Turn on thread page Beta

Edexcel AS History Unit 2 Wednesday 22nd May 2013 watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by A193)
    Thanks,
    Usually when I do 40 mark essays I get around 34-35/40 when I get it marked by my teacher, however occasionally the parts of my own knowledge I add isn't there on the mark scheme, but is relevant and fits in with the time period and my teacher says that examiners like that.... Is this true or is my teacher being too generous when it comes to marking (usually around 14/16 for sources and 21/24 for knowledge)
    Mark schemes can't fit in all possible approaches or knowledge which can be linked to what's in the sources, nor can examiners know everything. If you have own knowledge which fits, use it. Whether it is or isn't on the mark scheme is irrelevant - it's more of a general guide as well imo.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by catherine95)
    ....
    I've taken into account what you have said and I hope you'll find my next response a bit more evaluative, its on the suffrage question so its generally more easier to write about .

    Spoiler:
    Show

    Do you agree with the view that the suffrage movement made substantial progress in the first decade of the twentieth century?

    I do not agree the view that the suffrage movement made substantial progress in the first decade of the twentieth century, as the impact the emerging groups had never led to amendments to the voting system to include women in the franchise, due mainly to the limitations of the WSPU’s policy of militancy, and the ineffective peaceful methods of the NUWSS to bring along true legislative change which is supported by source 13 and 15. Therefore it is possible to dispute that there was some evidence that the suffrage movement did experience some progress, even if the significance of this progress achieved was not vast which is mainly supported by source 14, as well as parts of 13 and 15.

    There were some leaps during the first decade of the 20th century that led to the suffrage movement experiencing some progress. Source 13 supports this by stating ‘’We have presented larger petitions than were ever presented before’’ which directly ties in with source 15 which states that ‘’In Leeds 2,800 of 300 textile workers signed a petition’’ for women’s suffrage, this is significant since direct action and organisation was now taking place, the suffrage groups NUWSS and WSPU were now the pioneers of the effective suffrage movement, this new found national organisation led to a greater wave of support for the suffrage movement. Similarly, the new suffrage activism within textile industries expanded as far as the Lancashire and Chesire Women’s Textile and aid of workers industry (LCWT), of whom were supported directly by the NUWSS, and the LCWT consistently aided the NUWSS in organising local campaigns in the local area. The effectiveness of this activism is directly supported by source 14 which states that ‘’by 1910 a majority had been converted to the cause’’, it showed that the activism primarily of the NUWSS had allowed a leap forward in progress and government officials finally becoming sympathetic to the extent at which they would publicly support women’s suffrage, like Keir Hardie of the Labour Party who aided the suffragettes by teaching them parliamentary policy and so made their methods far more effective and varied to therefore bring a greater influence in shifting political and traditional attitudes therefore leading to more demand for voting rights. Additionally, the NUWSS made rapid progress following its formation in 1897, Source 14 supports this by stating ‘’The NUWSS began its transformation from an organisation dominated by Middle-Class London women to an national movement with a much broader social base’’. Comparatively, the WSPU failed to move away from its working-class group, and so the NUWSS was generally the main effective force that led to some progress and changes in attitudes along with the level of support. In addition to this, the NUWSS had active branches from Scotland to Wales, the most influential of which was the Irish Women’s Franchise League, which did well in persuading Irish officials to support women’s suffrage and run various daily demonstrations to lead to a greater record of progress. So there was in fact some progress in organisation, effectiveness and support for the suffrage movement.

