40x = number of pages
you multiply 40 by the number of days she reads them (x)
Emperor Nero has favorable view of Rome.
My answer will be somewhat anecdotal. I have read some things about the role of women in progressive movements (especially during the early 20th century). But I don't recall any succintly useful references.
Women were very active in promoting prohibition, child labor laws, public education, government welfare and other progressive government policies. It has been posited that they were instrumental in providing public support for New Deal programs (of which Social Security is the major descendant). Women leaders believed that the government could be a tool to promote social welfare. A common hypothesis is that they effectively influenced women voters to support progressive government programs.
It might therefore be reasonable to believe that without women votes, the welfare state would be much smaller. There might be no Federal education oversight. Schools would be managed entirely at the state and local level (if not privately). Welfare needs would be handled primarily by families, churches and other voluntary associations. I even wonder whether government would have so aggressively pursued the war on drugs.
To attribute the rise of welfarism in America solely to women would be overly simplistic. However, I think that the votes of women were a major contributing factor.
Some might extol the rise of progressive policies in America as good. I on the other hand, have made no secret of my disdain for those policies. I believe that government-run education is detrimental to liberty and provides poor educations (the majority of success being attributed to involved families and less to public spending). I believe that government managed welfare has unwittingly (though some claim intentionally) damaged families since the need for family reliance has been reduced. At the same time, private provision for welfare needs has reduced (which I believe, while not perfect, tend to be better managed). And the war on drugs has been a disaster. While I am no proponent of illicit drug use, government efforts to eradicate drug use have only spawned a lucrative (and violent) black market while criminalizing non-violent people (who often become violent and more useless than ever in the dysfunctional prison system).
My general critique of progressivism via the strong arm of government is that it almost always results in adverse unintended consequences.
Incident to women's suffrage, the standing of women in our society has improved. I view this as a positive development. The ills that I have described are mostly attributable to problems inherent in politics. Ambitious politicians have taken advantage of the attitudes of voters (leveraging not only gender attitudes, but race, class and so on) to foist upon us ever increasingly progressive government control.
I believe that it would be erroneous to attribute better treatment of women to women's suffrage. It may be true that the same public attitudes that led to their right to vote have led to their better treatment. Indeed, given the general positive attitude to voting, it is hard to imagine that better overall treatment could have been achieved while forbidding women the right to vote. As long as voting is considered a fundamental right, women would have been relegated to second class status if denied that right. However, to assign causality is wrong in my opinion.
In summary, more equal treatment of women has been an improvement to our society. At the same time, the voting rights that came with their equal treatment have unfortunately helped to promote progressive government policies that have been damaging to our society. I applaude equal rights to women but condemn political institutions that took advantage of this major change to voting demographics.
<span>During the 1st part of the 1800's
the North and the South grew in different ways. In the North, cities are where
you can find wealth and manufacturing. There were a lot of skilled workers in
the North. Meanwhile in the South, there
was not much industrial manufacturing. There were very few skilled workers.
Most of the people there were farmers and money came from planting crops like
cotton, rice, sugar cane and tobacco. It was the slaves who did most of the
work on the plantations.</span>
However aside from that, the greatest
significant difference leading up to the Civil war was:
<span>“The North favored a protectionist tariff on
foreign goods, while the South did not.”</span>
Answer:
The question is incomplete and the full version can be found online.
Both accounts are written using a chronological text structure, meaning that they use to relate the events in the order they happened.
This structure grants credibility to the individual accounts of the two witnesses, as they are describing what they saw as evidence of what happened during the Boston Tea Party protest on December 16, 1773, at Griffin's Wharf in Boston, Massachusetts.
Explanation:
In Joshua Wyeth´s account we can see that the text has a chronological structure because it uses phrases such as "We first talked to," "We finally concluded," and "At the appointed time, we met" to order the sequence of events.
In John Andrews´account, he uses the same kind of time phrases: "They then proceeded," and "Before nine o´clock"
