Voting

Everyone in my family who is old enough to vote, registers, and takes a privilege in
voting, and knowing that their voice counts. That is why everyone who can vote does
vote in every election. Both of my parents have not missed an election, and don't plan on it.
My family votes neither democratic nor republican, they vote for both. What I mean by that is that they vote for the best candidate who they think will get the job done. So they would be considered non-partisan. They go about picking the candidate based on the qualities of honesty, character, and what the candidate has accomplished in the past.
There wasn't a basic consensus on the issues they thought were most important, but there issues they thought were most important, but there issues all dealt with money.
For example my mom thought that federal and state government needs to be downside and
programs need to be cut. While my brother thought that welfare should be cut. My dad doesn't like his tax dollars wasted, and my sister doesn't like the military cut backs. So basically my family has concerns with money and where it goes. Which may affect who they vote for.
However there was a consensus on what affects there voting habits, and that agent is war. My family felt that war wasn't good, and to end the war they would do anything.
Even if that meant voting out who they voted in. Also if a candidate wanted military cut backs my family would probably not vote for them. That is because my family wants the best military in the world.

White collar vs street Crime - Hot Article

One problem that plagues our society is crime. Crime is all around us in our everyday lives. Daily we hear of murders, robberies, and rapes. These are categorized as "street crimes." For many people, such crimes are the only "tragic" crimes, the ones that are senseless and preventable. In Finsterbusch's book, Taking Sides, another variety of crime is exposed. This other form of crime is "white collar" crime. Both have victims, and the effects of both can be devastating to the individuals involved and to the community.
The views of the two arguments proposed in the text do reach one common conclusion. Both street and white collar crime have severe consequences. In most instances, white collar crime is, financially, more costly. This does not mean that white-collar crime does not inflict bodily harm upon people. Multi-million dollar corporations can be twice as deadly as a gang member. When a woman dies of lead exposure from her job, it is murder. Whether a man is murdered by a gun or by an unsafe gas tank in his car, it is still called murder. In both scenarios, there is a defined victim.
The one answer that our politicians give for solving street crime is more money for the Justice system. More cops, more judges, and definitely more jails and prisons. There are shows, such as "Cops," that shows America the "truth" about crime in the US. All the attention is given to street crime. Unless it is a huge scandal, you will seldom hear of white collar crime through the media. When white collar crime is reported, it gets little publicity compared to a gang shoot-out that killed a mother and her three kids. There is a reason for this. Since violent street crime is predominantly an urban problem, there is no better scapegoat than the lower class that live in these inner-city communities. Since urban communities are concentrated with people of color, the image of minorities soon becomes that of a criminal. By creating the idea that its "us against them," the justice system convinces voters that street crime is the evil of all evils. This allows money to be justifiably funneled into the justice system. This mind set says that its acceptable for people to be murdered by unsafe working conditions, and unsafe products. In addition, its unacceptable for murder to be committed by means of a gun, knife, or weapon. As well as supporting isolation from other people, such policies cause racism and stereotyping. Police have pictures of "criminals" in their minds. These images are male people of color, ages 14-25. If you know who the criminal is, you will make a point to find him. If you think all minorities are criminals, you will find reason to arrest them without hesitation.
The effects of spending all funding on street crime can be seen and felt in other government programs. As we've discussed, the US education system is in a state of crisis. Schools do not have adequate funding to educate the kids. This is especially a problem in urban areas, where the alternative to school is life on the streets. Social services are also being eliminated, giving many no other option but to stay in poverty. Healthcare is a fantasy for many Americans, and yet our government can justify constructing massive prisons to hold all the "deviant ones" in society.
White collar crime is 90 times more costly than street crime, and yet no one seems to want to address the problem. Many of the ones who commit white collar crimes are the same ones who have the power to decide where funding goes. The upper class has the money, and the voting and legislative power to decide whether law enforcement will even deal with white collar crime. When the corrupt have the power, "justice" in America is a farce, and white collar crime will continue to decay our country's structure.

The Importance of Plea Bargaining in Criminal Trials

Screeech! That is the sound of our court system coming to a grinding halt, if plea bargaining were no longer utilized. Not only does plea bargaining save taxpayers an enormous amount of money, it often provides the evidence for a conviction and allows public defenders and other court officials to concentrate their limited resources on more important or difficult cases. Some people may believe that plea bargaining with criminals is wrong. The entire basis of the argument against plea bargaining says that criminals should not testify or have anything to do with the prosecution because they were involved with the crime. We fail to realize that without plea bargaining many criminals would never be punished for their crimes at all. It is as simple as that. Granted, a plea bargain is, by definition, a compromise. But it is a compromise that is absolutely necessary for the judicial system to function. While it may seem that a person who exchanges his testimony for a lighter sentence would have sufficient motivation to lie in court the fact is that his testimony is simply verifying the testimonies of other witnesses. In a majority of cases plea bargains is utilized to ensure that the truly guilty criminal is punished. In our less than perfect world, plea bargaining is easily the lesser of the evils.

I agree with the definitions submitted by the affirmative speaker.

Americans have always emphasized getting a job done. We place a great deal of value on efficiency and industry. The government is expected to run with efficiency and operate with the good of the people in mind. Every aspect of our lives is governed by this utilitarian value. Why do we place such importance on efficiency? Because without it nothing would ever get done. If we all constantly obsessed over minute details and unrealistic ideals we would live in poverty. In the real world compromises are made because without them no amount of success could ever be achieved. In the words of John Stewart Mill, the father of utilitarianism, "The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals utility, or the greatest happiness principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness". This means that in a world of compromise, the most success is achieved by giving the greatest good to the greatest number of people.

This belief applies directly to plea bargaining. In this case, the most justice must be given the greatest number of criminals. Currently in the state of New York, 79% of all first degree murder cases are plea bargained. Without plea bargaining, many of these criminals would never even see a jail cell. Barry Kinsey, a sociologist at The University of Tulsa, said "Without plea bargaining the court's could not function unless there were drastic increases in budget allowance" . The courts are at present full and running over and if all the cases were to be tried the courts budgets would have to be increased by 900% (according to Tom Wallace, a public defender from Baltimore, Maryland).

It is also important to consider the length of time that would be required to try every person indicted for a crime. With the courts as over burdened as they are, taking every case to trial could clog up the courts almost indefinitely. Since every person in this country is guaranteed a speedy trial (courtesy of the sixth amendment), banning plea bargaining without tremendous budget increases would violate the constitutional rights of those accused.

The affirmative speaker believes that plea bargaining does not reveal the
truth. He has said that there is often lying and inaccurate accounts of the
truth as a result of plea bargaining. I believe that the opposition is wrong. There may be cases where there is lying but every part of the court system will have a little of that. The affirmative speaker has totally contradicted himself. He stated that plea bargaining is when a person admits to his crime and therefore is rewarded with a lighter sentence. Is the affirmative side saying that criminals admit to other crimes than what they have done. It appears to me that he is stating that a person who is charged for a crime is admitting to a totally different crime. Therefore he will be sentenced for that crime and still go through his original trial. Second of all he said that most of the time the actual truth is known, if it is how is this accused person going to lie. I am saying that plea bargaining definitely reaches the truth and that is one reason why it is used because the truth is know and the defendant is simply agreeing with it, therefore the affirmative speaker has no validation for this argument.

The speaker also referred to how plea bargaining was inaccurate and unfair.
It was stated that plea bargaining doesn't reflect what really happened and the
accused is not punished fairly. I have already stated how Plea Bargaining does reach the truth therefore it is accurate. The accuracy is very accountable because in many cases there are other witnesses that confirm the testimony of the defendant. Witnesses and/or victims are usually present at the case and testify to add additional
information and verify the testimony of the defendant. With verification and most
of the time when the actual truth is known the process of plea bargaining is very
accurate.

Secondly the affirmative case said how plea bargaining was "unfair". It was
said that the criminal is not punished fairly for the crime he has committed. This
statement is also wrong. The criminal is not only saving time and money for the
court system and other people but he is also is admitting he has done wrong.
Much time and money is saved with plea bargaining. The criminal is not taking
advantage of the court system by going through a long tedious trial but he is
admitting he has done wrong. The amount of time , money , and work the criminal
saves clearly outweighs lesser sentence he is given. The opposition also failed
to prove that many of the cases of Plea Bargaining are not as drastic as his example of the man whose sentence was reduced from forty years to two years. In most cases the sentence is only reduced by a small margin.

One of the affirmative cases main arguments is how criminals are sent back
on the street as a result of plea bargaining. He said that when criminals are given
shortened sentences they are sent back on the street to commit more crimes. I am
not going to lie, yes, there are instances when criminals are sent back to the street
and do commit terrible crimes, but I do not believe that plea bargaining is the cause of this. When many criminals are sent back on the street it is the result of lenient bail. Many times criminals are given $5000 bail and are sent back on the street to where they can easliy catch a bus and continue their career in another town. There are not usually drastic changes in sentencing, it may be only a few years difference and the criminal still gets plenty of time to think about what he has done.

At present, 68% of all murder cases in the U. S. end in conviction. Those indicted for first degree murder who accept plea bargains often receive the same or similar sentence as they would have received if they were convicted by a jury (the main difference being that seeking death penalty is often dropped). Abolishing plea bargaining in this country would be a mistake with potentially disastrous consequences. Since justice is being served in our country's criminal courts, why should we risk our own finances and the punishment of criminals, that is already effectively taking place, to achieve the lofty ideals of a few social theorists?