    However more significantly the suffrage movement had not made substantial progress in the first decade of the twentieth century. One key reason for this was down to the militant methods of the WSPU. This is supported by source 13 which states ‘’Yet despite all of our work, still no progress has being made’’, as the source is written by the leader of the WSPU, it is likely to be very supportive of the WSPU, Emmeline Panhkurst will clearly support her own groups work because she did not want to lose support and defy her own organisation, her equivocal support expressed in source 13 is therefore limited in addressing whether the suffrage movement had actually made substantial progress from 1900-1910. Furthermore, Source 15 supports this notion of them deterring the movement by stating that ‘’Nonetheless, the suffrage movement still failed to persuade the government and the majority of the population to support votes for women’’, this was primarily down the fact the WSPU were very hostile in their methods and incredibly militant/direct such as the Hunger Striking pioneered first by Marion Wallace Dunlop in 1909 and later became a WSPU policy, as well as the consistent window smashing. On one occasion Emmeline herself said publicly that ‘’we have tried to blow him up to wake his conscience’’. All of these actions and extremism expressed by the WSPU gave the liberal government from 1906 onwards a perfect excuse not to grant women the vote, as they would not want the countries fate to be decided by some ‘’crazy spinsters’’ according to their liberal male supporters. This is further supported by source 13 which states that ‘’We have faced hostile mobs at the street corners’’ combined with the reduced government support, there was also reduced pubic support as stated in source 15, the evidential basis that the movement was generally ineffective was that no major suffrage bills at all were passed for this entire decade, the actions of the suffragettes and suffragists had simply not led to any legislative change in voting rights, and so the whole aim of the movement had not being achieved and there was a significant lack of progress. Another key reason for limited progress was the conflict in ideological suffrage. The WSPU aimed to enfranchise married women over 30 years old, whilst the NUWSS aimed for overall suffrage for everyone 21+ years old, this combined with the peaceful methods of the NUWSS vs the militant methods of the WSPU as expressed in source 14 for the NUWSS source 13 for the WSPU, meant that the movement was never conducted under 1 banner, the scattered movement received both positive and negative feedback, the suffragettes actions often undermined the NUWSS’s effectiveness, whilst the NUWSS’s peaceful methods limited the effectiveness of the WSPU’s militant methods, neither group really ever joined together in one single protest for votes for women, due to this ideological differences in methodology and organisation, the suffrage movement in the first decade of the twentieth century only managed to increase support rather than bring legislative change, and often achieved very limited progress. Therefore in essence the suffrage movement had not made substantial progress 1900-1910.

    To sum up, I strongly disagree with the view that the suffrage movement had made substantial progress in the first decade of the 20th , down mainly to the extreme militant methods of the WSPU such as window smashing and hunger striking which gave the liberal government a reason to deny women the vote, as well as the very differences between the establishment of the NUWSS and WSPU, meant that they could never work together as an effective body for women’s voting rights, and so often undermined each other in effectiveness seen by the fact that the majority of the government and population did not in fact support votes for women as supported by source 15. However there were notable minor progress in the first decade of the 20th century, the NUWSS and WSPU established themselves to bring together a national organised movement for female enfranchisement, the influential NUWSS broadening its social base and the highly signed petitions in Leeds and various other textile and non textile industries, began to shift public attitudes slightly which is supported by sources, 13, 14 and 15. Though overall the suffrage movement had not made substantial progress in the first decade of the 20th century.


    Sources: http://historyattallis.weebly.com/up...s_jan_2011.pdf
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    for 1945-1990 consensus and conflict I believe they will throw in a question which is not related to one specific government/PM such as a long spanned question on industrial relations/economic policy etc...

    also I think there is a high possibility that there could be a why did x win y election question?

    but, if they do opt to go with standard questions on one government, I agree with majority that it will be on Attlee, Thatcher, Heath or Labour 74-79

    personally, couldn't think of better questions than 1945 election, assessment of Attlee's government, 1951 election or to what extent did Thatcher break from conensus/was controversial... would be so happy if one of those questions was on
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    help on B questions structure please ??
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by matt-121)
    help on B questions structure please ??
    Introduction should contextualize the question and briefly state each sources stance on the question. You should enforce your own opinion on the question in order to ensure your whole response is more focused around your own perception.

    Then, in the main body you must both cross-reference the sources and integrate in your own knowledge. Do no paragraphs which are purely source content, and none that are purely own knowledge unless they do not relate to any source content whatsoever. For higher marks not only recognise similarities between sources/Own knowledge, but challenge and contrast. Be critical and ensure that in your response that although not all sources should be evaluated for weight, the one primary source is briefly evaluated and this should be used to drive your argument at that time.

