Womenin the 1950’s

Womenover the years have been considered lesser being compared to theirmale counterparts. In terms of employment, they have beenmarginalized and given a very low percentage of a wage compared tothe males. With continued women marginalization and stereotyping,there has been an increased inequality. Policies makers have toformulate policies to provide a solution that will empower women.This paper seeks to analyze the women in the 1950’s and comparethem to the women portrayed in the crucible.

Commonattitude held about women

Inthe 1950’s the attitudes directed towards women evolved immenselyaround the basic idea of female species considered inferior to theirmale counterparts. This was the major concept inculcated in the1950’s society (Rowell, 124). Women accessibility to education wasvery limited. In a rear situation where one was able, to complete adegree course they still held the inconspicuous social contract thatwas to get married and settle down and to work further for theirfamily. Their main role and duty were to take care of the home andchildren and to an end die while doing these roles repeatedly.Therefore, the women in the 1950’s were not expected to focus ontheir career but to perform duties.

Percentof Women in workforce and Average Salary

Inthe 1950’s the percentage of women who were taking part in the workforce was very low compared to the percent of men. Newspapersadvertised a very separate job listings for both men and women. Thesejobs were further categorized according to sex with the highestlisting for males and separate pay scales for both sexes.

Duringthis period, those women who were having a full-time job used to earnan approximation of between 59-64 cent. This figure was for everysingle dollar that their male counterpart were earning at the sametype of job (Bock and Pat, 118). The women average salary wasapproximately 59 percent of what the men were earning. Further, atthe end of the wars that were witnessed pushed a large number ofwomen out of their jobs and this was intended to make room andvacancy for the returning veterans.

Feministactivity and literature

Simonede Beauvoir published a book, the second sex in the years 1953 andindicated the injustices the women were going through in that time.It had taken time before the US women started organizing around thenumerous injustices identified by Beauvoir. The majority of thewriting of the feminist philosophers in US emerged from theirattempts to grapple with the numerous issues that arose from womenmovement (Bock and Pat, 112). The feminism was advocating for equalrights for women within the social and political structures. In theresponse to the profession sexism, the US feminist and philosopherslater on organized the society for women in Philosophy (SWIP). Thiswas aimed at promoting and supporting females in philosophy.

Womenportrayed in the Crucible

Inthe crucible, women who have powers are painted as both a negativeand a positive idea. This was because both good things and bad thingaccompanied women having power. Taking critical lenses of feminism,it would appear that way. For instance, Elizabeth is seen to have aconsiderable healthy amount of power (Miller, 119). She expressed herdisappointment to John when she realized she had a feeling concerningthe affair that John had. The women in the Crucible are furtherportrayed as inferior beings that are lesser than their malecounterparts are. They are expected to be submissive to the men andperform the homemaking duties (Powers, 1509). Mary, the servant,lacks the strong will was seen treated in a very low status in John’sfamily. Abigail, on the other hand, was portrayed enjoying a highersocial status, and she gained power through manipulation and numerousdeceitful approaches.

Doesthe Crucible presents women in a positive way and supports feministtheories or reinforces stereotypes of the 1950`s?

Throughoutthe human history, women have always been viewed as being theinferior gender. They are considered lesser sex in all the aspects oflife including, in the religion, literature and society. ArthurMiller has conveyed the paradigm of viewing women as a lesser sexclearly in the Crucible. This has been showed in the play by how theyare treated, roles they played and their course of action of thesefemale characters. Arthur attempted to expose the inferiority ofwomen in the society, and this was done from a Christian perspective.They were portrayed as manipulative and significantly imperfectbeings.

Accordingto Miller (115), women stereotype can be seen in the crucible where ascholar states, “Elizabeth’s actions were not only controlled byJohn, but her emotions were as well.” The line of power isconsidered to be blurred since it may be difficult to separatebetween a correct and what is correct power. Elizabeth speaks boldlyof how the women in the society were treated. For instance, Elizabethin a certain circumstance described herself as a very “goodChristian woman.”

Additionallyshe believes that it is her duty to be serving her husband since sheis a true Christian, (Miller, 114). Just as the Bible state, whichwives should be subjective to their husband, the puratins in the playthe Crucible tend to adhere to this strictly. Most of the marriedfemales strive to be submissive and serve their husbands. Therefore,it is clear that Arthur in his writing in the book, the crucible hasportrayed women to be inferior sex hence reinforcing the stereotypesof the 1950’s. Elizabeth is obedient to John such that when askedwhether her husband had committed adultery she answered, “No sir”(Miller, 113). This further show the length women are willing to goto save their husbands in the crucible.