Woman in Management

Despite Legislation for Equal Opportunities, sexism is still in evidence in the workplace.

Sexism is a particular concern for society when considering it's effect in the
workplace. Sexism has always been a particular problem in the labour
market especially with the formation of capitalism. In the last half of the
20th century this has been especially highlighted due to the increase of
woman entering the labour market. This aroused the need for a legislation
for equal opportunity for both sex's to be passed in 1975. It stated that
discrimination of a persons sex whether male or female was unlawful in
employment, union membership, education, provision of goods, services,
advertisements and pay.

In this essay the discussion will cover subjects such as why woman hold a
large percentage of the work force in companies but hardly any seem to
have any power. Obstacles in the way of woman in careers, if women
prefer different jobs to men, equal pay for both sexes and what's changed
since the law was made an Act of Parliament. This essay will only
concentrate on the problem of sex discrimination in the U.K.

Sex discrimination means that a person gets treated in a less favorable
manner because of their sex. A good example of this is to take two fictional
characters, Mr. and Mrs. Jones. The Jones's want to go swimming, they get
to the swimming baths where they find that Mrs. Jones is charged an O.A.P.
price while Mr. Jones has to pay the full price even though they are both the
same age. This is because woman become pensioners at the age of sixty
while men cannot gain the benefits until they are sixty five.

Sex discrimination is not only present within the older generation but is also
evident throughout the entire age range. Before legislation was passed in the
1960's most young girls left school after O-levels to receive a strong social
message that their careers where already setup for them as marriage and
motherhood (Pascall 1995: 2). The only jobs they would be getting were
tedious low paid jobs (a Secretary) and be only looking forward to when
they would meet a man, have a family and settle down. Statistics show that
in 1971, 51% of married women did not work compared to 29% in 1993
(Pascall 1995: 3). Women now hold 46% of the labor work force, with
young women seeing housework more of a part-time rather than a full time
job. This is an enormous social change for the family giving women less
dependence on marriages which are increasingly falling apart day by day
and a greater command over the increasing area of technology and resources.
With more women getting jobs, it encourages other woman who were reluctant
to move into the labour market to do the same and become more career
minded.

Although woman now make up 46% of the English work force only 3% of
woman hold chief executive positions. This has only increased by 2% in the
last 20 years (Mildrew 1992: 17). A point to be raised here is that as the
hierarchy of management positions increases, the amount of women in these
positions decreases. This quite clearly means that woman do not hold the
prestige and influence that men do, as their sector of high ranking jobs is so
small. We've all heard men say at some point, "I just don't understand
women", yet there are only 5 woman High Court Judges out of 91 men and 28
women circuit judges out of 496 men in the Judiciary in 1993 (Pascall 1995:
2).

Thanks to media attention women do have access to careers. In 1980 woman
made up 12-14% of professional and managerial jobs. In 1990 the figure had
raised to 32% managers/administrators and 40% professionals. On the other
hand women seem to fall into different sectors to men, they make up 62% of
teachers and librianship but only 25% of business and financial professionals
and shockingly only 5% of engineers and technologists. Teaching is a qualified
position, 90% of primary school teachers and 60% of secondary teachers are
women but 50% primary and 80% secondary school heads are men. This is the
same right the way across the specturm, in university only 5% of professors are
women (Pascall 1995: 3).

This segregation of gender in different jobs can be separated into two
dimensions, vertical and horizontal. Vertical segregation is the segregation of
gender in the hierarchy of power in a certain job. Woman tend to be found at
the low end of vertical segregation in professional occupations. Horizontal
segregation is the segregation of gender in the spread of different occupations.
Woman are usually found dominating teaching while men dominate
engineering. Data from the Eurostat Labour survey shows when woman break
horizontal segregation by increasing their presence in a particular occupation,
vertical segregation becomes securely established. This is shown by the fact
that 3 per cent of all clerks and typists in 1911 were woman. By 1971 the
situation had reversed and woman dominated this area. As soon as the number
of woman increased, office work was down graded and became a low paid
dead end job by deskilling. The activities where broken down to suit what was
thought as women's abilities (Mildrew 1992: 12).

Educational qualifications are a must for anyone who wants a career (man or
woman). 20 years ago girls would have left education at the end of their O-levels being norm. In the 1991/92 GCSE results 42.7% of girls compared with
34.1% of boys received 5 or more A-C grades and 16.1% compared with
14.4% of boys received 3 or more passes at A-Level. The number of woman
students at university has tripled in the last 21 years which is almost twice the
increase for male, making up 48% of the student population. At degree level
46-48% of medicine/business and financial students are women but only 12%
take engineering or technology. These men / woman dominated areas are
clearly seen, simply by looking in classrooms at secondary or university
education. 91% of sociology classes are female dominated and about 90% of
computer science / physics, classes are male dominated (Pascall 1995: 4).

The Sex Discrimination Act is in power to help woman in a number of ways
and lets them into previously closed doors. However due to the fact that most
legal institutions are male dominated it is not quite as clear cut as it may seem
on the outside. The law is often interpreted restrictivly meaning a woman may
have to fight an unequal battle with her employer and even if they come out
victorious little compensation is received and she may be victimized at work
in the aftermath.

A major need for the discrimination act is to try to help break down the
presence of what is known as the glass ceiling'. This is where men get
promoted and go further up the managerial hierarchy while woman get to a
certain position and can not climb any further. Although they can see the men
climbing further up the company they cannot break the glass ceiling
themselves (Gregg 1991: 8).
A study called Indsco' in a large industrial conglomerate lead by Rosabeth
Moss Kanter (A management professor at Harvard) in 1977, recognized that
people who work in large organizations have a tendency to hire and promote
those who resemble themselves (Mildrew 1992: 17).
Unfortunately some men feel uncomfortable with women being their equals
and since men dominate managerial levels they have much more control over
peoples careers beneath them. If men do not recognize women as their equals,
then women are overlooked for transfer or promotion, find themselves
directed into female' job areas and are not offered a challenge. Men use
strategies to cope with women such as patronizing them, not listening to them
seriously, being over protective and shielding them from dangerous situations
so they never have the knowledge of how to cope (Allen 1993 p26).

The Employment Act 1978 gives women going through pregnancy and child
birth the right to have time off with no loss of position. This is only given
however to woman who have a career involving full time and continuous
employment and stops just 29 weeks after childbirth (Pascall 1995: 4). Parental
leave, flexible hours and care of the child in sickness and health is left for the
employer and employee to discuss.

This is a very complex problem because once a child is born it must have the
proper care and attention. Nursery provisions for women who want to go back
to work are appalling. Only 2% of work places have nursery facilities and the
male dominated government seem to think that the problem doesn't exist!
Shocking statistics show that for every 14 females that work full time there is
only one which has children between the ages of 0 and 15 years old. i.e. There
is 4,200,000 woman with no children in full time work and only 300,000
woman with children between the age of 0 to 15 (Pascall 1995: 4). Taking into
account that most woman would like to have at least one baby, there is going
to be a lot of woman in low paid jobs. Professions such as medicine which
require an intensive course of work to build up the knowledge for the career
has actually implied a ban on woman with children. Even traditional woman's
jobs such as nursing do not have a career that can comfortably take on board
a woman with her off-spring.
Since for most women all this is a bit to much they will most certainly turn to
part-time employment which will be punished by lower grading and pay.

In 1975 the equal pay act came into power. This made it illegal to offer
different wages for the same work on the grounds of sex. Men's full time
wages over woman's fell drastically. The gap has been narrowing ever since.
The New Earnings Survey (NES) shows that in 1980, men's pay stood 40%
more on average over women's and in 1992 that gap had narrowed to 25%.
Woman in low paid jobs, where before were paid much less then men now
have leveled up to the same wage or sometimes higher. However in high flying
jobs there still is a large wage difference. The NES showed that woman's
hourly earnings where on an average 70.9% of men's in 1990. The problem
being is that since woman go into different areas of work than men it may be
very difficult to compare the skills and amount of work they do to claim equal
pay.

We can see that even with the law, there are many loop holes that clever
employees can seek. This isn't the only thing that stands in the way of woman
who want a career, there are many other obstacles. Society is a very powerful
instrument, people get molded by the society they are in. It changes the way
people think and act. Also (From personal experiance) many children are
directed to appropriate traditional' subjects by their secondary socialization
in schools particularly by old fashioned' teachers.

Unfortunately the law is not beneficial to everyone. It is not allowed to be
broken, but there are numerous ways of stretching it! A good example of this
is D.Quinnen vs Mr. J.H. Hovell. Mr. Hovell hired 2 woman and 1 man to
work in his store at Christmas time. The 2 woman got paid more than the man.
Mr. Quinnen complained and was dismissed, he claimed equal pay and sex
discrimination.
Mr. Quinnen took this case to the industrial tribunal (I.T.). At a preliminary
hearing the tribunal dismissed Mr. Quinnens claims on the grounds that he was
not employed by Mr. Hovell as the definition of employment was that there
was a contract of service' which Mr. Quinnens did not have. Mr. Quinnens
actually then to took his case to the Employment Appeal Tribunal which
awarded him œ530 (E.O.C 1989: 63), but most people would not take the case
this far after getting turned away by the I.T. A useful rule for woman is that the
law works on the rule of precedent, where if a woman has won a case before
almost in the same position as the woman who may want to go to court now,
the previous case will be used as a base for the prevailing case. With this in
mind woman can almost see what the outcome of the case will be before even
going to court, saving themselves victimization from male counterparts.