    In the conclusion, although references to sources is valid the examiner will be looking for you to put forward an explicit answer to the question, and higher level answers will provide a new explanation which is both thoughtful and refreshing. When I think of a unique bit of analysis I always jot it down and save it for the conclusion.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    how do you do source analysis?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by matt-121)
    how do you do source analysis?
    If you mean evaluation, comment on the weight/provenance/reliability a source has by looking at the date/description/author of the source and determining why this could lead to it being biased. Afterwards develop this by explaining how it lowers the usefulness of said source.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JCB1996)
    The course is split into 4 parts, right...

    So I'm planning on only revising the Crimean War, the Boer War and the Western Front of WW1.. I'm not bothering with the Home Front as I don't find it interesting and they can only ask 2 questions. Therefore by revising these topics, at least two of them will come up because they've never asked 2 questions on the same topic before...

    Anyone agree with me?
    I'm fine with the Crimea and two WW1 units.. not so confident with some of the Boer stuff

    I am so hoping Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole come up somewhere in the paper, or the media reports of William Russell and James Fenton.

    The only bit of the Boer stuff I'm confident on is British treatment and concentration camps, rest of it not so.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _JC95)
    Introduction should contextualize the question and briefly state each sources stance on the question. You should enforce your own opinion on the question in order to ensure your whole response is more focused around your own perception.

    Then, in the main body you must both cross-reference the sources and integrate in your own knowledge. Do no paragraphs which are purely source content, and none that are purely own knowledge unless they do not relate to any source content whatsoever. For higher marks not only recognise similarities between sources/Own knowledge, but challenge and contrast. Be critical and ensure that in your response that although not all sources should be evaluated for weight, the one primary source is briefly evaluated and this should be used to drive your argument at that time.

    In the conclusion, although references to sources is valid the examiner will be looking for you to put forward an explicit answer to the question, and higher level answers will provide a new explanation which is both thoughtful and refreshing. When I think of a unique bit of analysis I always jot it down and save it for the conclusion.
    This was really helpful. Thanks!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robbie242)
    I've taken into account what you have said and I hope you'll find my next response a bit more evaluative, its on the suffrage question so its generally more easier to write about .

    Spoiler:
    Show

    Do you agree with the view that the suffrage movement made substantial progress in the first decade of the twentieth century?

    I do not agree the view that the suffrage movement made substantial progress in the first decade of the twentieth century, as the impact the emerging groups had never led to amendments to the voting system to include women in the franchise, due mainly to the limitations of the WSPU’s policy of militancy, and the ineffective peaceful methods of the NUWSS to bring along true legislative change which is supported by source 13 and 15. Therefore it is possible to dispute that there was some evidence that the suffrage movement did experience some progress, even if the significance of this progress achieved was not vast which is mainly supported by source 14, as well as parts of 13 and 15.

    There were some leaps during the first decade of the 20th century that led to the suffrage movement experiencing some progress. Source 13 supports this by stating ‘’We have presented larger petitions than were ever presented before’’ which directly ties in with source 15 which states that ‘’In Leeds 2,800 of 300 textile workers signed a petition’’ for women’s suffrage, this is significant since direct action and organisation was now taking place, the suffrage groups NUWSS and WSPU were now the pioneers of the effective suffrage movement, this new found national organisation led to a greater wave of support for the suffrage movement. Similarly, the new suffrage activism within textile industries expanded as far as the Lancashire and Chesire Women’s Textile and aid of workers industry (LCWT), of whom were supported directly by the NUWSS, and the LCWT consistently aided the NUWSS in organising local campaigns in the local area. The effectiveness of this activism is directly supported by source 14 which states that ‘’by 1910 a majority had been converted to the cause’’, it showed that the activism primarily of the NUWSS had allowed a leap forward in progress and government officials finally becoming sympathetic to the extent at which they would publicly support women’s suffrage, like Keir Hardie of the Labour Party who aided the suffragettes by teaching them parliamentary policy and so made their methods far more effective and varied to therefore bring a greater influence in shifting political and traditional attitudes therefore leading to more demand for voting rights. Additionally, the NUWSS made rapid progress following its formation in 1897, Source 14 supports this by stating ‘’The NUWSS began its transformation from an organisation dominated by Middle-Class London women to an national movement with a much broader social base’’. Comparatively, the WSPU failed to move away from its working-class group, and so the NUWSS was generally the main effective force that led to some progress and changes in attitudes along with the level of support. In addition to this, the NUWSS had active branches from Scotland to Wales, the most influential of which was the Irish Women’s Franchise League, which did well in persuading Irish officials to support women’s suffrage and run various daily demonstrations to lead to a greater record of progress. So there was in fact some progress in organisation, effectiveness and support for the suffrage movement.

