Women in the Workforce Discussion Board

As mentioned in the text, although the Equal Rights Amendment had substantial support, it failed to get the necessary votes to be ratified.  Many who were opposed to the amendment suggested that women would be subject to the military draft and that full-time housewives and mothers would be forced to work outside the home.
Even without the ERA, the role of women in American society has changed greatly since the amendment was first passed by Congress and submitted to the states.  In 1973, for example, approximately 76% of all men were employed in the civilian labor forced compared to only 42% of all women.  And, unemployment figured for women seeking work during that year was 50% higher than for their male counterparts.
In contrast, by 2010 nearly 54% of all women were employed in the civilian labor force compared to 64% of men.  Although unemployment figures for both men and women were higher due to the troubled economic conditions of the day, a smaller percent of women who were actively seeking work were unable to get it (8.6%) as compared to men (10.5%). 
Even though women are more greatly represented in the workforce today than they were when Congress passed the ERA, one of the proponents' primary goals, removing income inequality, has remained elusive.  According to the Department of Labor, women on average received lower wages than men.  For every dollar the average male worker makes, the averages female worker makes only 81 cents, even after controlling for the type of employment.  For examples, in 2010, the median weekly salary for male financial managers was $1,546 compared to only $1,022 for their female counterparts.

Why might income inequality persist even though men and women serve in more equal numbers today in the work force?

(Information from David Magleby's text: Government by the People)

Role of Government Discussion Board

State and local governments are on the front lines of most programs for helping the needy.  They provide much of the money and/or administration for unemployment insurance for the jobless, health care clinics and hospitals for the poor, school lunch programs for hungry children, and homeless shelters.  Although many US citizens see poverty firsthand as volunteers for local charities such as food pantries, some have doubts about how much government should do to help poor people who cannot take care of themselves.  According to the Pew Research Center's Spring 2007 Global Attitudes Survey, citizens of other nations vary greatly on the question of whether "it is the responsibility of the (state or government) to take care of very poor people who can't take care of themselves".
These opinions reflect very different social and economic conditions in each country.  Japan has a culture of self-reliance that puts the burden on individuals to help themselves, while Nigeria continues to suffer from some of the highest poverty rates in the world.  In this regard, US citizens tend to mirror the Japanese- they want government to help the less fortunate but also want the less fortunate to help themselves.  As a general conclusion, citizens of wealthier nations think poor people should take advantage of the opportunities that already exist in their economies, whereas citizens of poor nations believe that government should be more aggressive in providing support.
This does not mean wealthier nations are uncaring toward citizens in need, but it does suggest that they sometimes view poverty as the fault of the poor.  In the United States, these opinions reflect the importance of equality of opportunity as a basic social value, meaning that all individuals regardless of race, gender, or circumstance have the same opportunity to participate in politics, self-government, and the economy.  Most Americans want to help the less fortunate, but only when they are truly needy, not when they fail because they will not help themselves.

What are some advantages and disadvantages of having the government provide services for the poor?  Where do you stand on this issue?

Right to Die Discussion Board

Many Americans suffer great pain as they struggle with cancer and other diseases in the last few months of life.  Although modern medicine offers a number of options for easing the pain through hospice and drug therapies, some citizens would prefer to end their lives on their own schedule through what was once mislabeled as "assisted suicide"
This term often creates images of euthanasia by raising the specter of doctors and government making the decision about when a terminally ill patient should be given the drugs to die.  In recent years, however, the term has been replaced by the concept of "end-of-life-choice".  Drive by the "death with dignity" movement, which is led by a public interest group called "Compassion and Choice" (www.compassionandchoice.org), the campaign has won voter approval in Oregon, Washington, Montana, and Hawaii.  Under current law in these states, patients, not doctors, are given the option of ending their own lives through drugs that east them into a life-ending coma or deep sleep, leading to death within minutes. 
These states require at least two doctors to certify that a patient has only six months or less to live.  With this certification in hand, the doctors are allowed to give the patient a prescription for the life-ending drugs.  Having decided to end his/her life, the patient is asked two questions before taking the drugs: 1) Do you wish to end your life, and 2) Are you able to administer the drugs by your own hand?  If the patient answers yes to both questions, he or she is given the drugs to act.  Some patients decide to take the drugs, while others do not.

What do you think?  Should all states give their citizens the right to end their own lives?