Fromthis analysis, it is evident that women in the 1950,s weremarginalized and stereotyped. They were viewed as a lesser sex whowere expected to perform homemaking roles and be submissive to theirhusbands. Additionally, the Crucible, by Arthur has shown how womenare a lesser being and reinforced the stereotypes that were evidentin the 1950’s.


Bock,Gisela, and Pat Thane, eds. Maternityand gender policies: Women and the rise of the European welfarestates, 1880s-1950s.Psychology Press, 1994.

Miller,Arthur. Thecrucible.Bloomsbury Publishing, 2015.

Powers,Karen Vieira. Womenin the crucible of conquest: the gendered genesis of Spanish American society, 1500-1600.UNM Press, 2005.

Rowell,Jenny. TheWomen Behind the Magnolia.Diss. Dalarna University, 2010.


Detectionand Mitigation Tools-Summary

The principal objective of this paper is to discuss the three toolsthat are used in the detection and mitigation of the risks. The threetools are the FMEA, AHP, and the Decision tree. FMEA refers to anapproach that follows a logical order in identifying the possibilityof any failure in a design, a service assembly process, or a product.It is specially designed to analyze failures, determine the causes ofthe failures and establish the impacts of the failures. FMEA is,therefore, responsible for determining the potential failures, whatcauses them and determine the impacts that failures have to the endusers. The main objective of FMEA is to help the management of agiven organization plan their resources well and prevented avoidablefailures that are unaccepted. FMEA involves ten major steps startingwith reviewing the process to calculation of the RPNs (Stapelberg,78).

AHP refers to a tool used in quantifying the QFD. It entailsidentifying and organizing the key decision objectives, criteria,alternatives and the constraints into a given hierarchy that ranksthe decisions according to their relevance. AHP has three major stepsthat it follows in analyzing the problem (Saaty, Thomas, and Luis,Vargas, 3). The last approach is the Decision tree. A decision treeis another technique used in making decisions in the organization.The unexpected long-term and short-term results are analyzed basingon the concepts of probabilities. The tree decision approach makesuse of the three approaches to analyzing the problem in theorganization. The first approach is the standard decision criteriathat use the concept of expected monetary value. The second approachis the Risk Decision Making, which makes the use of expected utility.Finally, the last approach is Simple Decision, which takes theconsideration of a common decision that an organization faces on aparticular project (Hulett, 1).


Saaty,Thomas L., and Luis G. Vargas. Models,methods, concepts &amp applications of the analytic hierarchyprocess.New York: Springer, 2012. Print.

Larson,Barton A. Sustainabledevelopment research advances.New York: Nova Science Publishers, 2007. Print.

Milošević,Dragan. Projectmanagement toolbox tools and techniques for the practicing projectmanager. Hoboken, N.J: J. Wiley &amp Sons, 2003. Print.

Stapelberg,Rudolph F. Handbookof reliability, availability, maintainability and safety in engineering design.London: Springer, 2009. Print.

Hulett,David T. &quotDecision Tree Analysis for the Risk AverseOrganization.&quot Presentedat the PMI EMEA Congress in Madrid.Vol. 1. 2006.


PropertyRights along the Coast

Today, almostevery laws of a state have adopted the PTD (Public Trust Doctrine),though the variations between different states exist. Every state isheld responsible for its own enforcement or protection of the trust.This protection, along with different coastal access state-level lawsput in place, leads to different translations of what it means byfree shoreline ownership access means as stated in Florida’s Whiteversus Hughes in 1995 . The Supreme Court stated that there wasnot custom, more universal, or more natural than access to a beach.The way in which states determine when and where to grant publicaccess to their beaches and coasts is the application of concept thatis based on mean high tide (Robinson 65). The Supreme Court case ofWhite versus Hughes ruled that private ownership and dry sandcontrol threatened the public enjoyment of the beaches in twodifferent ways (Louisiana 26). First, the littoral private owners mayrestrict access to dry-sand area, which is important to recreation.Secondly, the owners may isolate beaches to deny the public accessover private lands (Robinson 66). In majority of the states, everyland below the average high tide belongs to the states and thecitizens are granted the right to access that land withoutrestrictions. Intuition actually could indicate that this particular“tide” is a point where the sand change during the tide from wetto dry. However, this is not often the case. Most of the states haveput it that the average high tide is actually the arithmetic mean ofthe heights of high-water as observed by the NOAA (National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration) and over 18.6-year Metonics cycle(Pomeroy 67). This is the line, which is formed through the mean hightide’s intersection and the shores mean high tide. This is a hardline to determine and even harder to observe, and this makesenforcement difficult and controversial a task. The paper thereforewill examine what it means to own property along the coast line andhow the states controls access in case the government replenishedproperty.