    However more significantly the suffrage movement had not made substantial progress in the first decade of the twentieth century. One key reason for this was down to the militant methods of the WSPU. This is supported by source 13 which states ‘’Yet despite all of our work, still no progress has being made’’, as the source is written by the leader of the WSPU, it is likely to be very supportive of the WSPU, Emmeline Panhkurst will clearly support her own groups work because she did not want to lose support and defy her own organisation, her equivocal support expressed in source 13 is therefore limited in addressing whether the suffrage movement had actually made substantial progress from 1900-1910. Furthermore, Source 15 supports this notion of them deterring the movement by stating that ‘’Nonetheless, the suffrage movement still failed to persuade the government and the majority of the population to support votes for women’’, this was primarily down the fact the WSPU were very hostile in their methods and incredibly militant/direct such as the Hunger Striking pioneered first by Marion Wallace Dunlop in 1909 and later became a WSPU policy, as well as the consistent window smashing. On one occasion Emmeline herself said publicly that ‘’we have tried to blow him up to wake his conscience’’. All of these actions and extremism expressed by the WSPU gave the liberal government from 1906 onwards a perfect excuse not to grant women the vote, as they would not want the countries fate to be decided by some ‘’crazy spinsters’’ according to their liberal male supporters. This is further supported by source 13 which states that ‘’We have faced hostile mobs at the street corners’’ combined with the reduced government support, there was also reduced pubic support as stated in source 15, the evidential basis that the movement was generally ineffective was that no major suffrage bills at all were passed for this entire decade, the actions of the suffragettes and suffragists had simply not led to any legislative change in voting rights, and so the whole aim of the movement had not being achieved and there was a significant lack of progress. Another key reason for limited progress was the conflict in ideological suffrage. The WSPU aimed to enfranchise married women over 30 years old, whilst the NUWSS aimed for overall suffrage for everyone 21+ years old, this combined with the peaceful methods of the NUWSS vs the militant methods of the WSPU as expressed in source 14 for the NUWSS source 13 for the WSPU, meant that the movement was never conducted under 1 banner, the scattered movement received both positive and negative feedback, the suffragettes actions often undermined the NUWSS’s effectiveness, whilst the NUWSS’s peaceful methods limited the effectiveness of the WSPU’s militant methods, neither group really ever joined together in one single protest for votes for women, due to this ideological differences in methodology and organisation, the suffrage movement in the first decade of the twentieth century only managed to increase support rather than bring legislative change, and often achieved very limited progress. Therefore in essence the suffrage movement had not made substantial progress 1900-1910.

    To sum up, I strongly disagree with the view that the suffrage movement had made substantial progress in the first decade of the 20th , down mainly to the extreme militant methods of the WSPU such as window smashing and hunger striking which gave the liberal government a reason to deny women the vote, as well as the very differences between the establishment of the NUWSS and WSPU, meant that they could never work together as an effective body for women’s voting rights, and so often undermined each other in effectiveness seen by the fact that the majority of the government and population did not in fact support votes for women as supported by source 15. However there were notable minor progress in the first decade of the 20th century, the NUWSS and WSPU established themselves to bring together a national organised movement for female enfranchisement, the influential NUWSS broadening its social base and the highly signed petitions in Leeds and various other textile and non textile industries, began to shift public attitudes slightly which is supported by sources, 13, 14 and 15. Though overall the suffrage movement had not made substantial progress in the first decade of the 20th century.


