题目内容
（请给出正确答案）
Benjie Goodhart is afraid of being married because______.
A．his parents have a perfect marriage
B．his parents hare a terrible marriage and have divorced
C．he is afraid of a big change in his life
D．he feels pressure of maintaining a perfect marriage
安装简答题APP，拍照搜题省时又省心！
更多“Benjie Goodhart is afraid of b…”相关的问题
According to Christine Northam, a relationship counselor with Relate. "It's like having a terribly clever elder brother at school—it sets a competitive standard," she says. "It's a normal anxiety about a big change, and you've got the added pressure of wanting an idealized version of your parents' relationship. " It seems such anxiety is not uncommon. "As much as it's hard to cope with parents being imperfect, cheating, splitting," says therapist Tracey Cox, "it is sometimes harder to be presented with the ideal happy marriage. " Avy Joseph is a cognitive behavioral therapist and founder of CityMinds. "It's quite common for people to put pressure on themselves," he says, "if they've grown up in an environment where, in their view, things have been perfect. "
Overcoming these fears involves accepting your marriage may not be perfect, but if it isn't you will cope. Just because something isn't perfect doesn't mean it's worthless. And if your marriage ends in divorce, it doesn't define you as a failure. "Your own worth isn't dependent on the success of your marriage," says Joseph. Working at Relate, Christine Northam knows no marriage is perfect. "I don't know anybody who is 100% happy with their marriage. Most marriages go through ups and downs. You're idealizing it. You have a false impression of what real marriage is like. Most married people hate each other at times, frankly. You can't be perfectly in love all the time. " So marriage is not the happy ending of the fairy-tales. I love the fact that, 44 years after they married, my parents still hold hands, make each other giggle, and tease each other. But they would doubtless balk at the idea that their marriage is perfect. Mum suffers from terrible vertigo, yet Dad persists in taking enormous detours every holiday through a mountain range. Dad could spend a week looking at a ruined church, whereas Mum could do the Acropolis in five minutes flat. Hundreds more took place along the recurring themes of what time to leave for the airport (Mum, six hours before a flight; Dad, six minutes) , how to pour a drink (Mum, fill a large glass to the brim; Dad, quarter-fill a thimble) and how best to pass leisure time (Mum, bulk-buying from catalogue companies; Dad, reading every column inch of the newspaper).
They aren't perfect. They just love each other enough to deal with the imperfections. As Cox says: "What they are good at is having faith, loving each other and finding compromises to make them both happy. No one breezes through (marriage) without working at it. " And yes, I would hope to have a marriage as successful as theirs. But I know it will take some work. I'm ready for that. I finally got down on one knee this year. After waiting for the perfect romantic moment, I realized it would probably never come. I had prevaricated long enough. So I asked her on the spur of the moment, while I was unpacking the shopping from the car, with Wendy in a bath towel standing in our driveway asking why I'd put Fred in the boot of the car (he'd insisted) while he banged on the rear windscreen, pronouncing loudly about his latest fecal production. The proposal wasn't on a moonlit beach or over a candlelit dinner, but slap bang in the minutiae of everyday life, in all its hilarious, glorious ridiculousness—and because of the person she is, Wendy loved it. And so it is that I find myself marching towards my impending nuptials, eyes wide open, resolve secure, safe in the knowledge that I am punching well above my weight with the woman who will be my wife. Benjie and Wendy were married last Saturday.
Benjie Goodhart is afraid of being married because______.
A．his parents have a perfect marriage
B．his parents hare a terrible marriage and have divorced
C．he is afraid of a big change in his life
D．he feels pressure of maintaining a perfect marriage
Take this, for example: "National citizenship is inherently exclusionary." So no foreigners need ever apply for naturalisation, then. And" ... public anxiety about migration ... is usually based on a rational understanding of the value of British citizenship and its~ incompatibility with over-porous borders". Straight from the lexicon of the far right. And best of all: "You can have a welfare state provided that you are a homogenous society with intensely shared values."
These are extracts from an article in the Observer, penned by the liberal intellectual Goodhart, who is just one of several liberal thinkers now vigorously making what they consider a progressive argument against immigration. It goes like this: the more diverse a society, the less likely its citizens are to share common values; the fewer common values, the weaker the support for vital institutions of social solidarity, such as the welfare state and the National Health Service.
There are perfectly good reasons to worry about how we respond to immigration, not least the downward pressure on workers' wages; the growth of racial inequality; and the exploitation of illegals. But the answer to these problems is not genteel xenophobia, but trade union rights, backed by equality and employment law.
The xenophobes should come clean. Their argument is not about immigration at all. They are liberal Powellites; what really bothers them is race and culture. If today's immigrants were white people from the old Commonwealth, Goodhart and his friends would say that they pose no threat because they share Anglo-Saxon values.
