The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > voting age

voting age

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All
Voting is an important activity in a democracy. Elections decide the fate of a country for a specific period apart from its long term impact. In most countries the voting age is around 18 years.The youth are a volatile group who are swayed by personal
considerations rather than public good. In my opinion these
young people are not mature enough to choose the right
candidate. Being children themselves how can they choose a
suitable adult who is going to govern. Youth are fascinated by
money, cinema and other entertainment. They may not
understand what public good is.
Age is the only variable which can be universally applied. All other specifications such as "married people" etc. etc. may
become highly subjective. When people reach certain age say 21
years or more it is likely that they might have been exposed to
the complexities of life and therefore will be in a position to
understand what is personal and how it affects the interest of the
public. Understanding the functioning of societies is the most
important aspect that will decide the quality of voting.
Posted by Ezhil, Sunday, 8 March 2020 12:23:56 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Voting rights began at twenty one before the Vietnam war.

The argument at that time to lower it to eighteen, was the age limit of the draft, or conscription.
The minimum age for that process was lowered to eighteen yo.

So there was a reason to lower the voting age, along with lowering the legal age to consume alcohol.

The voting age is tied to a set of circumstances, re above example.

I see no successful challenge to the current standard as it stands.
There is no appetite for it.
It's not going to happen.

Dan
Posted by diver dan, Sunday, 8 March 2020 3:20:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It appears to me that voting, & government were both more rational & successful, when voting was restricted to only male property owners.

I recall some admiral, with a lot more savvy than the current top brass said, the only place for women is in the kitchen, barefoot & pregnant.

Not sure I agree with the pregnant bit.
Posted by Hasbeen, Sunday, 8 March 2020 3:29:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>The youth are a volatile group who are swayed by personal considerations rather than public good.
I don't think that's more true of the youth than any other group. And there's the added complication that older people believe the pubic good aligns with their personal considerations even when, by any objective standards, it doesn't.

If this board is anything to go by, the older generation are a much greater threat to the public good. They're out of touch with reality, and wilfully ignore all the evidence that challenge what they already believe.
Posted by Aidan, Sunday, 8 March 2020 4:04:20 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The LNP have no problem using our youth as cannon fodder in wars, lower the voting age to 16. While we're at it apply a sinility test to all old farts and take the vote of them, particularly those who make derogatory comments about women.
Posted by Paul1405, Sunday, 8 March 2020 4:31:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm reposting a comment that I've made earlier (jsut before last fed election) regarding this issue:

Since it's election time I thought I'd bring up the issue of the voting age. Commonly it is suggested that it should be lowered to 16 years. Last year this was raised in the senate by a private bill. This bill and the public comments about it covered some of the standard reasons for lowering it. eg:
- The fact that 16-17 year olds are able to work full time and pay taxes and yet not vote on the policies that affect them (but it should be noted that in reality that it is only a small and decreasing minority of youth at this age who do work full time)
- Recognise that young people are disengaged from politics and should be recognised as a constituency in order to foster civic participation.
- Also other reasons such as human rights under UN treaties or that they can be punished for crimes the same as adults, etc.

But against this is the argument that the age should be raised instead of lowered. Reasons for this include:
- Human development of the brain means that mental maturity is not achieved until early/mid twenties,
- Because the complexity of society has continually increased it takes longer for adolescents/young adults to experience and appreciate the intricacies and interdependence of it (eg: today's society is vastly different from even 40 years ago- due to multiculturalism, environmentalism, feminism and all the other "-isms", technology, increases in specialization and division of labour, the increased interconnection of countries by trade and other global issues, etc. The majority of 16-20 year olds simply haven't had enough contact with a broad enough cross section of society to form well-informed opinions of many of these important issues.
- Youth/young adults are more dependent on their providers for longer then previously- it is typical that a young person will not achieve full independence until into their early twenties.
Posted by thinkabit, Sunday, 8 March 2020 5:39:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
** continued from above **

- They are also delaying having families (commonly into late 20's and early 30's) so they have very little direct experience/contact with the social and economic issues involved/arising with having kids.

So what I propose is a voting system that tries to balance this:

Basically you give people more voting power as they mature by having fractional votes. For example:

1) citizens aged 16-17 get 1/3 of a vote,
2) those 18-21 get 2/3 of vote,
3) and lastly those 21 and over have a full vote.