    Sources: http://historyattallis.weebly.com/up...s_jan_2011.pdf

    Well, from where I'm standing that was a great essay!! You evaluated both your argument and the sources as well as providing in depth own knowledge so I would probably say that would be an A.

    The only thing I would touch upon is perhaps try shortening your sentences a little and paragraphing more (although I understand that will probably come more naturally when writing by hand).

    But yeah, apart from that, I don't have any criticism for you!

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by catherine95)
    Well, from where I'm standing that was a great essay!! You evaluated both your argument and the sources as well as providing in depth own knowledge so I would probably say that would be an A.

    The only thing I would touch upon is perhaps try shortening your sentences a little and paragraphing more (although I understand that will probably come more naturally when writing by hand).

    But yeah, apart from that, I don't have any criticism for you!

    Thank you so much, I appreciate all the help since my teachers offer me only advice for a C grade and don't offer any support for a resit. It's good that I've made progress and I'm really happy that this recent work is starting to pay off (though won't take your mark too literal, I thought my writing was generally convincing as well).

    Would you say its acceptable to split the weaker argument into 2 paragraphs and the stronger argument into two paragraphs for it to be less of a block of a text? And yeah I will definitely try to make shorter sentences with more fullstops. And hehe I actually type my history responses for examiners to read, my handwriting is god awful and incredibly slow!

    Thanks a lot, I may do 1 more essay for a last feedback/marking before the exam (probably based on war or something )
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robbie242)
    Thank you so much, I appreciate all the help since my teachers offer me only advice for a C grade and don't offer any support for a resit. It's good that I've made progress and I'm really happy that this recent work is starting to pay off (though won't take your mark too literal, I thought my writing was generally convincing as well).

    Would you say its acceptable to split the weaker argument into 2 paragraphs and the stronger argument into two paragraphs for it to be less of a block of a text? And yeah I will definitely try to make shorter sentences with more fullstops. And hehe I actually type my history responses for examiners to read, my handwriting is god awful and incredibly slow!

    Thanks a lot, I may do 1 more essay for a last feedback/marking before the exam (probably based on war or something )
    Glad I could help! Yeah I'll gladly look over another essay although I have a french exam tomorrow so it probably won't be until later in the afternoon.
    But yeah I tend to go by connectives - like wherever I use a 'furthermore' 'additionally' 'however' 'in spite of' etc... I start a new paragraph. It'll just be a little easier for the examiner to look through and seem like less heavy work (and hopefully a couple of extra marks!)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm still not quite getting the hang of Qa structure so you compare the opinions of the sources with relation to the question, and then use the attributes to explain why they agree/disagree?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by catherine95)
    Glad I could help! Yeah I'll gladly look over another essay although I have a french exam tomorrow so it probably won't be until later in the afternoon.
    But yeah I tend to go by connectives - like wherever I use a 'furthermore' 'additionally' 'however' 'in spite of' etc... I start a new paragraph. It'll just be a little easier for the examiner to look through and seem like less heavy work (and hopefully a couple of extra marks!)
    Ah thank you so much, your literally a life saver, I would just get a C again without your tips so I appreciate you enabling me to make something out of the exam!
    And that's fine, good luck French sounds quite hard and I'd definitely find it harder than solving equations in maths or writing essays in history :P.

    Great tips honestly, never have I felt like I'm doing something right for the sources paper other then now, tyvm for all the guidance and best of luck tomorrow
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BrunoRussell)
    I'm fine with the Crimea and two WW1 units.. not so confident with some of the Boer stuff

    I am so hoping Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole come up somewhere in the paper, or the media reports of William Russell and James Fenton.

    The only bit of the Boer stuff I'm confident on is British treatment and concentration camps, rest of it not so.
    I'm not revising Boer War at all!!! I'd rather be confident on 2 wars fully...


