AS Edexcel History Unit 2

Scroll to see replies

i feel a bit better now about it hopefully it was ok. yeah people i talked to came to the conclusion it was right to abduct in society's eyes but in legal terms it wasn't but then again, i only spoke to some people.

Well i think i did really well on the 40 marker somehow :smile:

i left just over 50 mins for the 40 marker as i was so confuzzled by the 20 marker <that was a bad decision because i felt pushed for time as well!

my essay went like this:
intro: no it didn't help women in the long term but temporarily it did as evidenced in the lack of progression in the professional sphere. also, the war jobs taken on by women were literally temporary because munitions wouldnt be needed after the war.
para 1: no the war didnt help as evidenced by source 16. angel in the house was reinforced as soldiers harked back to their childhood, looked for their mother's comfort. when they returned from action, mothers were expected to remain as this to appease the soldiers and comfort them
para 2 was an extension of para 1: after the war, domestic service was still the biggest employer (added a statistic there) and only exclusive women were extending beyond the usual role such as garrett anderson and sophia jex-blake, it would be difficult to name anyone else in the medical profession. then i highlighted source 16 and said how it kept saying: the first women did this, the first did that. etc meaning there was not large numbers
para 3: well the war did change some things, women were getting a foothold in more professions as evidenced by source 16 and the sex disqual. (removal) act allowed for this (source 17). however, i countered this by saying that the sex disqual act had a major flaw and employers exploited it to discriminate against married women on the grounds that they would become pregnant so women still found themselves in menial jobs.
conclusion: same as intro though acknowledgement that some change was happening.

how does that sound to you?

Reply 221

helliethepinapple21

Original post by student1234567891

Sounds good!! I'm sure you got an A! One question though- what do you mean about the sex disqualification act 1919 leading to greater discrimination against married women? I thought it intended to do the opposite?

Reply 222

student1234567891

Original post by helliethepinapple21

what did your answer say?

well, one major problem is that in theory it was perfect but in reality, employers were reluctant to enforce it. it says no discrimination against married or single women but does it say pregnant woman? no, it doesnt and so employers took advantage of this and only unmarried women could benefit :smile:

how many marks would you say that answer is? and as for an A, i screwed up the first part and so will need 35+ on the 40 marks for an a!

Reply 223

footiemad786

Original post by charcharchar

Rest of my notes
:smile:

Thnx for the notes! They were helpful! Sorry I couldnt reply earlier - too stressed about exams! :biggrin:

Reply 224

Khat

Original post by charcharchar

here you go if anyone is actually doing this :confused:

hey could you send me all the notes you have for this unit or extra resources as my teacher only gave us the michael lynch text book don't like it much

Reply 225

chocosensation

Never analyse the sources individually, cross reference between all of them. In your introduction, outline which sources are against or for the statement them how far they disagree. (for part b you base your argument on what the majority of the sources are saying)
Main body
Point referring to question
The majority of sources that agree or disagree
Evidence from the sources
In depth analysis of what it means in relation to the question
Provenance: What it is? How it affects the source? Why it does? (Only provenance that strengthens the argument present in the sources)
Then do the same for the counter argument
(For part b replace the provenance with own knowledge dates,statistics any relevant numbers and people)
Conclusion
Answer question one more time
Which sides the sources are on
Add how provenance influences your argument
(Part b, replace provenance outlining your main argument with own knowledge)