From what we have seen it appears that male dominance is to be blamed for
women's under achievement in the work place. However this may be a one
sided view. Once a woman gets a job in power she may adopt the I had to
work hard to get where I am so why shouldn't others' attitude and will
discourage other woman from taking responsibility. Woman also tend to be
more cautious then men, a survey by British Gas showed that when a
opportunity came up in their company for a job with more power the women
would only apply for it if they fitted the whole job criteria unlike men who
applied for it even if they didn't fill half the description (Allen 1993: 30). The
other obstacle that woman would seem to set up for themselves is their own
confidence. A study taped seven university faculty meetings and found that
men's contributions before someone broke in ranged from 11 to 17 seconds
while woman's where 3 to 10 seconds. Women also use deferential tag lines
like "Don't you think?" and "Isn't it?" far more often then men and are
reluctant to delegate work so they overload themselves (Mildrew 1992: 18).

In reflection to the examples given evidence shows that the effectiveness of
introducing the numerous acts of parliament have not been entirely successful
on implementation. Trends show that through out education females have been
directed towards traditional feminine subjects. Lack of fundamental education
needed to back up university courses have reflected women's immobility to
achieve positions of high statues in the whole range of occupations. Mature
woman share this problem as lack of qualifications in appropriate subjects
prevents them from achieving powerful positions.

Clearly, it can be seen that women are getting the same wage as men in low
paying jobs since the Sexual Discrimination act was passed in 1975 but there
is still a long way to go until woman in managerial jobs get an equal wage to
there counterparts. The fact that women are entering different job areas to men
e.g. Teaching / Social working, means that even if a woman takes a company
to court because she believes she is not getting paid as much as a male
employee, even though she is using the same skills and has the same work
load, this is very hard to prove if the two employees are not doing the same
job.

With most woman wanting babies, and leaving full time work to have a child
and probably only taking up part-time work after it is born, it gives directors
of companies a very bad opinion of women in powerful jobs as they believe
that as soon as the woman has worked her way up she will leave the company
due to maternity leave and never be able to keep up the same quality of work
as before. Women tend to naturally set obstacles in their own way and it seems
that the only way to get a powerful, influential, prestigious job is to never have
a baby and are never get married.

The law is not much use for woman in power as there is so many males above
them in any company. The usefulness of the law can be seen however in the
fact of precedent' where any previous case of a woman taking a company to
court for sexual discrimination or equal pay and winning may be considered
in a similar court case.

The glass ceiling is a major obstacle preventing woman from achieving high
status professions. However since the law has been in power I believe that the
glass ceiling is cracking but it's going to take a lot more years to see any kind
of noticeable improvements in woman's careers.

Woman's Struggle for Independence

Women have had to fight for there independence. They have been repressed for a long period of history. Only recently have women started to gain respect as equals and individuals. Even today women are still looked down upon for there sex.
From the begging of history women have been viewed as a lesser sex. In the time Mesopotamia women we in charge of the children and the home. In Ancient Egypt women had no power or authority. Women were viewed as property. The Hebrews, alto respecting women, did not allow them to own any property or to have an active place in government. In Rome women were not allowed to voice there opinions. They were viewed as lesser beings, who's role in society was to give birth and to take care of children. They were property of there husbands and not viewed as individuals. There husband was there master and women we practically slaves and was often mistreated by there husband. A servant to the male sex.
During the middle ages women still has almost no rights. They still didn't have the right to voice there opinion and were still viewed as property. If they disobeyed there male role model they were punished. The art of the Renaissance gave women some freedom to voice there opinion about the arts and social issues as long as there opinions weren't very radical. However women were only the objects in the arts. They were the models and not the creators. They were not allowed to express themselves but only to be expressed by others. This lead into the period of the Reformation, women were still viewed as property and the homemakers. They did not really get there place in society.
The 17th century was the first real growth of the women's movement. Up until this time women had been in the same category as property or slaves. But as the French society moved toward revolution women began to speak of the injustice against them. "The Vindication of Rights of Women (1792) called for the extension of the principle of the liberty to women and urging that equal public education be made available for men and women" (Perry, 289). This list of the right that women were lacking was one of the first attempts at creating a legislation that included women in its laws. During the scientific revolution men were making discoveries and coming up with new ideas all over the world. This was not possible for women because the education was not able to compare with that of the men's. After roll models such as Tristan Flora women started trying harder to become a part of the society. They fought so that they could be intellectual individuals, and not just slaves to the male dominated society. They started thinking for themselves, having there own thoughts and ideas. In the modern 20th century women used the example of these women as arguments to push there cause.
When the idea of Nationalism began bringing countries together it helped women slightly. Yet still did not make them there equality to men. In the time of the Industrial Revolution women began receiving jobs in factories. Alto they were still not treated as equals. They were paid significantly less than men for the same days work. The majority of women still stayed at home and took care of the household and children. The idea of socialism brought women more respect. With the idea of socialism women gained some standing in society as close equals to men. In a socialistic society everyone is equal, including women. This idea of equality women in the past could not even in vision. As the battle for women's rights continued they gained the right in the United States to live freely. They could now own land and participate in the government. At the end of the 19th century women began to become educated. They began to prove there intellectual equality to men. As World War I came around women began to enter the workforce. With the men being killed in time of war it left a limited number of men to work in the factories. Women began to take over these roles. They were finally given responsibility and respect for there work.
By the time of World War II women had proven themselves in the workforce. They now could find employment, alto there was still discrimination. During the 1950's woman began to fight for liberation in the workforce. They wanted more involvement in the work place. Women now wanted to go to college, support themselves, and fight for there country. They were no longer satisfied with raising a family. A woman could have a career and be a mother to her children. They became independent members of society. With there new position of education and career orientation, it gave a sense that men and women were truly equal.
Alto women are gaining influence they still feel discriminated against because of there sex. There are many examples of women in high positions and women holding power. Queen Elizabeth I is one example of a woman in a position of power. These cases of women in power have rarely occurred in history. But even today in the 20th century there have been very few women officials. It seems most of the women who have achieved a position of power, achieved it because of there marriage to an influential man. Take any United States presidents wife for example. Women such as these have a great deal of power and influation, but they wouldn't have this if it wasn't for there husbands. The idea that a woman can work and be just as productive as a man a receive the same rewards happens to a point. The majority of the heads of corporations are men, women make a lesser salary and aren't promoted as much as men. As a woman rises in power in a company she usually gets to a point and then the promotions stop. This event of a sudden stop in promotion has been called "The Glass Ceiling effect" (Lunt). This can only be explained as women are still being treated as a lesser being to men.
The reason why women are inferior to men is still unknown. It has been around for as long as men and women have walked the earth. Hopefully soon it will disappear completely and we can all be viewed as equals.