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Anyone have any predictions for the British Political History Topic? Im referring to 'Britain, 1830-85 Representation and Reform'

    I know on most of the past papers theres the 1st Reform Act, Chartism or the 2nd Reform Act, but i'm quite worried it will be none of these and be the last few chapters of the book.... party organisation/third reform act/ballot act, I haven't revised these very much.

    I'm resitting this as I'm 1 UMS off an A and want to bring up as many UMS so theres less pressure to get an A in unit 3.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Helena Kennedy)
    Anyone have any predictions for the British Political History Topic? Im referring to 'Britain, 1830-85 Representation and Reform'

    I know on most of the past papers theres the 1st Reform Act, Chartism or the 2nd Reform Act, but i'm quite worried it will be none of these and be the last few chapters of the book.... party organisation/third reform act/ballot act, I haven't revised these very much.

    I'm resitting this as I'm 1 UMS off an A and want to bring up as many UMS so theres less pressure to get an A in unit 3.
    Isn't there usual a 40 marker on each half if the book? I'm banking on there being a chartist question cos like you I haven't properly revised the second half yet....

    Yay!! 400th Post!
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Do the 20 and 40 mark essays need to be balanced???????
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Faust)
    Take a look at my Boer War notes on the previous page, it's really concise and its best if you at least familiarise yourself with it.

    Here's the past exam topics: Attachment 217190
    as you can see there's only been one time where WW1 hasn't come up in a Part B.
    Ok - thank you! Those notes are brilliant! What do you think will come up? (Other than obviously WWI)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by catherine95)
    Glad I could help! Yeah I'll gladly look over another essay although I have a french exam tomorrow so it probably won't be until later in the afternoon.
    But yeah I tend to go by connectives - like wherever I use a 'furthermore' 'additionally' 'however' 'in spite of' etc... I start a new paragraph. It'll just be a little easier for the examiner to look through and seem like less heavy work (and hopefully a couple of extra marks!)
    This one is going to be a big mock with two in one so brace yourself

    Spoiler:
    Show


    June 2011
    a) How far do the sources suggest that, in the Jackson Marriage Case of 1891, it was Mr Jackson who had ‘right upon his side’? (10,11 and 12)

    The sources strongly suggest that it was not Mr Jackson who had ‘right upon his side’, in particular sources 10, 11 and 12 all have questionable utility most significantly source 10, as well as strong evidence to support this claim. Therefore it is possible to dispute that there is some limited evidence from sources 10, 11 and 12 to support the claim that Mr Jackson had right upon his side.

    There is some evidence from sources 10, 11 and 12 to support Mr Jackson as having right upon his side. Source 10 states that ‘’I do not feel any ill-effects from my forcible abduction last Sunday’’ this supports the notion portrayed in source 12 that she was not harmed and it was in fact a ‘’romantic abduction’’ which hence suggests that Mr Jackson took good care of her, and it was more of romantic passionate act than a morally wrong act. Furthermore source 10 supports this by stating ‘’Mr Jackson has certainly been most kind and considerate to me’’, which supports the portrayal in source 11 that Mr Jackson was a nice, thoughtful person, source 11 states ‘’He’s a jolly good fellow’’ whilst they yelled consistently at Mrs Jackson, which in some ways portrays that through the public Mr Jackson did have right upon his side. However, source 11 extent of utility is severely limited, it was based shortly after the Court of Appeal hearing, which then turned the court in favour of Mrs Jackson as having ‘right upon her side’, the source material itself is likely to be highly exaggerated as well as its date in 1891 where women’s rights were very undermined and there was no such law prior to this that suggested it was morally wrong, so perhaps it was the moral standards of the male population back then that believed Mr Jackson had right on his side, but not the overall population, i.e. doesn’t explicitly state that females supported Mr Jacksons endeavour. Though overall some evidence from source 10, 11 and 12 generally supports Mr Jackson having right upon his side.

