1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
jarptica [38.1K]
2 years ago
6

What do you think about the guardianship policy that was in Saudi Arabia? Please write 4 sentences or more explaining the policy

and how it impacted women. Do you think that it's appropriate that thousands of women each year are trying to escape?​
History
1 answer:
Juli2301 [7.4K]2 years ago
3 0

Answer:

In my opinion, I think that it is unfair to the women in Saudi Arabia because they have to depend on a man to make decisions. Not just that, this policy happens for the woman's whole life. I think that women should have an open mindset and make decisions just like men. They should be seen as equal and not distinct just because of different body parts. This stereotype in my opinion is very wrong because we are all equal and same no matter what gender.  

You might be interested in
How many people live in the village of Jenrok? How many acres is the village?
tino4ka555 [31]
<span>A half-mile from Bikini Jack’s office is the village of Jenrok, where a couple thousand people are squeezed into 16 acres of tin-roofed shanties that aren’t uniformly connected to public utilities, above groundwater that’s contaminated by bodies decomposing in family graves.</span>
3 0
3 years ago
Here take my coins I dont nees them
Yakvenalex [24]
Why don’t u need your coins, you need them to buy something or exchange it for a dollar. Don’t give away money because a time in your life you will need money/coin or whatever, but you won’t have them because you have them away.

oops i wrote like a paragraph rn
8 0
2 years ago
"In the late 1800s and early 1900s the federal government supported the efforts of the labor movement."
Katena32 [7]

Answer:

The Pullman Strike and Loewe Vs Lawlor

Explanation:

The Pullman Strike was an organised strike by the American Railway Union against the Pullman Company. The strike closed off many of the nations railroad traffic. Workers of the Pullman company had gone on strike in response to a reduction in wages and when this was unsuccessful, they increased their efforts and with the help of the AFU took it nationwide. They refused to couple or move any train that carried a Pullman car. At its peak the strike included  250,000 workers in 27 states.The federal government's response was to obtain an injunction against the union and to order them to stop interfering with trains. When they refused, President Cleveland sent in the army to stop strikers from interfering with the trains. Violence broke out and the strike collapsed. The leaders were sentenced to prison and the ARU dissolved.

Loewe V Lawlor was a Supreme Court decision that went against the rights of the labour movement. D. E. Loewe & Company had been subjected to a strike and a boycott as a result of it becoming an 'open shop'. The nationwide boycott was supported by the American Federation of Labor and persuaded retailers, wholesalers and customers not to buy from Loewe. This boycott cost him a large amount of money and he sued the union for violating the Sherman Antitrust Act (Another piece of legislation subsequently used to attack unions).

The case was sent to the US Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut, which found that the lawsuit was out of the scope of the Sherman Act. However, upon appeal it then went to the Supreme Court, who ruled in favour of Loewe. The courts decision was important for two reasons. Firstly it allowed individual unionists to be held personally responsible for damages arising from the activities of their unions. Secondly, it effectively outlawed secondary boycott (Where members of different companies boycott in solidarity with the affected workers) as a violation of the Sherman Act. Both of these limited the ability of the unions to bring about change through striking and boycott.

Read more on Brainly.com - brainly.com/question/13463190#readmore

3 0
2 years ago
What difficulty did both Chinese and Japanese immigrants face when trying to pass through immigration stations in the late 1800s
Gennadij [26K]

Both were targets of the Chinese Exclusion Act.  This act barred laborers from entering the United States.  Immigration officers were strict with Chinese immigrants because they were willing to work for low wages and during this period the economy was in the decline so they were seen as a threat in terms of employment opportunities. Since the Japanese looked similar to the Chinese they too were put under suspicion.

5 0
3 years ago
2. Who wrote the majority opinion for the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case?
gayaneshka [121]

Answer:

d

Explanation:

8 0
2 years ago
Other questions:
  • 32
    15·1 answer
  • What did Epicurus believe was the principal good of human life?
    15·1 answer
  • What was the biggest reason people died on the Oregon Trial? A) Disease B) Drowning C) Native American attack
    10·2 answers
  • Did president harry truman Regret his decision to authorise the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? And why did he author
    13·1 answer
  • Identify three causes of the Russian Revolution. Of those three, which do you feel was the most important cause of the Russian R
    15·1 answer
  • How did Machiavelli’s idea of a good ruler differ from that of medieval philosophers?
    8·2 answers
  • rysunek przedstawia równoległobok oraz jego wysokość zaznacz na zielono bok rownoległoboku do kturego ta wysokość jest prostopad
    8·1 answer
  • Colonist B is a wealthy woman from New York City. Her husband’s business earns tremendous wealth and honor for the family. She f
    5·1 answer
  • Which of the following is NOT an effort to unite the colonies against the British?
    13·2 answers
  • What caused a split in Buddhism
    10·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!