Women in Africa

In many parts of Africa, there is a large discrepancy in who controlled the resources, access to the economy, individual autonomy and central voice in the government between the men and the women. African men, for the most part, have the largest say in the activities of the country. When issues of concern arise, "men's issues" usually became the issues of national concern, and those issues pertinent to women go to the back of everyone's mind. Women are forced to accept the results of men's actions, and usually nothing gets accomplished that benefits them. Because women continually were overlooked, they began to come together and protest. If one examines the following women's protests and their outcomes: A.E. Afigbo's The Warrant Chiefs, Sylvia Leith-Ross' African Women, Jean Allman's "Rounding Up Spinsters: Gender Chaos and Unmarried Women in Colonial Asante", and Irene Staunton's Mothers of the Revolution, several questions arise. What were women seeking and how did this differ from what men wanted? Did women attain their goals, and if not, why not? If women were not successful in getting their concerns at the forefront of national interest, at what, if anything, were they successful?
In several instances women became so angered by their lack of voice, that they were moved to act. In some of these cases, women were relatively successful in organizing and mobilizing. The story of the Aba Riots, which is discussed in both The Warrant Chiefs and African Women, proves this point well. In Nigeria, in the late 1920's, the Warrant Chiefs wanted to impose a system of annual taxation. What was so displeasing to the people about the tax was that it involved a census, and that the money went towards no specific project. The concept of counting free people was a foreign one to the Igbo. This notion went contrary to custom, and it was believed to bring about death (Afigbo, 229). The people of the Eastern Provinces felt that because they were being counted, the colonial government was enslaving them or that they were out to destroy them. Also objectionable to these people was the fact that the collected money went towards "'development'" (Afigbo, 228), something for which these communities had not asked.
The first year of tax collection went surprisingly well; except for a few isolated incidents. The first year was rather non-violent for two reasons: "It needed the shock of the first payment for people to realize what taxation meant in practical terms" and the second reason was the large police presence and prosecutions of opponents to the tax (Afigbo, 233). These two factors allowed for a relatively peaceful tax collection.
However, when year two arrived, so did the resistance. In September 1929, Captain John Cook was sent to Bende as the Acting District Officer, where he was disappointed with the male roll counts. He instructed his Warrant Chiefs to conduct new counts, and "added that the exercise had nothing to do with a tax on women" (Afigbo, 236). The mere mention of "women" and "tax" in the same statement sparked immediate disapproval. Rumors began to fly that the government had ordered a tax on women. Suddenly, the women reacted and agreed to resist by the end of October, 1929.
Captain Cook did not want to conduct the count himself, so he sent a mission school teacher to administer the count. When he arrived he asked a woman whom he met outside to go and count "'her people'" (Afigbo, 237). Within hours, women in mass numbers had gathered to discuss the tax, and went from there to the mission teacher's home to ask them why they were being taxed. The women equated being counting with taxation. "They also sent messengers 'armed' with fresh folded palm leaves to women of neighboring villages inviting them to come to Oloko" (Afigbo, 238). The women traveled on foot to ask other women for support, and the women they approached in their villages would go and rally their peers and bring the idea to their attention. From there, the women would decide if they would join the movement and what action, if any, would be taken.
The mere fact that women were able to organize themselves to act in such a short time was a definite success. Thousands of women from the Eastern Provinces participated in different activities; some of which were organized, and some of which were not. The women disturbed court proceedings repeatedly, decapped chiefs, looted court officials' homes, burned and vandalized court houses, even looted European factories and shops. Their actions definitely attracted the immediate attention of the colonial government.
Sylvia Leith-Ross describes how well the women were organized. In some of the interviews that she conducted with participants and viewers, people were amazed at the womens' solidarity. This text relays how the men in these areas had no large part in the Aba Riots. It was said that the men basically "stood completely on one side, passive, if consenting parties, to the extraordinary behavior of their wives" (Leith-Ross, 30). This kind of activity was unthinkable to men and women in other regions, but Igbo women were determined not to be taxed. From one portion of the text, it almost sounds as if the men might have taken care of the children while the women were out protesting. Some women who were bystanders and were forced to participate in the riots, commented on how they saw the women marching towards them and "they had no children with them" (Leith-Ross, 32). This implies that the men were the caretakers of the children during this period, because all of the women were involved in the riots. There was nowhere else to leave the children. It is amazing to see the opposite roles that men and women took in the Aba Riots.
However, the women did have some problems staying focused. There was an incident when two of the women were hit by a medical vehicle, which sparked the other women to participate in aimless looting. The women became so enraged at the doctor who hit the two women, that they followed him into a factory and began looting the European factories and shops, which was not the original goal of the riots. Another fault of the women was their inability to gain widespread support across the region. The method of carrying the palm leaf by foot to neighboring regions inefficient. These women could not reach remote or distant compounds. Any attempts that were made to get support from other women were quickly thwarted by government officials, because they had the luxury of transportation. The lack of modern transportation was no fault of the women, but it caused a failure in their efforts.
The womens' reasons for revolting were purely economic. Women were concerned first and foremost with their family's subsistence. The men had already been taxed the year before, so family resources were low. In addition the economy was in a deep depression, so money that was being made had far less value than before. Therefore, the women knew that they could not afford to be taxed, and still have enough money to support their families. Their concerns were local and practical. The men were concerned with their autonomy being threatened by the colonial officials. True the men knew that they would be in a worse economic situation if their wives were taxed too, but they were more concerned with being taken over by the government. The fear of enslavement was more threatening than poverty. Because they did have different aims, it is truly amazing that the women took the lead and made their voices heard.
As a result of the women's rioting significant changes came about in colonial Nigeria. The riot "caused a change of policy as regards the basis of local administration in the Eastern Provinces" (Afigbo, 247). The people also witnessed an intense investigation into their political system, which had never been done to that extent before. Essentially, "the policy and system of local rule through chiefs came to an end with the women's Riot" (Afigbo, 248).
There was another historic example of women's successful attempts to protest which is seen in "Rounding Up Spinsters: Gender Chaos and Unmarried Women in Colonial Asante." In this instance, women were again very instrumental in changing a situation which was disagreeable to them. They also went about their protests in an organized fashion. The occurrences of rounding up young unmarried women took place in Ghana during the late 1920's and the early 1930's.
During this time there was a high rate of venereal disease spreading across the region, and the Asante Chiefs were under the impression that all unmarried girls over the age of fifteen were loose and needed to find a husband. If a girl or woman was caught without a husband, she was sent to jail. The Chiefs argued that they were trying to prevent prostitution by forcing young girls to be married as their justification. The Asante chiefs gave several reasons why they wanted to round up the young girls, but probably the largest reason for the crisis was the different definitions of marriage held by men and women. Men viewed marriage as "a fact, a state of being, recognized by the court as non-negotiable" (Allman, 201). Furthermore, the men believed that once money was exchanged from the groom to the bride's family, marriage began, and the man had exclusive sexual rights over his wife. Many women, on the other hand believed marriage to be something very different. One woman in particular, Afuah Buo, thought marriage was "'a process. . .tenuous and fluid in nature'" (Allman, 201). It was obvious from the women's responses to their arrests, that they also felt that marriage was something that could be easily moved in and out of; which was equated to prostitution by the chiefs.
Therefore, because "chiefs and elders were articulating a new definition of marriage that upheld the husband's exclusive sexual rights over his wife, while minimizing or discounting completely the husband's reciprocal obligations toward that wife", women stopped marrying (Allman, 201-201). It is not true that all of the women had the same reaction toward the changing definition of marriage. Some women purposefully chose not to marry because they feared getting a venereal disease, other women could support themselves better without a husband, and others were simply unlucky. The women outnumbered the men during this time, so some women had no choice but to be single.
Because the women stopped marrying, the colonial chiefs responded the way they did, arresting the women. However, the women had made arrangements to get around the government's plans. When women were arrested, they were all taken to jail, where they had to wait for a man to come to get them. The women had to mention the name of a man that they intended to marry and have him come and pay a fee, in order to be released. Most women had arranged to have male relatives or friends to come and profess their plans to marry her. After the fee was paid, the girl was free to go. Then she would go back to supporting herself by farming or other means. .
Women were so disgusted by the fact that men were no longer fulfilling their basic marital duty, providing the bare necessities for their wives. Men were no longer doing so because of the order made by Effiduasihene, which "undercut one of the fundamental obligations of marriage, that a husband must maintain his wife" (Allman, 205). As a result women began "assert[ing] a great deal of autonomy and independence - much of it linked to the establishment of cocoa farms or to engagement in foodstuffs trade" (Allman, 204).
Women during this period were extremely successful at avoiding marriage, if they chose to do so, by supporting themselves and each other. They outsmarted the system in mass numbers and many went into business for themselves. Women who were unhappy with their present situation either divorced their husbands, went to court to challenge "matrilineal inheritance" (Allman, 210), or avoided marriage altogether. G. Clark's work on Kumasi market women shows that this was the "period during which women moved in dramatic numbers into trading, especially in previously male-dominated commodities" (Allman, 209). Although it is not definite, it is suggested that these women better survived the severe economic decline of the 1930's than many of their male peers.
In this account it is easy to see the difference in what men and women wanted. Men wanted total control of the women. The colonial chiefs felt that they were loosing authority over the women, so they wanted to tighten their reigns. Fond memories were recounted by the chiefs of "'the good old days. . .[when] no girl or woman dared to resist when given away in marriage to a suitor by her parents and relatives as is the case now'" (Allman, 199-200). Women's uncontrollability had grown too large for the men not to act. The chiefs felt as if their respect by women and the colonial government would diminish if they could not control their own women.
The Asante women fought back because they wanted exclusive authority of their productive and reproductive rights. Women were angry, rightfully so, at the fact that men no longer provided them "chop money." Also, when slavery was abolished, men began pawning their wives and exploiting them for use on their cocoa farms. The women became so enraged at their subjugation by men, that they reacted, successfully. Allman affirms that these women were successful when she says that "this particular form of coercion was unsuccessful in even minimally facilitating the exploitation of women's unpaid labour and one important reason for its failure was that the capture of unmarried women did not get the backing of the colonial government" (Allman, 212). In this particular instance, women were able to "shape actively the emerging colonial world" (Allman, 213). The only thing that the chiefs succeeded in doing was making the arrest of women a profit-making venture; because every time a woman was released from jail, she or the man had to pay the fine. Unfortunately, this was not their goal, so they were ultimately unsuccessful. Women's productive and reproductive rights remained under their control.

Women In Combat

The idea of women in combat is not unusual anymore. They should be able to hold combat positions beacause although physical strength matters, the military still needs the intelligence that women can bring. Also, banning women from the combat hurts their military careers. Although women account for only ten percent of the enlisted personnel they are still a major part in the armed forces. Their performance recently has generated support from Congress and the public for enhancing the role of females in the military.

During the Persian Gulf War, women were sent to the Middle East to fly helicopters, service combat jets, refuel tankers, and load laser-guided bombs. Their performance has led the world to realize that women are extremely useful in combat. Defense secretary Dick Chaney said "Women have made a major contribution to this war effort. We could not have won without them." Leaders in the field agreed. The Gulf War had the largest deployment of women in the armed forces in history. These women encountered the same risks as the men they served with.

In the Persian Gulf, there were no exact positions and all areas were equally vulnerable, so the idea of safe havens for women was not really applicable. By many armed forces policies, females are banned from combat jobs and units, but in the Persian Gulf War females were assigned to battleships, aircraft carriers, and marine support groups dug into the desert. From their experience in the Persian Gulf, military women have earned the right to be treated as equals with men and not as protected individuals.

