Since clothes are such an important source of social information, we can use them to manipulate people's impression of us. Our appearance assumes particular significance in the initial phases of interaction that is likely to occur. A young adult who is dressed in an unconventional manner, regardless of the person's education, background, or interests, may alienate an elderly middle-class man or woman.
People tend to agree on what certain types of clothes mean. Adolescent girls can easily agree on the lifestyles of girls who wear certain outfits, including the number of boyfriends they likely have had and whether they smoke or drink. Newscasters, or the announcers who read the news on TV, are considered to be more convincing, honest, and competent when they are dressed conservatively. And college students who view themselves as taking an active role in their interpersonal relationships say they are concerned about the costumes they must wear to play these roles successfully. Moreover, many of us can relate instances in which the clothing we wore changed the way we felt about ourselves and how we acted. Perhaps you have used clothing to gain confidence when you anticipated a stressful situation, such as a job interview, or a court appearance.
In the workplace, men have long had well-defined precedents and role models for achieving success. It has been otherwise for women. A good many women in the business world are uncertain about the appropriate mixture of "masculine" and "feminine" attributes they should convey by their professional clothing. The variety of clothing alternatives to women has also been greater than that available for men. Male administrators tend to judge women more favorably for managerial positions when the women display less "feminine" appearance: shorter hair, moderate use of make-up, and plain tailored clothing. As one male administrator confessed," An attractive woman is definitely going to get longer interview, but she won't get a job."
According to the passage, the way we dress ______.
A.provides clues for people who are critical of us
B.indicates our likes and dislikes in choosing a career
C.has a direct influence on the way people regard us
D.is of particular importance when we get on in age
In both history and sociology, scholarly work on immigration was sparked by the great debates of the 1920s, as Americans argued over which immigrants to include and which to exclude from the American nation. The result of that particular great debate involved the restriction of immigration from Asia and southern and eastern Europe.
Reacting to the debates of their time, sociologists and historians nevertheless developed different central themes. While Chicago School sociologists focused on immigrant adaptation to the American mainstream, historians were more likely to describe immigrants engaged in building the American nation or its regional sub-cultures.
Historians studied the immigrants of the past, usually in the context of nation-building and settlement of the western United States, while sociologists focused on the immigrant urban workers of their own times—that is, the early 20th century. Meanwhile, sociologists' description of assimilation as an almost natural sequence of interactions resulting in the modernization, and Americanization of foreigners reassured Americans that their country would survive the recent arrival of immigrants whom longtime Americans perceived as radically different.
Historians insisted that the immigrants of the past had actually been the "makers of America"; they had forged the mainstream to which new immigrants adapted. For sociologists, however, it was immigrants who changed and assimilated over the course of three generations. For historians, it was the American nation that changed and evolved.
In current debates, overall, what seems to be missing is not knowledge of significant elements of the American past or respect for the lessons to be drawn from that past, but rather debaters' ability to see how time shapes understanding of the present.
In the first moments of American nation-building, the so-called Founding Fathers celebrated migration as an expression of human liberty. Here is a reminder that today's debates take place among those who agree rather fundamentally that national self-interest requires the restriction of immigration. Debaters disagree with each other mainly over how best to accomplish restriction, not whether restriction is the right course. The United States, along with many other nations, is neither at the start, nor necessarily anywhere near the end, of a long era of restriction.
Henry Ford's words are cited to______.
A.show the absurdity of history
B.indicate the significance of the history we make today
C.emphasize the role of immigrants in the U.S. history
D.introduce the debate on immigration worldwide
We will agree to do what you require ______ him.
A.of
B.from
C.to
D.for
In order to proceed we must agree ______ a plan of action.
A.with
B.on
C.to
D.in
We shall be glad if you agree to ship the goods ()us as before() Cash Against Documents basis
A、to,on
B、for,upon
C、for
D、in,to,in
A.worth
B.worthless
C.worthy
D.worthwhile
We may agree that software has killed ______ people.
A.none B.1,000
C.2,000 D.3,000