GRE·94-4考题——（2）

　Defenders of special protective labor
　　legislation for women often maintain
　　that eliminating such laws would
　　destroy the fruits of a century-long
(5) 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
(10) 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
(15) 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
(20) 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
(25) 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
(30) 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,
(35) the courts have colluded over the years
　　in establishing different, less advant-
　　ageous employment terms for women
　　than for men, thus reducing women's
　　competitiveness on the job market.
(40) 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
(45) employers to offer employee health
　　insurance plans that cover all known
　　human medical disabilities except
　　those relating to