In spite of their record as able combat personnel, there are laws and policies that restrict women in the United States Military from serving in positions that require them to engage in direct combat. Women in the Air Force and Navy are barred from aircraft and vessels that have a chance to be exposed to combat. The official, established policies of the Army and Marine Corps exclude women from combat. These policies prohibit women, on the basis of gender only, from over twelve percent of the skill positions and thirty-nine percent of the total positions offered by the Department of Defense. Such policies excluding women from combat need to be repealed by Congress. The Fourteenth Amendment's "Equal Protection Clause" insures every citizen "the equal protection of the laws." Although the clause is not applicable to Federal government, the Supreme Court said the Due Process Clause in the Fifth Amendment prohibits the federal government from making unreasonable classifications. Therefore the set laws and policies that exclude women from combat not only violate the Fifth Amendment, but also deny women their fundamental right to engage and excel in their chosen occupation.

There have been many court cases involving women in combat over the years, although there has never been a case directly challenging the constitutionality laws and regulations banning women from combat. In the case of Frontiero vs. Richardson, the court rejected the idea that "man is, or should be, woman's protector or defender," which in actuality, put women not on a pedestal, but in a cage. In Satty vs. Nashville Gas Co., the decision stated that gender does not determine who is able to perform capably as a soldier. In the case of Schlesinger vs. Ballard, it was realized by the Supreme Court that the combat exclusion hinders the abilities of women to gain the experience needed for promotion within the military. The combat exclusion puts women wishing to obtain qualification for high-level positions at a disadvantage, because leadership training is usually acquired in combat-type positions.

Although many females are not eager to go into combat, there are women who can and want to do the job. In a time where technology takes over battle lines and brains might be more important than brawn, a reason to exclude women is non-existant.

Women in Society

Women in all careers are striving to gain equality in the work force today, and female television news anchors are definitely part of the fight. The road to television news anchoring is a rocky one, where only a few women survive and many fail. Where progress was once thought to have been made, there aren't many females getting ahead in the world of television news. Today, there is a very slow, if any, gain in the numbers of women who succeed.
There are many questions surrounding the subject of women in television news, and I will attempt to answer relevant ones in this paper. How have the women that
actually make it to the top and succeed as anchorwomen, done it? What does it take to make it? Why do those few endure it/enjoy it? Why has it been and still is
difficult for women? What are the expectations of women in the field, as opposed to the expectations of men?
I am interested in this topic because I once aspired to become a television broadcaster. I still have inspiration in me, but not quite as much due to the
negative and discouraging aspects I have heard about in classes and in the media. I am not sure that I could be happy in a career such as this, and I know there are great difficulties in "making it" in this profession. I have read about the incredible ambition of successful females in television news, and it seems like it takes a special kind of passion to want to keep up in the business.
I kept my questions in mind when gathering research material. While focusing on the key questions, I was able to find information that led me to form answers to them. Christine Craft's biography told of her individual experience of being fired on the basis of her looks and her age. I realized from reading her story that she had a
"nose for news", a passion for telling it to the world, and a unique spark that made her a good journalist, yet those qualities weren't enough in her case. She took that
passion and spark, filed a sexual discrimination case and won. Hard News: Women in Broadcast Journalism had a few chapters that were relevant to today, and I could draw on some information for my paper. However, much of the information was historical and not helpful to answering my questions.
Battling for News concentrated mainly on print
journalism. There was material about the first women in
broadcasting in the 1950's and how they were hired and
fired.
Television News Anchors had very helpful information,
in that there were individual stories from anchorwomen
telling of their experiences. This provided stories about
the women who have succeeded within the field--why and
how. There was a round table discussion conducted by The
New Mother Jones magazine with television newswomen Linda
Ellerbee, Marion Goldin, Ann Rubenstein, and Meredith
Vieira. This provided first-hand opinions about what these
women see going on in the business.
Women in Television News was published in 1976, and
thus, much of the information was outdated. However, I
was able to use some quotes from newswomen about what they
believe one must do to "make it" in broadcast journalism.
I also found some interesting quotes from a former vice
president of ABC News regarding women in the industry.
Waiting for Prime Time had valuable information about
Marlene Sander's experience and opinions of other
anchorwomen and men. It covered possibilities for the
future of women in broadcasting.
Pamela Creedon's two books were helpful in that they
discussed topics of sexual discrimination in broadcast
journalism and included a chapter by Marlene Sanders,
titled "The Face of the Network News is Male." Here she
attempted to tackle some problems women in television news
face: what the problems are, why they exist, and a bit
about what needs to be done to cure these problems.
Liesbet van Zoonen's book included a chapter titled
"Media Production and the Encoding of Gender." It showed
how society views women in the media. The expectations of
female anchorwomen in part stems from the overall view of
women on television--whether it be in a movie, music
video, or soap opera. This was relevant to my paper in
answering the question of why there are certain
expectations of women in television news.
The textbook, Gender, Race and Class in Media had a
few chapters relevant to my paper. Larry Gross wrote a
chapter titled, "Out of the Mainstream: Sexual Minorities
and Mass Media." He discussed various stereotypes in our
society that lead to stereotypes in all areas of our
lives.
I found some of my sources from Oasis, and also used
a couple of magazine articles that were relevant to the
subject. I focused on the questions that I wanted to
answer and drew points from the material that were
relevant and provided substantial evidence to answer my
questions. I found that opinions and thoughts of women
who had been through the business were most helpful.
There was one big limitation I faced if I wanted to
prove that women in television news were discriminated
upon based on sex and age. Women have been fired from
their anchor positions, and it has seemed that the reasons
were because of looks or aging. But this is hard to
prove. In August, Carol Schrader, a woman anchor from
KETV-TV in Omaha, Nebraska was asked to leave. She said
that it was because of her age, although her bosses didn't
say that was the reason, stating that she wasn't doing her
job. She was replace by a young, blond woman. Also, when
Marlene Sanders was asked to leave ABC, instead of saying
point-blank that she was too old, her boss told her she
had outgrown the profession. Lynn Sherr of ABC News was
also fired, and she believed it was because of her
appearance, as no one told her why she lost her job. It
isn't a proven fact that every case of a woman getting
fired from their professions were fired because of their
age.
The number of women news anchors is scarce. Only a
few succeed, and the reason for this is because what is
expected of them is much greater than what is expected of
men. Women must work twice as hard, be twice as
beautiful, and go above and beyond their abilities. The
television broadcasting business is dominated by males,
and, in turn, males have the majority of the power.
Positive steps have been taken by women, but they are
still far from being equal in the field. Advances are not
being made quickly.
Some men in the world of television news say that
women do have a tougher time. Larry King had this to say:

I know that if I were "Loretta" King instead of
"Larry" King I would be nowhere near where I am
today. I would not have had a national radio
talk show in 1978, a national cable show of my
own, and a national column if I had started out
being the "wrong" gender (Craft 1988, p. 6).
Al Ittleson, former vice-president of ABC News, says
that physical appearance is important for both male and
female broadcasters, but emphasizes the importance of a
woman broadcaster's looks:

Women are supposed to be beautiful. People
anticipate what a woman is supposed to look
like, so when they come to television-I haven't
seen an unattractive woman on television yet...
In fact, they're hired, I would say, probably
more because of the way they look and their image
than because of their background. A man with a
very strong journalism background and a man who
has broken stories...can get away with a little
bit of homeliness. Men aren't supposed to be
attractive. Women have a tougher time (Gelfman
1976, p. 53).
Our society pins importance upon women's looks.
They are required to retain qualities of femininity, yet
must also be professional. van Zoonen explains the
different expectations of men and women in journalism,
saying, "one must assume 'femininity' as a feature of
female journalists and 'masculinity' as a different
characteristic of male journalists" (van Zoonen 1994, p.
63). The images that are instilled in society are
carried over into all aspects of life, and are prevalent
in television news.
Just as our society is dominated by white, middle and
upper-middle class males, it is so in most professions.
The men are the bosses in television news, and this has
made it difficult for women to gain prestige. The men
place expectations upon the women, and punish them if they
aren't exactly what they want.
One good example of a case where a woman news anchor
was fired on the basis of her looks is Christine Craft.
Craft was discriminated against because of her sex,
appearance, and age. She was fired from KMBC in Kansas
City and told, "You don't hide your intelligence to make
guys look smarter" (Craft 1988, p. 66). Along with this,
she was fired because she was "too old, too unattractive,
and not sufficiently deferential to men" (Craft 1988, p.
66). Because her boss directly told her these things, she
felt she had been sexually discriminated against. She won
two court cases, winning a total of $600,000 in damages.
Craft's case opened the eyes of many anchorwomen, as
well as others in the media and elsewhere. Here is a
talented, competent broadcast journalist who was unfairly
treated and took a stand. She comments on her experience,
"The men could be balding, jowly, bespectacled, even fat
and encased in double-knit, yet the women had to be
flawless. Moreover, there was the expectation that I
should pretend not to know certain facts just because I
was a woman" (Craft 1988, p. 10).
What is disturbing about Craft's case is that it is
so blatantly obvious that she lost her job on the basis of
being a woman, being too old, and not being pretty enough.
At the time, out of all the anchors in the country who
were over 40, men made up ninety-seven percent of that,
with three percent being women who did not look their age.
Marlene Sanders writes that what is seen in Craft's case
is "that wrinkles are 'seasoning' in a man but
'disqualification' in a woman," and that while this may
not be sexual discrimination, "it is a sad statement about
how women are viewed in our society" (Sanders and Rock
1988, p. 148).
The world of television news is an unstable one,
where women take chances, not knowing if or how long they
can thrive in the business. Marlene Sanders puts it
plainly, "The message is clear; we can all be replaced.
There are no guarantees of longevity, and no obvious
destination where news professionals can translate their
experience and knowledge into new and satisfying careers"
(Sanders and Rock 1988, p. 205).
Before she took the job at KMBC in Kansas City, Craft
was working at a smaller station in Santa Barbara, where
she had a positive experience. She says, "I was content
to be in a place where the emphasis was on getting the
stories and getting them right. Only once did management
mention my appearance, and that was to tell me to pull my
hair back a bit" (Craft 1988, p. 28).
Craft was attracted to the Kansas City station in a
larger market. However, she made clear before taking the
job that first and foremost she did not want to change her
appearance. They promised her it wouldn't happen, yet
within the first week they had a beauty consultant piling
the make-up onto her face.
Sexual discrimination is evident in television news.
KMBC practically begged Christine Craft to come to their
station. "Women are rewarded more than men for changing
news shops often or for moving to larger markets more
because of their gender than because of their journalistic
qualifications" (Creedon: Smith, Fredin, Ferguson Nardone
1993, p. 174).
During the first trial, a former news producer at
KMBC, Sherry Chastain, testified, saying that her bosses
"instructed her to monitor the appearance of female
anchors and reporters, but never males...the male
counterpart was bald with a bad toupee and thick glasses,
yet nothing was ever mentioned about monitoring his
appearance" (Craft 1988, p. 118).
Diane Sawyer says that equal pay for equal work is a
more serious issue than aging on the air. The reason this
is such a difficult challenge is because the number of
women on a news staff, as well as their ages can be easily
established. However, salaries tend to be confidential,
and the dollar value of experience and other
qualifications are hard to determine. Therefore, while it
is possible that aging may not be a major issue for women
broadcasters ten years from now, equal pay for equal work
will most likely linger on (Hosley and Yamada 1987, p.
152-154).
Some of the blame for all anchorwomen's problems were
voiced by cynical male television executives in the
1980's. Jon Katz, former executive director of CBS
Morning News, tells of another executive who had a way of
deciding which women to interview for anchor positions.
He would look at their tapes in the VCR for eight seconds
and he would ask himself, "Do I want to fuck them?" This
was his basis in deciding who to hire (Katz 1995, p. 158).
Catherine Crier experienced tinges of sexism at CNN.
A former lawyer and judge, she was criticized for being
just another pretty face entering the field of
broadcasting. She had no previous experience in
journalism, yet her political experience provided the
skills and knowledge necessary to succeed. She says,
"Journalists couched their reaction in terms of experience
and background, but those same journalists have failed to
voice similar criticisms of Pierre Salinger of Bill
Moyers, two men who jumped from politics into broadcast
news" (Fensch: McHargue 1993, p. 182). Crier says that
the gains of women in television news is being made very
slowly, and that "it is still a frustration for most
women" (Fensch: McHargue 1993, p. 184).
Jane Pauley is an exception to the negativity women
broadcasters often receive. The public loves her. "It is
precisely because Pauley is so down-to-earth and
easy-going that Americans loved waking up with her"
(Fensch: Holloway 1993, p. 249). She possesses the
feminine quality that is appealing to the mass audience.
She was replaced by Deborah Norville, a younger, blonder
woman on the Today show, and viewers were upset to see her
go. Now she is a success on NBC Nightly News.
There are certain qualities a woman needs to have in
order to be able to survive in television news. Ann
Rubenstein of NBC Nightly News says, "You must really
decide for yourself what you're going to do and not do.
And what price you are willing to pay for whatever they're
offering" (Fensch: Orenstein 1993, p. 128).
Hard work and undying ambition are important
qualities of anchorwomen. Mary Alice Williams, of CNN and
NBC, gave it her all the first day she went to work for
NBC, "appearing on camera, as an anchor of the evening
news breaks, and by the end of her first three weeks she
had anchored every network news show" (Fensch: White 1993,
p. 289).
A passion for telling the news is important, and is
one reason why the successful women stay in the field.
Diane Sawyer explains,

"I really love what you learn every day in the
business. I love the breathtaking way we walk
into people's lives and ask them anything we
want and then leave. For a moment you have
available to you the whole universe of a person's
life-the pain and the suffering and the joy and
the struggle. You can learn from it and take
it with you and then come back the next day
with somebody else. That's what I like to do"
(Fensch: Zoglin 1993, p. 278).
Sawyer's never-ending ambition carried her from news
correspondent to network star. While working for CBS
Morning News and covering the negotiations to free Iran
hostages, she "would sleep all night on two secretarial
chairs so I could get up at 4 a.m., stalk the halls and
see what I could get" (Fensch: Zoglin 1993, p. 284).
The will to endure any obstacles and believe in
themselves keeps the few successful anchorwomen going.
Sally Quinn, CBS anchorwoman says

You've got to have self-confidence. If I didn't
have an enormous amount of self-confidence, I
would have been destroyed by this whole
experience...You can't learn to be a perfect
anchorwoman in one day, and I knew that I wasn't
going to be perfect and that people were just
going to crucify me because I wasn't perfect"
(Gelfman 1976, p. 75).
Michael Gartner, NBC News president, explains what is
important in television news anchoring. "You have to have
a special combination of person to be the focal point of a
successful show. You have to be a good journalist, and
you have to be able to deliver the message-which a print
person doesn't have to do-in person, in somebody's house"
(Fensch: Zoglin 1993, p. 281).
Barbara Walters is an exception to the rule that
older women do not succeed in television news. She is a
successful television newswoman who is well over the age
of 40. Even she had to take the hard road to make it to
the top, starting out as a secretary at a small
advertising agency, working in public relations and then
in public affairs for CBS. Walters recognizes the tough
times women in television news face. She says

You have to work harder. It's been said before,
but it's true. You are taken less seriously and
you are very often scorned by your own co-workers
...it's a tougher job for a woman because a woman
has to be awfully good. She really does. A man
can be much more excused" (Gelfman 1976, p. 88).

Women are not rising to the top quickly in television
news, although there is slow improvement, and anchormen
say they are fine with the idea of women at the top.
Walter Cronkite says of a woman anchor in the future,
"Fine, why not? I think it likely...I think by the time
the next change comes, the next generation of anchor
people, I would think that the barrier would be down and
that women would have as good a chance as men" (Sanders
and Rock 1988, p. 198).
Yet there are still roadblocks standing in the way of
women striving to make it to the top. They begin at
low-level jobs, such as researchers and logistics persons
and hope to take the right paths to get to the top of the
ladder. Sanders writes, "For years there were few women
above the level of researcher. While that has changed,
the amount of frustration for those who do not move ahead
has driven many people out of the business altogether"
(Sanders and Rock 1988, p. 198-199).
Lesley Stahl of CBS News points out that anchorwomen
are most often workaholics, with a never-ending drive to
do their job. She says

It's one reason we do succeed in this business.
We just give it everything...Maybe it's because
our kind of personalities are attracted to this
industry, compulsive, deadline-oriented people
who keep pushing ourselves to see how much work
we can do. We love work...It's not just a symptom
in the early stage, it goes on" (Sanders and Rock
1988, p. 81).

Society's expectations of female news anchors is very
much like that of any woman in a powerful and successful
career. While the women must portray a glamorous, yet
friendly image, expectations of men in the business are
not near as high. Jon Katz says in his article

The men who anchor today look, dress, and act
almost precisely the same way they did 50 years
ago. They only have to reflect a single trait
to succeed-gravitas. They wouldn't dream of
being intimate, glamorous, or coy. Nor would
anyone expect that of them" (Katz 1995, p. 162).
Katz goes on to say that men who make it in the
business usually never fail. He says of anchormen, "Old
anchors never fade away. And they can't be killed by
mortal means" (Katz 1995, p. 164).
Sadly, forward movements aren't apparent today by
women in television news. Forty years ago, a female
gaining the anchor position on the evening news was a leap
forward. Today "it feels more like a step backward, an
attempt to stuff accomplished, contemporary women into an
ill-fitting straightjacket" (Katz 1995, p. 164).
It is apparent that women news anchors face many more
struggles than men in the field. It takes a unique
individual to fight through those struggles and strive for
what they want most: to relay news throughout the world.
Equality with men is far from being reached, but a few
females have stood their ground and hopefully made a
difference for others that follow. If people open their
eyes and realize there are plenty of women who are just
as, if not more, competent than men at holding an anchor
position, women could gain respect within the field. For
now, the few women who find success and are willing to
endure the hardships that come along will likely survive
in the business, at least until age hinders their physical
appearance.