    However, there is more significant evidence from source 10 and 12 that suggests Mr Jackson did not have right upon his side. Source 10s mild calm tone is questionable, the source states ‘’I am hopeful before long I may be able to resume my quiet and happy life’’, this statement in turn suggests that Mrs Jackson herself was not entirely happy with the situation at all and believed it would be more right to be at home with her family, rather than held captive by her husband. Though the tone is limited in explicitly stating whether he had right upon his side or not, it is mainly down to the fact that source 10 was from an interview that took place in Mr Jacksons house whilst she was captive, she did not want to say words to upset him in fear of significantly worse treatment than the slightly peaceful abduction as exclaimed in source 12, so therefore although it is limited in telling us her true views, it can be inferred that due to the circumstances, she probably would have believed Mr Jackson did not have right upon his side if she was not captive and had freedom of speech, without dire consequences. Additionally, source 12 supports source 10 by putting forward the notion that Mr Jackson did not have right upon his side, source 12 stats ‘’her friends appealed against the decision’’, the initial decision supported Mr Jackson, but from Mrs Jackson’s friends appealing against the case, this shows opposition to Mr Jacksons in the eyes of her friends, who were also notably female did not have right upon his side, and instead it was an unpleasant and morally wrong abduction. In addition, the language portrayed in source 12 is slightly limited as it is an article entitled ‘A Review of the Jackson case’ and so will probably not contain the snappy words to entice the reader and so does support Mr Jackson as a whole not having right upon his side as the language is likely only used to attract a broader audience. Therefore overall there is clear weight of evidence from all 3 sources to suggest Mr Jackson did not have right upon his side.

    To sum up, sources 10 and 12 along with the limited utility of source 11 strongly suggest that Mr Jackson did not ‘have right upon his side’, source 12 shows support from her close friends, source 10, being from when she was captive will generally be positive and supportive of Mr Jackson, though does show hints of not enjoying captivity, the limited utility of the source suggests along with the limited utility of source 11 and 12 being at a time where males were could prior to this case by law see such an act as morally right suggest that Mr Jackson did not have right upon his side. Though some evidence from source 10,11 and 12 support the claim that the abduction was romantic and cheers of ‘’He’s a jolly good fellow’’ further support the notion that Mr Jackson had right upon his side. Though overall all 3 sources weight of evidence disagree that Mr Jackson had right upon his side.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    b) ii Do you agree with the view that, in terms of employment opportunities, women did not gain ‘any significant advantage from their wartime experience’?

    I strongly disagree with the view that in terms of employment opportunities, women did not gain ‘any significant advantage from their wartime experience’, since the War itself had brought the biggest magnitude of change in terms of public attitudes for women’s employment, women were now being accepted into sectors of banking/law/politics/mechanics along with a higher standard of education contributing to significant new employment opportunities as supported by sources 17 and 18. Therefore it is possible to dispute that there was some evidence that in terms of employment opportunities women did not gain ‘any significant advantage from their wartime experience’, even if the significance of the evidence is not vast which is supported by source 16 alone.

    There were some limited changes and reversals following the war that suggest women did not gain ‘any significant advantage from their wartime experience’. Source 16 directly supports this by showing that Lloyd George an influential man in politics protesting that ‘’The workers of today are the mothers of the tomorrow’’ being part of the conservative party, this view was held in many sections of the public, the war work was seen as temporary and to a certain extent it was, when males returned back from conscription and from the war, some women were immediately told to leave and to return to their duties as ‘the angel in the house’ which shows a substantial lack of progress. This is further emphasised by source 16 once again that states ‘’Post-war government policies encouraged women to return to their domestic responsibilities’’, the general views of male people in politics is that although women had paid a true service to the country, they should not be able to have economic independence and show showed limitations in public attitudes and therefore deterring employment opportunities.

