Which of the elements of the Elizabethan period do you find in "Sonnet 75" by Edmund Spenser?

Edmund Spenser is one of the best-known writers of the English Renaissance, which overlaps with the Elizabethan period (when Queen Elizabeth I was monarch of England). Spenser's famous poem The Fairie Queen was actually inspired by Elizabeth herself. Spenser is also known for his sonnets at a time when sonnets were being written by some of the best poets of the time, including William Shakespeare.
Spenser's "Sonnet 75" comes from a sonnet sequence he wrote for his wife, entitled Amoretti. The Italian title may be a nod to the "father of the sonnet," Francesco Petrarca (Petrarch), who was Italian and originated the classical sonnet form during the Italian Renaissance. The poem is certainly a love poem, which is typical of sonnets, though since Spenser's are written to his wife, they do not display the mix of pain and pleasure that we see in classical sonnets about unrequited love. Because sonnets are such an important form in the Renaissance and Elizabethan period, we can look at "Sonnet 75" and see what qualities line up with the expectations for Renaissance sonnets.
The first stanza of Spenser's "Sonnet 75" reads,

One day I wrote her name upon the strand,
But came the waves and washed it away:
Again I write it with a second hand,
But came the tide, and made my pains his prey (1-4).

Here, Spenser is saying that he tried to write his beloved's name on the beach's sand, but the waves kept erasing her name. The tide also terrorized his attempts, making his written word "his prey." The rhyme scheme here is ABAB, and the meter is iambic pentameter, which is typical of Renaissance sonnets. The use of personification and imagery similarly line up with poetry of this period. Finally, Spenser's attempt to immortalize his love is a common theme in Renaissance literature and in sonnets.
The next stanza continues,

Vain man, said she, that doest in vain assay,
A mortal thing so to immortalize,
For I myself shall like to this decay,
And eek my name be wiped out likewise (5-8).

Here, Spenser's beloved begins to comment on his attempt. Instead of appreciating the gesture, she calls him "vain" and says that his efforts are pointless. She tells him that something that is "mortal" cannot be made immortal in this way. She will die, and her name will disappear from memory. Here, Spenser uses repetition and word play with the double meaning on "vain" in line 5. The contrast of "mortal" and "immortalize" likewise show his deft control of language. The stanza brings us a new angle on a common theme introduced in stanza 1: the poet's struggle to make immortal his love and his writing.
In the final quatrain, Spenser replies,

Not so, (quod I) let baser things devise
To die in dust, but you shall live by fame:
My verse, your virtues rare shall eternize,
And in the heavens write your glorious name (9-12).

Spenser's response is to characterize their love as better than most mortal things, which he calls "baser." He assures his beloved that he will immortalize her in his "verse" or poetry. In this way, her name and their love story will live forever "in the heavens." This romantic notion brings the theme to its ideal end: even though their mortal lives will end, their love will continue as we continue to read the poems about their love to this day.
The final couplet closes the sonnet by saying,

Where whenas death shall all the world subdue,
Our love shall live, and later life renew (13-14).

The summation, which we typically see in the couplet of a Renaissance sonnet, restates the poem's theme, which is that their love will live on while other things die. Again, this occurs throughout the poem itself, which can be read even after the mortal beings described in it have long since passed away.
The sonnet embodies the features we expect in this form of poetry, which was at its height in the Renaissance and the Elizabethan period. The form and its themes exemplify the elements of sonnets in this time.

what strategies did women use to fight for better wages

Women have constantly been fighting an uphill battle to get better pay, and to get equal pay with men. There have been many different methods used by women to address these issues. Going back to the late 1800s and the early 1900s, women joined organizations and formed unions to advocate for their cause. They met with elected officials and worked to get laws to improve their wages. They held rallies and gave speeches. One of the first successful strikes led by a women’s group was the New York shirtwaist strike in 1909. The owners of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory tried to break the strike by hiring people to fight the striking women and then having the police arrest them when they fought back. Eventually, the women prevailed and got a pay increase.
In more recent times, women have been more vocal about pay disparities. The US national women’s hockey team took a stand about pay differentials and got a pay increase. Women athletes, such as those who play in tennis and soccer tournaments, have also taken a stand against the differences in pay between men and women. They have publicized the disparities that exist and have threatened to boycott events until the pay issue was addressed. Women in the motion picture industry also have publicized the differences in pay between men and women.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/13/sports/tennis/equal-pay-gender-gap-grand-slam-majors-wta-atp.html

According to "The Federalist No 10," which one poses a greater danger to the republic government: the minority or the majority? Why?