Women In The Labour Force

The past decades their has been a dramatic increase of women participating in the labour force from countries all over the world including Canada. In 1950, one Canadian worker in five was a woman. By 1980 this percentage had doubled, and women are expected to make up more than 44 percent of the labour force by the end of this century.
The increase in female participation started occurring
during the 1970's. This increase also caused the largest baby
boom that the Canadian female labour force had ever witnessed.
In North America it is common for women to have part-time or
summer jobs, and the participation rate of teenage girls is high.
It is also mostly high throughout the world in places as United
Kingdom because of the fewer women going to school. But in
places like France, Italy, and Japan the female participation
rate is very low. In most of the countries the labour force is
most participated in the age groups between 20 and 24. The
labour force of mature women is very high in Sweden, because of
the encouraged day care facilities which also provides the
females with legislation that provides them with excellent
benefits. In Japan there is a drop in female economic activity,
the reason why is it affects their marriage and the care of their
only child.
An observation of labour force participation rates in Canada
show that female rates rose a lot between 1971 and 1981, while
the male rate rose unnoticeably. The increase in the female
participation rate was found in all age groups except in older
women. For women aged 15 to 19 the rate was as almost as high as
the men. But the largest increase was in the age group of 25-44
years old, where the rate rose almost 50 percent. This meant
that the participation rates of the females had become more alike
with the men.
Family status also influenced the female participation rate
but later on during 1981 it had a more less affect than in 1971.
According to statistics just over one quarter of married women
with young children were working, but this later changed and grew
by 76 percent over the a 10 year period of time. The rate also
showed an increase of 47 percent for widowed, divorced, and
separated women with children. However single women with young
children showed a slight decrease. However the female
participation rate is not so much related to family status as
today as it was many years ago.
During the period of 1971 through 1981 the involvement of
married women went through a major change. Fewer women saw
marriage as a reason to interrupt their participation in the job
force, and couple tended to postpone having children or not
having any at all. While women with young children tended to
participate less in the labour market and quit their jobs more
frequently than men. Females did the exact opposite of what men
did when they had children while working, and in some cases were
actually more stable than men without children. This showed
that the couples attitude towards having children influenced a
decrease in the female labour force participation rate.
In 1981 most women spent an average of 1,247 hours a year
working, compared with 1,431 hours in 1971 which had dropped
about 15 percent. Even men saw their average hours decrease by
13 percent. Not only more women were working, more were working
part-tim for only part of the year which meant more women on the
unemployment rolls. In the 1960's the unemployment rate for
females was 3 percent and ten years later increased to 7 percent.
Since june 1982 the unemployment rate for men was 11-13 percent
and the women's just above that rate which could also exceed that
of the men near the end of the century. Only about 11 percent of
women had part-time jobs because they couldn't find full-time
employment or because they wished to spend more time to their
education or their families, or for other reasons. Although 24
percent of the women working part-time would have preferred a
full-time job if it had been available.
According to the Statistics Canada study, in 1970 women were
extremely poorly paid which showed a big earnings difference than
the men. This started changing in the 1970's which rose the
females earning to 51.2 percent of that of a man. Ten years
later it had reached 54.4 percent. If it wasn't for the decrease
in annual hours for the females the earnings difference would
have been reduced even further. By 1980 the females earnings had
risen to 72 percent of that of a man.
The female labour force would be incomplete without equal
pay for equal or equivalent work. This issue was the most
important issue to women in low-paid jobs. If the principal of
equal pay for equal work were fully applied men and women would
both receive the same hourly wage which would raise female
earnings dramatically. The issue of equal pay for equal work
most often comes up in discussion to improve the economic status
of the women at the bottom of the payroll, many of them who are
not in unions.
When women first started entering the labour force they were
hassled by the males because they were supposed to traditional
work in the house and take care of the family. Which was the
reason of their low wages to disapprove of women working. This
traditions reflected their wages and the positions people were
willing to offer to women. Working women experience problems
such as sexual harassment and being fired because of pregnancy.
Most of the people want to correct the unequal treatment of
women in the work force and make it equal for everyone. Some of
the methods which can be used to support equality is to introduce
a federal legislation to guarantee equal pay for equal work. To
also set wages according to the value of the work done by the
employer. Which would be difficult to measure the value of one
person's work compared to another persons. We could also offer
women better benefits and a better pension when they retire their
job.
Peoples attitudes towards women in the work force are slowly
starting to change and more opportunities for women are being
available for them. The unequal treatment of working women will
take years to change and will always stay an important issue.


Books Author
In Her Own Right Six Point View
To See Ourselves "unknown"
The Law Is Not For Women "unknown"
Equal Status For Women In Canada In th 1990's "unknown"
Women And The Constitution Micheline Carrier
Women At Home "unknown"
Changing Economic Status Of Women Jac-Andre Boulet

Women on the Street

Have you ever rushed down the street and felt that nagging feeling of guilt, as you breeze by someone lying in a doorway? Is she alive? Is she ill? Why do we all rush by without finding out is she's all right?
People sit in train stations, bus stations, parks, doorways,
unmistakably sick, with what, we don't know. All are seemingly alone.
Some beg. Some don't. Some have open sores that ooze and bleed.
Some are drunk. Some talk to themselves or formless others. They have
no homes.
Street people make up a small percentage of the homeless population. Most homeless people blend into the daily flow of urban life. Many families are homeless. Many babies go from the hospital into the shelter system, never knowing what it is like to go home. Women are another subgroup of the homeless.
Solutions to homelessness are not easily found. But before we can
solve problems, we must be sensitive enough that we create the will to find
the solutions. Often if we do not feel the problem, if some emotional
response is not made, we are not moved to seek solutions. We are often
unmoved to even recognize the questions. We cannot afford to keep
walking by.
"Work is a fundamental condition of human existence," said Karl Marx.
In punch-the-clock and briefcase societies no less than in agricultural or
hunting and gathering societies, it is the organization of work that makes life
in communities possible. Individual life as well as social life is closely tied to
work. In wage labored societies, and perhaps in every other as well, much
of an individual's identity is tied to their job. For most people jobs are a
principal source of both independence and correctness to others. It should
come as no surprise that, in the work force or out, work and jobs are
important in the lives of homeless women.
There are women who want to work and do, and women who want to
work and do not. There are women who cannot work and others who
should not work and still others who do not want to work. Some work
regularly, some intermittently; some work part-time, some full-time; and
there are even those who work two jobs. At any given moment, there is a lot
of job-searching, job losing, job changing, and job avoidance. Within
months or even weeks, these may all appear in the same person.
The process is almost routine. A homeless woman registers with an
unemployment agency. Since there is no way for them to call her when a
job comes up she calls them - three, four times a day. By the third day they
usually tell her, "Don't call us, we'll call you." If she confesses there is no
way to reach her, they lose interest. Although since 1985, the shelters help
reach people.
Several women reported losing their jobs or the opportunity to get
them when their homelessness became known. One women had been
working as a receptionist in a doctor's office for several weeks when the
doctor learned she was living in a shelter and fired her. The doctor told her
if he'd known he wouldn't have hired her, shelters are places of disease.
The jobs homeless women can get do not pay enough to enable them
to support themselves. But, the women desperately want and need the
money, the independence, and the self respect that most of us have come
to take for granted from a job. But, for women to get a job and keep it, the
women must run an obstacle course at the end of which is a low-pay, low-
status job that offers a little more than they have without it. The women -
perfectly socialized to the values of work - continue to value work for what
they know their jobs cannot provide. Even with the starts and stops, and the
periodic surrenders to a workers shelter life.
There is an importance and complex connection between family
relationships and homelessness. For the never-married women, "family",
usually meant family of orientation - the families they were born into. For
women with children, "family", included family of procreation - their
husbands and children. Perhaps predictably, mothers and sisters were
more likely to be sources of support than fathers and brothers. Homeless
women had not always been families. Like everyone else, they were born
into families or family-like networks of human relationships. On the street
and in the shelters, one meets many homeless women who had been kept
afloat by family members until, for one reason or another, the family had to
let go. For most women, living with relatives or receiving significant financial
or other support form them was the last stage in their descent into
homelessness. Peter Rossi reports that "the time elapsed since last being
employed is much longer than the time homeless." (Ferrill 123). From this
is properly inferred that while they were unemployed, even for years at a
time, they now homeless persons "managed to stay in homes mainly
through the generosity of family and perhaps friends." (Ferrill 123).
This is an ongoing process and many people continue to avoid
homelessness through the support of family members. Of course, we do
not know how many about-to-be-homeless there are, but it is reasonable to
suppose that they far out number the "real " homeless. In New York City, it
has been estimated that the doubled-up families in public housing
outnumbered the officially homeless by 20 to 1. (Ferrill 125).
Shelters are dynamic social systems whose moods are in constant
movement. If, for a moment, the system appears to be in a steady state, it
is a balance of forces rather than a state of rest. The forces are many.
They operate at different directions. At the individual level, personalities
clash and personalities mesh, producing smaller groups within the system.
Some forces enhance group solidarity, some of which work against it, and
some of which can go either way.
It is unlikely that the staff people and shelter rules by themselves could
have contained the explosive forces of racial animosity, social class
differences, competition for resources, overcrowding, individuals who were
not always in control of their actions, and individuals who wanted to
disassociate themselves from the group. but came against these forces,
and born mainly out of shared homelessness and common needs, was a
powerful impulse to group cohesion and solidarity. Most of the time, the
impulse to solidarity was strong enough to hold the negative forces in check,
there by providing the minimum of peace and good order that made social
life possible. On many evenings, as the women came together in the
shelter, there was sufficient good feeling and fellow feelings, when coupled
with their common needs and circumstances, to allow a sense of community
to sputter into life. For most women, the loneliness of their homeless state
was a terrible burden to bear; this fragile bit of community, however small,
was precious indeed.
"Homelessness is the sum total of our dreams, policies, intentions,
errors, omissions, cruelties, kindness, all of it recorded, in the flesh, in the
life of the streets." (Marin 41).