In Downing v.Bird court case set fourth went ahead to create elements thatcould facilitate easement in most beaches across the United States(Robinson 57). According to Downing, to come up with a rightfor prove, clear, and definite proof that would allow the user ofbeaches to have easy access. Bird argued that acquisition of therights by an individual in another’s land, based on the use orpossession, is not in particular favored by the law and rightsacquisition, and thus is restricted. For instance, thecoastal states of Louisiana, Maine, and Florida use the mean low tideinstead of high tide line to mark the boundary the separates thepublic from private property. Take Louisiana for instance, the statedoes not own intertidal zone of its beaches, and thus the privateproperty owners would own the land as far as the mean low tide line(Robinson 34). In a case presented by Pomeroy, City of Miamiversus Undercliff Reality Co. 1972, the court ruled that“the fact that owners of upland beach access did not object orprevent such use is not enough to reveal that it had a claim ofright” (Pomeroy 14). The court case also stated that the intertidalarea does not necessarily mean it is owned privately in the entirecoastline, but it could be. In Florida for example, vast majority ofthe coastline is privately owned. Louisiana courts for instance alsorecognize the importance of beaches to the public. The intertidalland has been presumed to be for the owners from upland propertyunless there is something wrong with legal paperwork. In Louisiana,it should be noted that the boundary separating property owned by thepublic and the private varies from the mean high tide, mean low tide,and meets and bounds deed’s description depending on the property’slocation on the shoreline (Stright et al. 54). For example in NewHampshire, there is a distinction identified for water access, whichdepend upon whether the state owns the beach or it is maintained.

Adding tointerpretation and enforcement to the right of the public to ownproperty along the coast, the states may grant ownership to coastalproperty through application of laws, for instance the customary useand traditional doctrine, express, prescriptive easements, implied oreminent domain and mandatory dedication (Del 34). White versusHughes court case for example, granted the natives permanentaccess and a right to ownership based on peaceful, ancient,reasonable, and uninterrupted use of property along the coastline(Louisiana 49). The Supreme Court allowed prescriptive easement aslong as the public are able to demonstrate ownership withoutobjection from the privately owned landowners. Hughes gaveLouisiana State as an example, by stating that law on land ownershipmay grant express dedication by use of direct statements or landappropriation by the owner of the land (Sargent 56).

The implieddedications, which are similar to that of prescriptive easement,could be manifested through the actions where the public is granteduninterrupted access to own property along coastal lines. Finally,Downing versus Bird, January 31, 1958 in Supreme Courtof Florida case provided eminent domain as a legal proceeding throughwhich the states are able to assert authority to condemn ownership ofprivate property to allow the public to have access to it (Sargent45). However, Bird cautions that when eminent domain is usedby the government, it has to provide compensation to the owner of theproperty. In addition to regulation of the federal, most of thestates including Louisiana have crafted their own laws to helpprotect public access. However, local ordinance and otherregulations, which may restrict public beach access unnecessarily,exist in most of the areas. Government officials in addition, do notalways enforce regulations properly in relation to coastal access(Berger 127). The lack of political will, proliferation of privatelyowned property, and limited funding along our coasts could alsoprevent the government from improvement of policies to public beachaccess.

Most of thestates have reported to have insufficient number of access points inthe public coastal lines. This have resulted in some states to haveless than one access point on average for every 12 miles of shoreline(Pomeroy 77). Such measures where argued upon by Downing inDowning versus Bird court case, which was majorly based onpoor amenities. Besides poor maintenance, many lack well-constructedamenities. Again, the signs that are put in place may not be visibleor obvious. Again, lack of parking and roads are common barriers toaccessing the property along the coast, according to Downing.Privatization of the coastal land have exacerbates and complicatesall these problems. As much as the owners have a right to the landover the mean high tides in majority of the states, there are coastalowners that take measurements to block beach goers from having accessto the public shore along or adjacent to owned property (Wright 109).