In "The Federalist Papers: No 10," James Madison states that the government of the American Republic is susceptible to influence not from "the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party," but from the majority, whose voice is louder and who may be "overbearing."
Madison allows that these people may often have genuine cause for complaint, but believes that anything constituting a "faction"—that is, either a majority or a minority, but a group united by "some common impulse" which would have a negative effect on others' rights—poses a threat to the republic.Part of the reason these groups cause such threat is because it is very difficult to eradicate them. Eradicating them would mean abolishing liberty, which is contrary to the interest of the republic's government, or eradicating differences of opinions among people, which is obviously impossible.
In terms of these factions, then: if a faction is "less than a majority," a regular vote can be utilized to defeat its "sinister views." However, where the "majority is included in a faction," it is more difficult for these views to be suppressed through the regular channels of government. Madison's concentration here, then, is to "secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction"—that is, a faction with a majority—while simultaneously maintaining the rights for which the American people had fought.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.asp

What influence does an individual teacher have, apart from what the school does?

Each school has its own set of governing rules and educational philosophy that to some extent dictate what happens in your classroom. Some districts even provide curriculum programs to be followed. Yet as an educator, you have a great deal of individual influence in your own classroom, as long as you tap into the right resources. Even the little things you do can make a big difference, such as creating a physical atmosphere in your room that welcomes students and stimulates their minds and imaginations.
The rules you set for academic and behavioral management give your students a safe, structured routine, allowing them to learn more comfortably. An important tool to developing a positive influence is the formulation of your own teaching philosophy, which will evolve with your years of experience and your continuing education. Apply your philosophy statement as a litmus test to all you do, in order to create the best experience for your students. This can include creative touches to lessons in order to differentiate for individual students, or even whole groups of kids from one year to another, according to their needs.
Along this same line, the social and academic feedback you give your students comes from you alone, and is one of the most important influences you have on your students, especially when it is coupled with positive relationships. Kids will strive for knowledge and success when they are encouraged by someone who clearly cares about them. Make it happen.
Even outside of our classrooms, teachers have a good deal of influence on our school and community. One small but critical step is communicating openly and often with parents, and not just for the “trouble” students. Take time to call or sent positive messages to parents, and you’ll be creating positive vibes about your class and your school. Every school and district has committees designed to make the system better, from academics to behavior management to community relations. Join one. Let your positive voice and creative ideas be heard. Or sign up to interact with kids after school through an extracurricular activity, which will, by its very nature, promote positive community interaction for you and your school.
Finally (and one of the healthiest influences on yourself, as well), form friendly, effective relationships with your fellow teachers, administrators, paraprofessionals, office staff, and maintenance. Your positive attitude makes a difference in your school every day, sometimes in ways you’ll never know directly but that you’ll feel in the atmosphere of your school.

Were grassroots activists or federal policymakers more influential in the implementation of progressive reform?

Grassroots activists and federal policymakers play very different roles in society when it comes to overseeing the implementation of progressive reform. Grassroots activists are often splintered into different groups. These organizations mobilize their networks to promote awareness around particular issues like pollution, workers' rights or civil liberties. The job of the lawmaker is to interpret the interests of various stakeholders in society across a wide range of concerns.
Let's consider the example of the Civil Rights movement. Civil rights activists participated in mass displays of civil disobedience in order to protest their unfair treatment under harsh segregation laws in the Jim Crow South. Eventually, their efforts paid off, and policymakers who were once hesitant to accept their demands passed the Voting Rights Act. This policy secured African Americans the right to vote and outlawed mechanisms like the poll tax, which suppressed the vote. The job of the grassroots activists here was to raise awareness around an issue and provoke a public discussion that might lead to change. The job of the federal policymaker was to interpret these interests into law and implement concrete mechanisms to protect the rights of the oppressed.