Womens Right to Vote

The women's suffrage movement began in 1848 when a group of women met in Seneca Falls New York. These women issued what became known as the Declaration of Sentiments and Resolution s, and 11 pt. document outlining the demand for equal rights.
Al of the articles of the Declaration passed except for the right to vote. It was widely believed at that time, that women were both physically and mentally inferior to men, and therefore should not have the right to vote. The Seneca Falls convention was organized by a group of women who had been active in the antislavery movement. When they were rejected as delegates to an abolitionist convention because of their sex, they vowed to turn their attention to women's rights. This convention attracted lots of attention from the press, mostly negative. One of the organizers, Elizabeth cady Stanton, welcomed even the negative attention. She said "It might start women thinking; and men to; when men and women think about a new question they the first step is taken.Because of their involvement in the abolitionist movement, women had learned to organize, to hold public meetings, and conduct petition campaigns. As abolitionists, women first won the right to speak in public, and they began to evolve a philosophy of their own place in society. When the 15th amendment, which gave black men the power to vote, was passed women became furious. Julia Ward Howe said "For the first time, we saw... every Negro man govern every white woman. This seemed to me intollerable tyranny."
After the fifteenth amendment was passed, the women's suffrage movement
turned its attention towards gaining the right to vote state by state. Susan B. Anthony, a
leader in the movement, met a wealthy businessman named George Francis Train while
campaigning in Kansas. He offered her the money to launch a suffrage newspaper. In
return he would be allowed to write a column about economics. Thus the Revolution was
born. It's motto was "Men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and
nothing less."
Lucy Stone and a group of conservative suffragists broke away from Anthony's
National Woman's suffrage Association and founded the American Woman Suffrage
Association. The NWSA attracted younger and more radical women who worked for a
constitutional amendment to get the vote. The AWSA directed its efforts toward getting
states to give women the right to vote. Anthony believed that this would take to long and
tried to the the courts to declare that voting is the right of all citizens. She based this
belief on the fact that the 14th amendment made women citizens. In 1872 she went to the
polls and cast her ballet for president. Two weeks later she was arrested for voting
illegally. Virginia Minor, a friend of Anthony's and president of the Missouri Woman
Suffrage Association, tried to vote in 1872. The election registers refused to let her cast
her ballet, so she brought a suit against them. She claimed that they had interfered with
her right as a citizen to vote. The Supreme court ruled that the Constitution "does not
confer the right of suffrage upon anyone, and that the constitutions and laws of several
states which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void." meaning
that the Constitution does not give the right to vote to everyone and that the constitutions
and laws of the states that only allow men to vote are not necessarily invalid.
In 1878 Senator Aaron Sargent of California finally introduced the proposed the
Sixteenth amendment which many people called the Anthony Amendment. This
amendment stated "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex." This amendment remained
unchanged and unpassed for fourty-two years even though both the House and Senate
committees favored it. Some argued that the amendment would destroy homes and break
up families. Others argued that the vote would degrade women. Senator George C. Vest
explained why he felt this way, "It would take her down from that pedestal where she is
today, influencing by her gentle and kindly caress the actiuon of her husband towards the
good and the pure."
Meanwhile none of the dire consequences predicted by the antisuffragists had
occured in the few states where women voted. In 1869 the Wyoming Territory adopted a
constitution granting both men and women the right to vote. When they asked to join the
union they were pressured to banish the women's right to vote. Wyoming stood firm and
even adopted the motto "America will be a better place to live when women go to the
polls." Until the early 1900's , only a few states, all of them western, had granted women
the right to vote. By this time the two organizations had merged to form the National
American Woman Suffrage Association.
On June 4, 1919 women were finally granted the right to vote. Congress ratified
the 19th amendment to the Constitution which stated that no citizen could be denied the
right to vote "on account of sex". This victory was not only for women, but for
democracy and the principle of equality upon which our great nation was founded.

Woodrow Wilson and His Ability To be an Effective President

During Woodrow Wilson's two terms in office he showed to be a great democratic leader in many areas. He managed to accomplish a lot, despite his poor health that he had to deal with since his childhood. Wilson always had a strong interest in government and was always looking for changes and improvements. As president he was never afraid to show a bit of a radical side when it came to making changes. He was constantly pushing for world peace and the avoidance of World War I. Even though he was unsuccessful in avoiding the war he showed to be a great leader during it. He never gave up on anything he was trying to do. His last years of his life were dedicated to convincing the U.S. to join his League of Nations.

Woodrow Wilson was born December 28, 1856. Through his childhood he was often sick. This did not keep him from building an interest in education. His father and him would read out loud to each other and discuss the books. If they were not reading often the two would sit and talk about recent events. He later moved onto college and studied American and British political history, public speaking, and law. After college he set up a law practice with Edward Renick. Because he had not learned the field of law thorough while in school, he showed a poor ability to be a lawyer. During this time he was in and out of sickness.


( 2 )

Wilson did not really want to be a lawyer. His main area of interest was in politics. His first taste of politics was during his term as Governor of New Jersey. He took this seat in office with sites of presidency two years later. He let this be known in a
letter he wrote to a friend in June of 1910. In the letter he said this "It is immediately, as you know, the question of my nomination for the governorship of New Jersey; but that it is the mere preliminary of a plan to nominate me in 1912 for presidency."(Encarta 5).

During his years as governor he showed that he could change his political attitudes. He learned to be a little more patient with other people. Before he found it "very difficult to work with people who opposed him, and was not receptive to the suggestions of friends who approved his ideals but trusted in slower or modified processes"(Encarta 4). This was shown more during his time of presidency at Princeton University. Wilson's more conservative student body and faculty showed a dislike towards his radical ideas. They did not like the ideas of changing the teaching style and living style. Because of this many of his ideas were turned down.

When he first became president he pushed for equality of opportunity for all men, no matter if they were rich or poor (Collier's 509). He presented many new proposals to congress and often he presented these new proposals in person. Wilson also created new agencies such as the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Trade Commission. He was also responsible for the ratification of the 18th Amendment. In 1920 during his second

( 3 )

term, he passed the 19th Amendment which allowed women to vote. During this time he was also pressured by the southerners to allow segregation in Washington D.C. He said that this would be in the best interests of the blacks.

Woodrow Wilson did how ever show weaknesses during his presidency. During World War I he often took his time in making decisions. He wanted to make sure that there wasn't any other way to avoid the war. This was good that he was looking out after the interest of the country, but it could also have made the war worse. Wilson also was thought to be a weak president by ex-president Roosevelt (Encarta 6). During Roosevelt's time in office he helped Panama succeed from Colombia in return for rights to build the Panama Canal through their country. He thought it was very unnecessary to apologies to Colombia for helping the succession of Panama. Roosevelt believed that it showed Wilson's weaker side.

Wilson did show a strong side in one area, world peace. All through his first term he aimed to prevent World War I. This was the war that was known as "the ware that would end all wars". He kept the U.S. neutral and often visited other countries trying to get them to agree on peace. Keeping the U.S. out of war was a great accomplishment and helped him win the 1916 election. But during his second term he found that he could not avoid the war any longer. The German's had said that they would attack any ship at sea.



( 4 )


It was only a matter of time until the German's attacked a passenger boat carrying war weapons. In this sinking 1100 civilians died, and in that eleven hundred 128 were
Americans. Even though he believed war was wrong he could not let his personal feelings influence his decisions. He knew that this is what America had to do, and with this decision he addressed the people and gave his sympathies out to the families who had son's going to war (Collier's 510). On April 2, 1917 the United States went to war.

The U.S. was not involved in the war that long on November 11, 1918 peace was signed and the war was over. The president was quite happy with this and presented a proposal that would help prevent war in the future. This proposal was called Wilson's 14 Points. In these 14 points he suggests that a League of Nations be formed. The League of Nations would have members from several countries come together and discuss problems in the world. Many countries liked the idea of a group who would try and prevent wars from happening. Wilson pushed the United States to join but because congress did not want to get involved in current affairs, they did not. Not giving up Wilson set out across the U.S. to tell everyone about the League of Nations and his 14 points. During this time he fought sickness, his wife continuously begged him to not travel anymore and to go home and rest. But despite his poor health he continued to travel America letting everyone learn more about the League of Nations. Soon though his health finally diminished so badly that he went back to Washington. After a few days he seemed to be okay, but then he passed out. When he came back around he was


( 5 )


paralyzed. He remained in bed for half a year. When he finally became well again it was too late, his health was to poor and he had become to weak. People did not see
Wilson as the same man he used to be he was weak mentally and physically. He fell into his last illness and died February 3, 1924.

Wilson was a very good leader during his terms of presidency. He showed great enthusiasm to stay out of the war and to create world peace. He showed that he cared for the people and that he would do just about anything to help them. Wilson learned to except other peoples opinions and to be open to new ideas from others. Even though war was not avoided he learned much from the experience and helped to create the League of Nations. With the creation of the League of Nations the United Nations was formed to take it's place. Wilson helped to create many new amendments, policies and agencies. All of his idea's were strong and even though some of them did work out, they helped to created stepping-stones for the presidents that followed. Without Woodrow Wilson we may not be the country that we are today.