The standards of living decreased due to an increase in birthrates, making it easier for couples to support their families. Americans were greatly affected by the baby boom. With the large increase in families there came a large demand for housing. The GI bill helped provide families with more income so that they could afford to move into a home of their own rather than living with other family members (Axia College, 2008). With more babies, came the need for more schools.
The number of live births per year increased due to several factors such as children were used to work on farms (source of income) and in those days there was no reliable contraception and little education. The number of people dying was also high but still less in proportion to the birth rates. This was due to poor medical knowledge and poor diet, water and sanitation. More recently the birth rate has decreased and this is due to social, economic, cultural, legal, political and technological factors. A mixture of these factors led to the change in the position of women in society, the increase in equality, especially legally, including the right to vote (legal factor), the increase in educational opportunities (social factor) meant that women chose to educate themselves before starting a family, the increase in work opportunities with laws banning unequal pay and sex discrimination (social/legal factor)and changing attitudes in society meant that it was socially acceptable for women to be employed whereas traditionally the wife would be the housewife and the husband would be the breadwinner and would financially support his family.
The gender norms prior to the journey from Europe to North America were changed due to severe servitude circumstances, gender imbalance, late and short marriages, and high mortality. Why didn’t more women come to the Americas? Few women wished to leave their families and community in Europe to venture into an unknown land when they weren’t positive they would make it out dead or alive. Another determining factor was a woman’s use as an indentured servant. Women were not as desirable as men to merchants and planters who were rising and marketing tobacco, which entailed countless hours of manual and hard labor.
The lives of women on the Home Front were greatly affected by World War I The lives of women were greatly affected by the war, mainly in a positive way in the long run. Before the war upper-class women did not work, in contrast working class women worked in professions such as maids or working in factories as a way to provide for their families. Statistics show that as many as 11% of women worked as domestic servants before the war. The war also helped the social status of women dramatically in a positive manner as well as giving women the chance to work in a greater variety of jobs, although after the war they were expected to return to their original traditional housewife role. When the war broke out in August 1914, thousands of women lost their jobs in dressmaking, millenary and jewellery making.
Some women “felt they were needed at home to raise families, crops for food and to fill the jobs that the men had vacated in order to serve their country.”(Suite101) Women’s lives on the home front during World War II were a significant part of the war effort for all participants and had a major impact on the outcome of the war. Once the men went off to war and left their jobs, the women that were single had a great advantage because job opportunities were everywhere. In the other hand married women had a tough time, especially if they had children. Hundreds of women worked in machine shops, welding shops, manufacturing plants, and also worked in war industries to make equipment for the war. New industries, naval, and army bases were being built during the home front.
The Depression hit women, like other minority groups in American society, similarly harsh because of that payrolls of many communities and private companies were open only to males. The main role of women during the Great Depression was that of the homemaker. Some women had gone through college level education and, like their male counterparts, were having a difficult time of finding employment. Those with families had the task of keeping their family together, as the traditional view of motherhood role, when the principle moneymaker of the family was out of work. However, some women joined the work force and would do jobs that men previously had held.
The government quickly gave up; women did not want to return to working in the home for two reasons: First, women would were underprivileged had to remain in the workforce to survive. Second, America became infatuated with buying more than the necessities. Women who did go back to domestic life went back to taking care of the children and home. Around this same time the television was introduced to into American homes. The whole family would gather around the television and watch, even the commercials were watched with great importance.
Should public assistance such as food stamps and welfare, be discontinued as it is harmful to our economy? This is a question but yet still a political concern I frequently ask myself. Why should public assistance subside when they are many people in need of it? I know of many single mothers who works over forty hours in a week just to make ends meet for her kids and to pay her bills and who still gets public assistance such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) as many of us know it as food stamps and many other government help. These are hard working women who in fact, not only work overtime but are also an active supporter towards their kid’s education and extracurricular activities.
Throughout history, the Early Years Curriculum has been transformed due to the impact of education reports and increased intervention of the government. Major reports such as The Plowden Report “Children and their Primary schools” (1967) and The Rumbold Report “Starting with Quality” (1990) have had a significant impact on the Early Years curriculum today. Both reports offer similar perspectives on teaching and learning and they have the same goal, improving society through education and ensuring that the child is at the centre. However The Plowden Report mainly focuses on primary education while The Rumbold Report focuses entirely on Early Years education. This essay proposes to critically analyse the impact of these two reports on teaching
Murphy opens up his essay by describing a debate economist Larry Summers and Amy Chua encountered while discussing Chua’s parenting methods in response to Ms. Chua’s essay. Murphy first expresses that children are not just adults in training but are also people with joys and powers. Murphy feels a happy childhood is measured by the qualities of adult accomplishment, but also believes the pleasure of gifts given to children is just as important and more. Murphy describes the gift of moral innocence, that children are free from the knowledge of human evil. They are able to trust people fully