The answer to this question depends on what progressive reforms one is referring to. Progressivism was above all an urban movement, and many of its reforms were a consequence of people who worked at the local level, establishing settlement houses, engaging in social work, promoting political reform in city governments, and pushing for revisions in city housing ordinances, to name a few reforms. But many of the most enduring Progressive reforms were implemented at the federal level. Federal laws and amendments established safety standards for food and drugs, instituted a federal income tax, promoted management of monetary policy through the Federal Reserve, and, infamously, implemented Prohibition, long a goal of many urban reformers, at the national level. So Progressive reformers worked at the local, state, and federal level to reform society in the late nineteenth and early twentieth-centuries. A prominent example of this reform impulse was Theodore Roosevelt, whose zeal for reform dated in part to his service as New York City's police commissioner in the late 1800s. He would carry this commitment for Progressive reform into the office of New York governor and then the Presidency itself.
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/era.cfm?eraid=11

What are the central features of absolutism? In what ways does the absolutist state differ from the medieval state?

In theory, an absolutist state is one in which the monarch has complete, total authority over society, and can effectively do whatever they want without anyone to stop them. In practice, no real-world state has ever been that absolutist. Even extremely powerful kings have been restrained by economic, social, and political limits. Often even very powerful kings fear that the aristocracy will undermine them, or that the general populace will try to overthrow them, and as a result they make some effort to please their subjects rather than simply fulfill their own aims. There is actually some dispute among historians over where exactly to draw the line as to which states were "absolutist" and which were not. Many monarchs asserted absolute authority in principle but were never able to obtain in it practice. Still, some governments have gotten much closer to absolutism than others. The chief difference between an absolutist state like France in the mid-18th-century (or Saudi Arabia today) and the medieval state is their level of centralized power. During medieval times, the feudal system reigned, and power was much more decentralized. Travel and communication between regions were so costly that it was difficult for national authorities such as kings to really exert power over their subjects. Instead they relied on local authorities such as dukes, and to greater or lesser extent sought to influence those local authorities rather than control them by force. This gave kings much less direct power over individual subjects, though as far as the subjects were concerned it may not have made much difference in their lives.

What is the single most important problem with the Cold War policy in Asia exposed by the authors?

According to The Ugly American by William Lederer and Eugene Burdick, the single most important problem with the Cold War policy of the United States of America in Asia is the lack of cultural knowledge and sensitivity that Americans brought to Asian countries; by contrast, Russian officials were culturally sensitive and took the time to learn the customs, language, and culture, which benefited their standing within those countries. 
The Ugly American is written as a series of loosely connected stories that focus on Americans and Russians doing work in Asia. The characters who emerge as positive representations are the ones who attempt to understand the Asian culture in which they're living and working. Those people are better able to connect with the locals and further their agendas. On the other hand, some characters are cut off from the populations they're living with; those characters, like an "ambassador who refuses to learn the language or the personality of the country to which he is assigned," are unable to further their own agendas and, more importantly, the overall agenda of the United States.
Lederer and Burdick explain in an author's note at the beginning of the book that the novel "is written as fiction; but it is based on fact. The things we write about have, in essence, happened." They go on to say that they're hoping not to embarrass people but rather to stir both thought and action to improve things for Americans stationed and working abroad. 
The disconnect between the Americans and the countries in which they're living are symbolized in the first chapter of the book. They explain that the embassy is wholly separate from the country itself, saying, "At the end of the lawn the pickets of a wrought-iron fence separated Embassy grounds from the confusion and noise of the road" (11). Like the building itself, the Americans who are damaging foreign policy keep themselves separate from the Asian people; this creates a gap in understanding that prevents them from being able to further the policies they're trying to push to prevent Asian countries from aligning with Russia.
Unlike the "ugly" Americans in the book, the Russians integrate themselves into the culture. An example of this is Louis Krupitzyn's encounter with the Chief Abbot, who is the leader of all the Buddhists in the area where Krupitzyn is stationed. He's told that a younger monk will have to accompany him to translate because the Chief Abbot doesn't speak English. They write:

When they were in front of the monk, Louis Krupitzyn bowed very low and said in classical Sarkhanese, "It is very gracious of Your Reverence to accord me this privilege."
"You did not tell my secretary that you spoke our language."
Krupitzyn, still bowing low, replied,"It is traditional, Your Reverence, that one saves his best words for the master."
Krupitzyn sat cross-legged on the floor and the Grand Leader of all the Buddhists of Sarkhan and Louis Krupitzyn, the Russian Ambassador, began to talk. At first it was chitchat, and then it turned to philosophy. They sat there for the rest of the afternoon until it became dark. (37)

Krupitzyn, unlike his American counterparts, understands the culture and language of the area. He's better able to show and gain respect than the ambassador who doesn't speak English, for example.
Later, Krupitzyn is told by local informants who work as translators at the American Embassy that American rice shipments are coming to Sarkhan, where a typhoon damaged a lot of crops. He quickly buys rice at escalated black market prices and delivers it himself to the area, where a Communist newspaper "had come out with a special edition whose headlines announced that Russia, the friend of Sarkhan, would relieve the famine; and that the Russian Ambassador would personally arrive that day with the first token contribution of rice" (38).
In this way, Krupitzyn is able to further the idea that the communist countries will help the Asian countries for nothing at all. He explains that capitalist countries like America will only help when they can profit from it. By the time the American rice arrives, this idea is ingrained in the population. Also, it's given from the American Ambassador to the Prime Minister of the country, rather than to the people themselves. When it is delivered to the people, the Sarkhanese communists claim that the Russians, not the Americans, have delivered the rice, saying "Didn't the Russian Ambassador warn you that the capitalists would do anything for profit?" (39).
It turns out the Sarkhanese people who weighed the rice stenciled "This rice is a gift from Russia" in Sarkhanese on it once it was taken off the ships. The Americans are unaware of what's happened. They write that "The Americans took pictures of the distribution of the rice and the smiling faces of the now happy people. There were no comments from any of the Americans present. None of them could read or understand Sarkhanese and they did not know what was happening" (39). They don't find out about what the Russians have done for a week. 
This lack of knowledge and understanding prevents the Americans from making an impact on the population. Even when America tries to do the right thing, Russia is able to stay ahead of them simply by staying connected with the locals. Krupitzyn even explains in a letter to Russia that they want to keep the clueless American ambassador in place, if possible. He ties up his employees with meetings and forbids them to go into the hills, as well as annoying "the people of Sarkhan with his bad manners," Krupitzyn explains (40).
Though The Ugly American is a fictional book, it made an impact in the real world. According to the New York Times:

Most controversially, "The Ugly American" warned, unsubtly, that the United States was losing influence in the region to the Communists in China and the Soviet Union. The book, which was published by W.W. Norton in 1958, caused a major stir. It catalyzed outrage over the tax dollars spent on foreign aid, stimulated debate in Congress — Senator J. William Fulbright of Arkansas called the book "sterile, devoid of insight, reckless and irresponsible" — over the efficacy of foreign aid programs, and in years to come influenced the training of Peace Corps volunteers.

Lederer and Burdick make the point that America is failing in its dealings overseas because they aren't making an effort to connect with and understand the local population; since Russia is making that effort, they appear more friendly and more in line with local values. Therefore they are better able to win them over.
The single most important problem with cold war policy in The Ugly American isn't a policy but rather the way in which all policy is being implemented -- without regard for local culture, customs, or languages, which keeps the Americans overseas from connecting with the Asian people. This is why in the epilogue Lederer and Burdick say:

What we need is a small force of well-trained, well-chosen, hard-working, and dedicated professionals. They must be willing to risk their comforts and—in some lands—their health. They must go equipped to apply a positive policy promulgated by a clear-thinking government. They must speak the language of the land of their assignment, and they must be more expert in its problems than are the natives. (284)

Only in that way, the authors make it clear, can America hope to influence Asian countries during the Cold War. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/arts/14lederer.html