    Furthermore this is supported by governments various attempts aiming to get women out of work, the treasury agreement of 1915 with the trade unions, the government had agreed that this ‘dilution of labour’ would end once the war was over which shows significant limitations to progress. Furthermore, by the post-war years, such as in November 1919, Women’s wages averaged 15 shillings a week, the balance of payment was poor and many women could not sustain lives on this low amount of income which led to higher female unemployment than before the war and therefore more disadvantages and advantages than pre-war. In addition to this, it was clear the government was pushing women back into their domestic spheres, in 1920 the Unemployed Insurance act, which gave women 12 shillings a week, a rate lower than that for men, as well as in 1921 when the government only financially supported the Central Committee for domestic service which by 1931 accounted for 35% of the working population, the government tried ever so hard to push women away and to reverse the advantages of war for women’s work showing substantial limitations to progress in employment opportunities. Also the limited of utility of source 18 also aids the fact that women gained limited advantages from their wartime experience, as an extract it is not going to detail the full act, and one key limitation of the sex disqualification act of 1919 was that the government still had reserved particular posts in civil service for men only, and shows that they were favourable for higher positions, higher pay and therefore shows some limitations to progress in women's employment and utility of source 18. Hence there were some limited changes in women’s employment and they did not gain much from their wartime experience in smaller areas of work.

    However to a stronger extent, in terms of employment opportunities, women did gain a significant advantage from their wartime experience. Instantaneously source 17 lists significant firsts for women such as: ‘’the first women to qualify as a Veterinary Surgeon: the first woman pilot to enter an air race, the first woman solicitor’’ and many more varying opportunities which supports the fact that women did gain a significant advantage from their wartime experience. This is further supported source 18 which shows a significant change in the legal profession which states that ‘’A person should not be disqualified by sex or marriage from the exercise of any public function’’ this essentially allowed a new flow of women barristers and lawyers which provided a significant advantage derived from war. Additionally as well as these professions, during the war women also took over many professions in Munitions Factories, Transport, Government Work as well as the War groups VADs,WAACS, WRENS, and WRAFS. For instance the Women’s Royal Naval service (WRENS) was formed in 1917; its members included cooks, clerks, wireless Telegraphists, radar plotters, weapon analysts, range assessors, electricians and air mechanics. All of these jobs were very mechanical and required a precise set of skills, the war allowed women to demonstrate their independence and perseverance in the work place under stressful tasks. In addition, the sheer amount of women’s work accounted for by transport also shows significant gains from women’s wartime experience for employment, by 1917 bus conductresses had gone up from half a dozen to about 2500 and female transport workers increased from 18,000 in 1914 to 117,000 in 1918 which along with other roles women were expected to replace such as window cleaners, chimney sweeps, coal delivers, street sweepers and electricians being a few, showed once again that women could handle ‘men’s’ work and led to far more growth in employment in these areas compared to the traditional domestic service and hence provides a significant advantage for women’s employment derived from war.

    In addition source 12 states that ‘’After 1919, the legal profession was opened to women like Christabel Pankhurst, who had studied law but had not being allowed to practise it except in her own defence’’ One resultant of the war was that it forced the trade unions and employers to face up to the ‘problem’ of skilled women like Christabel, in the workplace. In doing this, the whole underlying issue of whether or not a women’s place was in the home was brought up to the fore, this resulted in new trade union groups like the Trade Union Congress, being more supportive of Women’s employment rights and tried to treat them as equals and sustain healthy employment and balanced pay which resulted in more positive women’s employment. So hence there was overall significant advantages in employment opportunities gained from women’s wartime experience.

    To sum up, I strongly disagree with the view that women did not gain any significant advantage from their wartime experience as new job opportunities previously closed to women opened up as stated in source 17 and 18, professions unthinkable for women pre-war such as the legal profession were now readily available, women also had an influence in key politics, along with new found job opportunities in munitions, transport and the 4 main Women’s War effort groups demonstrated economic independence and in essence led to a significant advantage from war. Though there were some ways in which women did receive limited advantages as a result of their wartime experience, as stated in source 16 a very traditionally old separate sphere view was held by a conservative of whom influenced the many, in addition to this, the governments various attempts such as lowering the minimum wage and forcing married women out of employment only served to hinder some of these new employment opportunities. Though overall women did gain significant advantages from their wartime experience in terms of employment opportunities.





    Sources: http://historyattallis.weebly.com/up..._june_2011.pdf

    I think you can really tell how much I hate work opportunities questions, ugh. Found it incredibly hard to balance to argument.

    Also this is the first Q(a) I've sent you so hopefully it is evaluative enough.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: May 17, 2015
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.