Unfortunately for liberal Powellites, the real history of the NHS shatters their fundamental case against diversity. The NHS is a world-beating example of the way that ethnic diversity can create social solidarity. Launched by a Welshman, built by Irish: labourers, founded on the skills of Caribbean nurses and Indian doctors, it is now being rescued by an emergency injection of Filipino nurses, refugee ancillaries and antipodean medics. And it remains 100% British.
Virtually all of our public services have depended heavily on immigrants. Powell was forced to admit as much when, as minister for health he advertised for staff in the Caribbean. His new admirers will discover that a rapidly depopulating Europe will have no choice but to embrace diversity.
For the moment, however, the liberal Powellites are gaining support in high places. Their ideas are inspired by the work of the American sociologist Putnam, a Downing Street favourite. He purports to show that dynamic, diverse communities are more fragmented than stable, monoethnic ones. But the policy wonks have forgotten that Putnam's research was conducted in a society so marked by segregation that even black millionaires still live in gated ghettoes.
The prime minister still seems uneasy on the issue. Last week, he wavered uncertainly between backing his pro-immigration home secretary, and a defensive response to Howard's goading that the government was in a mess on the topic.
Oddly enough, this is a place in the arena of world politics where the PM does not stand shoulder to shoulder with Bush. The Spanish-speaking former governor of Texas recently announced that he would "regularise" the status of millions of illegal Mexican immigrants who had slipped across the border to work. It's the kind of massive amnesty that would send the Daily Express into conniptions.
Even more peculiar, the prime minister appears to be ignoring not only Blunkett but also his new best friend, the
A．genteel xenophobia
B．liberal commitment
C．Britain's multi-ethnicity
D．populist bigotry
Take this, for example: "National citizenship is inherently exclusionary." So no foreigners need ever apply for naturalisation, then. And" ... public anxiety about migration ... is usually based on a rational understanding of the value of British citizenship and its incompatibility with over-porous borders". Straight from the lexicon of the far right. And best of all: "You can have a welfare state provided that you are a homogenous society with intensely shared values.”
These are extracts from an article in the Observer, penned by the liberal intellectual Goodhart, who is just one of several liberal thinkers now vigorously making what they consider a progressive argument against immigration. It goes like this: the more diverse a society, the less likely its citizens are to share common values; the fewer common values, the weaker the support for vital institutions of social solidarity, such as the welfare state and the National Health Service.
There are perfectly good reasons to worry about how we respond to immigration, not least the downward pressure on workers' wages; the growth of racial inequality; and the exploitation of illegals. But the answer to these problems is not genteel xenophobia, but trade union rights, backed by equality and employment law.
The xenophobes should come clean. Their argument is not about immigration at all. They are liberal Powellites; what really bothers them is race and culture. If today's immigrants were white people from the old Commonwealth, Goodhart and his friends would say that they pose no threat because they share Anglo-Saxon values.
Unfortunately for liberal Powellites, the real history of the NHS shatters their fundamental case against diversity. The NHS is a world-beating example of the way that ethnic diversity can create social solidarity. Launched by a Welshman, built by Irish labourers, founded on the skills of Caribbean nurses and Indian doctors, it is now being rescued by an emergency injection of Filipino nurses, refugee ancillaries and antipodean medics. And it remains 100% British.
Virtually all of our public services have depended heavily on immigrants. Powell was forced to admit as much when, as minister for health he advertised for staff in the Caribbean. His new admirers will discover that a rapidly depopulating Europe will have no choice but to embrace diversity.
For the moment, however, the liberal Powellites are gaining support in high places. Their ideas are inspired by the work of the American sociologist Putnam, a Downing Street favourite. He purports to show that dynamic, diverse communities are more fragmented than stable, monoethnic ones. But the policy wonks have forgotten that Putnam's research was conducted in a society so marked by segregation that even black millionaires still live in gated ghettoes.
The prime minister still seems uneasy on the issue. Last week, he wavered uncertainly between backing his pro-immigration home secretary, and a defensive response to Howard's goading that the government was in a mess on the topic.
Oddly enough, this is a place in the arena of world politics where the PM does not stand shoulder to shoulder with Bush. The Spanish-speaking former governor of Texas recently announced that he would "regularise" the status of millions of illegal Mexican immigrants who had slipped across the border to work. It's the kind of massive amnesty that would send the Daily Express into conniptions.
Even more peculiar, the prime minister appears to be ignoring not only Blunkett but also his new best friend, the Labour mayor of Londo
A．genteel xenophobia
B．liberal commitment
C．Britain's multi-ethnicity
D．populist bigotry
为了保护您的账号安全，请在“简答题”公众号进行验证，点击“官网服务”-“账号验证”后输入验证码“”完成验证，验证成功后方可继续查看答案！
微信搜一搜
简答题
微信搜一搜
简答题
如搜索结果不匹配，请 