Of all the United States coasts, the state of Louisiana could behaving the best legal protection to public access and ownership ofcoastal land. The Beach bill revised by the state guaranteed accessto property to all the beaches of the state. In addition, the beachguaranteed state’s easement on all of the beaches vegetation andlow water mark line (Louisiana 119). Florida is also another statewhose laws have secured public land along the coast in all the way tovegetation line. According to Hughes in Downing versus Birdcourt case, the state’s policies dictate essentially thataccess to the beach is the right of the public and therefore has theright to be free with unrestricted access to the entire coastal line(Robinson 46).

The UnitedStates Hughes court case states that recreational use by thepublic has been reasonable, ancient, free from dispute, and withoutinterruption. The Louisiana State for example has the statewide lawthat guarantees unrestricted access to all its coasts. In theLouisiana Open Beaches Act revised in 2014, it affirmed and declaredit as a public policy of the state that the public, whetherindividually and collectively, shall be granted free withoutrestrictions the right to access and own property along the coastlines of the state. In addition, the law also allows access tostate-owned beaches (Member 67). While there have been numerousattempts that have been made and are continued to be executed toweaken the act, the public still enjoys access until today.

Louisiana forexample, has plenty of coastal resources, which include 30% of allthe coastal marsh. However, the state is experiencing the loss of thecoastal marsh land. This is due to channelization of riverMississippi, which from way back provided sediments used to buildMississippi delta. Christie et al. (87) noted that Hurricane Katrinaand the Rita interrupted the coast line, which its recovery will takeconsiderable amount of time. In Louisiana, there is some amount ofcoastal shoreline armoring policies that the state has installed forprotection of the shorelines from the hurricane, especially inlow-lying areas (Robillard et al. 111). Shoreline armoring in otherstates should be created and updated to help reflect lessons fromoccurrence of hurricanes in the past. In addition, comprehensivedraft plans are underway in the state to help restore the wetlands atthe coast and help protect the coastal communities.

In conclusion,beach access and ownership is important in improving the quality ofthe coasts. In addition, the citizens should be in a position toaccess and own property. It is important that the citizens are madeaware of the policies and laws that govern access and ownership ofthe coastal beaches. They should also be in a position to take fullresponsibility and exercise full their rights to protect and preventthe loss of the shoreline.

Works Cited

Berger, Curtis J. Land Ownership and Use: Cases, Statutes, andOther Materials. Boston: Little, Brown, 1968. Print.

Christie, Donna R, and Richard G. Hildreth. Coastal and OceanManagement Law in a Nutshell. St. Paul, MN: Thomson/West, 2007.Print.

Del, Valle S. Language Rights and the Law in the United States:Finding Our Voices. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, 2003.Internet resource.

Louisiana. The Revised Civil Code of the State of Louisiana.Holmes Beach, FL: Gaunt, Inc, 2009. Print.

Member, of L. The Legal Bearings in the Louisiana Case. Place ofpublication not identified: publisher not identified, 1873.Internet resource.

Pomeroy, John N. The Supreme Court and State Repudiation: TheVirginia and Louisiana Cases. New York: Burgoyne, 1883. Print.

Robillard, Walter G, and Lane J. Bouman. Clark on Surveying andBoundaries. Charlottesville, Va: LEXIS Law Pub, 1997. Print.

Robillard, WalterG. Clark on Surveying and Boundaries. , 2014. Continuallyupdated resource.

Robinson, Mark H.Beach Ownership and Public Access in Louisiana. , 1983. Print.

Sargent, William. Just Seconds from the Ocean: Coastal Living inthe Wake of Katrina. Hanover: University Press of New England,2007. Print.

Stright, Melanie, Eileen M. Lear, and James F. Bennett. SpatialData Analysis of Artifacts Redeposited by Coastal Erosion: A CaseStudy of Mcfadden Beach, Texas. Herndon, Va: U.S. Dept. of theInterior, Minerals Management Service, 1999. Print.

Wright, Roger K. A Beach Access Report. San Diego, Calif:County of San Diego, Dept. of Parks and Recreation, 2005. Print.