HW4.2

"Who is to blame for America's trend toward high divorce rates, starting in the 1970s?"

The trend toward high divorce rates can be attributed to the actions of wealthy middle-aged men as well as the feminists who fought for no-fault divorce.

Middle-aged men who had the typical "Me" attitude of the 70s contributed to high divorce rates. They often left their current wives for younger, more attractive women, leaving their ex-wives to fend for themselves. This irresponsible and reckless behavior ("Jennifer Fever") resulted in the high divorce rate.

Also, men's inability to understand the 'problem that has no name' contributed to higher divorce rates. Women were delegated to the role of housewife, or stereotypically female jobs, and were expected to remain content. Naturally, women were dissatisfied with their restricted lives, and therefore this lead to higher divorce rates.

Feminists who fought for no-fault divorce are partially responsible for the high divorce rate. The passage of this law meant that men and women who were dissatisfied with their marriage now had an easy way out. Because of this, divorce rates rose greatly.

HW4.1

1. “Mr. Dash” is Sam Dash, an attorney for the Senate Watergate Committee. What does he hope to discover, overall from his questions of Mr. Kalmbach?

He is trying to see if the Watergate defendants received bribes from Nixon's people, in exchange for keeping quiet about this and past criminal activities.

2. Why do you suppose Mr. Dash makes Mr. Kalmbach recount his trip from the West Coast to Washington, DC?

Possibly to keep Kalmbach honest, and later his statements can be checked to make sure that all the times and dates are accurate and true.

3. What is the message of Doc C?

The intended audience of doc c was the senate, the message Dash was trying to convey to themwas that Nixon's people were undoubtedly paying off the burglars involved in Watergate in order for them to keep quiet about it.

4. What is the significance of the “$50,000 - $100,000”?

It is significant because $100000 is an extremely large amount of money and this could mean that it definitely could not have just been money for 'legal fees' and others but rather to bribe people with.

5. What is one value of this document for the historian investigating whether men working for President Nixon broke the law or not?

One value is that since it is an actual transcript of a hearing where the man who supplied the money could have his say on the matter, and he was under oath, so one could assume that he is telling the truth, or at least not blatantly lying about it.

6. Is that value based on origin or purpose?

Origin.