需要前额叶皮质和海马体发育较成熟以后才能具备。这两个区域的成熟速度较慢,往往到了童年后期才能渐渐完善。孩子们的遗忘速度远比成年人要快,所以他们的记忆更替也更快,这意味着留下童年记忆的可能性并不大。

    ③幼时记忆究竟从何时开始模糊,直到被永久遗忘?研究发现,早期回忆往往从7岁开始丢失。虽然不少3岁孩子能够记得前一年发生的事,但这些记忆也只能持续到五六岁。在7岁这一年中,童年记忆迅速衰退,到了八九岁,大部分孩子只能回想起童年生活35%的内容。这是因为在7岁时,人们形成记忆的方式开始改变——在那之前,儿童缺少时间和地点的观念,而在年龄较大的儿童中,回忆早期记忆的内容和形式更趋向于成年人。

    ④如果你到了一定的年纪,可能会有这样的感觉:小时候总是盼望快快长大,但是似乎过了很久才长了一岁,而随着年龄的增长,就感觉时间越来越快,这是为什么呢?

    ⑤首先,人体内的生物钟在逐渐变慢,实验表明,让年轻人和老年人估测1分钟有多长,结果年轻人还没有到1分钟就认为已经到1分钟的时间了;而老年长的人,则往往过了1分钟觉得这是1分钟的长。在生命的进程中,人体内的某种节律在变慢,而客观的时间没有变慢,老年人就会感觉时间过得快了。

    ⑥其次,与新鲜感能刺激人大脑记忆有关。比如我们新去一个地方时,去的路总是显得很长,回来时却似乎要短得多。因为去时路上你所看到的景色都是新鲜的,你的大脑需要对这些新鲜事物进行处理记忆,就会感觉时间过得很慢,路似乎很长。而回来时,这些景象不再是第一次体验,一切变得熟悉,大脑需要处理的事物也就少了,时间过得就快了,路也似乎短了许多。人生也是一样,小时候看这个世界都是新鲜的,外界充满了各种新刺激,这样就显得每一天都很漫长;随着年龄的增长,外界的事物已经缺少太多的新鲜感,更多的只是一种单调的重复刺激。丰富的经验使神经对于生活中的信息处理得极为快速,渐渐进入了“适应性”的状态,不但削弱了对时间流逝的感知,同时保留的记忆也信息不全,这样显得一天不经意间就过去了。

    ⑦第三,可以用“相对论”来解释,一个5岁的儿童,他会感觉过去的一年很长很长,这是因为过去的一年占他生命总过程的20%(1/5);而一个20岁的青年,过去的一年只是他生命总过程的5%(1/20);而对于一个50岁的中年人,过去的一年仅仅是他生命总过程的2%(1/50)。人越老,几个月甚至几年的光阴在其整个人生当中所占的比重就越小,同漫漫人生相比,就会觉得这些微不足道的时间过起来很快。

(选自《百科知识》2014年底4期B,有删改)