[Note: the following has been newly added in this post:]
Under the above proposal observe that the youth/young adult vote (ie. those under 21) is now spread over those aged 16 to 21 but their overall collective vote tallies slightly less than the number of votes that is currently collected from those aged 18 to 21. Specifically the ratio of the youth vote under this proposal to the existing system is 2&2/3 : 3, assuming an even spread of population for each age year at these ages.
Posted by thinkabit, Sunday, 8 March 2020 5:40:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Greta shows how the brain needs a lot more time to develop.
Posted by runner, Sunday, 8 March 2020 6:53:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
18 is way too low for voters, they lack the sense that was taken off them by indoctrination at school. Establish a National Service & put the voting age up to 21.
Public Servants should be exempt from voting.
Posted by individual, Sunday, 8 March 2020 6:54:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The old folks living off the taxpayer on 'Aged Pensions' are a double whammy. They eat up our taxes without contributing, and 95% have dementia, progressing to 100% by the age of 80. These non compos mentis non producing people should not vote, they are a danger to society! My idea of a 'Seniors Boot Camp' "where work will make you free" will knock em' into shape! Cold winter nights sleeping under the stars, how invigorating for our old people! If that don't work then it's the 'Aged Care Gulag' for any malcontents!
Posted by Paul1405, Sunday, 8 March 2020 7:18:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An 18 year old is not allowed to contest in elections based on some criteria. Then what is the rationality in allowing them to vote? In my opinion it is the politicians who want the voting age to be lowered and not the general public. The politicians with an ulterior motive to garner young votes by making use of the youth's volatile nature, argue for a younger voting age. Heavens will not fall if these young citizens do not vote.Simply because these youngsters start to earn on their own they don't develop a mental capacity to judge things in an election scenario.
I don't approve of the young going for work. Parents should give them the education and support not only economic but also moral and psychological. Parental neglect is an important cause for erratic behaviour of the youth.
Posted by Ezhil, Sunday, 8 March 2020 11:03:55 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When you start to reason why some of the population should loss their voting rights, then you are in dangerous territory. The reasons that qualify who should have the right to vote are starting based on mental capacity and lack of experience (for removing younger voters 18-20 year olds), and on the value of their work (retired, living off of the taxes of the young).

Regardless of the voting age, neither of these two reasons are good enough to take the voting age away from them. Those younger are just getting placed into the world and are out of highschool. Their brains are still developing, but are also better for learning new things then they will be in just 5-10 years. Letting them vote at this age could arguably make them better voters when they are 25 and older. So the argument for maturity through experience, and a mature brain can be countered by making better votes throughout their lives. Anything younger then 18 doesn't make sense unless more people that age are out of school and employed.

Those older (say 80 or older) have put their time in and worked their share. Regardless if you agree with their votes you should respect them more and not take their voting ability away from them. Aside from earning the right to vote through working throughout their life, there's also the truth that voting affects their livelihood more then it does someone who isn't retired. Their security is tied to having a say more then the younger folks. Take away their vote is cruel on many levels. (As is making an 80 year old go back to work instead of looking after them is cruel).
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Monday, 9 March 2020 3:49:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The voting age should be lifted to 25 years, which is when the human brain is fully developed according to the experts on such matters. Only old perverts seeking under aged whoopy pander to kids.
Posted by ttbn, Monday, 9 March 2020 9:13:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
They eat up our taxes without contributing
Paul1405,
As you don't grasp the difference between contributing & contribution you should really refrain from constantly looking like a prize git !
You're not contributing anything of value, all your contributions are silly quips.
You're a perfect example why the voting age should be lifted to 21 or 25.
Posted by individual, Monday, 9 March 2020 11:34:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We will recruit an 18 year old to go to war and kill the enemy.
So it is hard to say he should not vote.
However the 18 year olds coming out of the protected atmosphere of the
schools have been brainwashed and will need a few years of the real world.

I remind you that Greta Thunberg turns 18 next birthday !
Now that should be a warning.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 9 March 2020 1:30:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In a democracy, a person who believes that "public good" exists and is worthwhile to forward, ought to start a political party named "The Public Good Party", then convince as many as they can to vote their party in.

Once voted in, then either employ the experts to determine what policies forward the public good, or if you believe that this knowledge is equally distributed among the general population, conduct the necessary surveys/referendums among those who desire the public good.

Demanding to deny voting rights from those who are for any reason incapable of determining what the public good is, is akin to denying voting rights from those who disagree with your party and its ideology. If this is what you want, then the honest thing to do is to openly declare that you do not believe in democracy.

As for children, there is no reasonable justification for their wishes to not be included in a democratic vote. If your claim is correct that they are incapable of expressing what politically they want, then their parents should vote on their behalf.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 9 March 2020 1:41:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am not that concerned about the VOTER, but I think I should be. However I am extremely concerned about the VOTED. Given the outright lunatics in government today driving Australia towards disaster, namely the 'Coalition of Fruitcakes' led by their fearless leader ScumO' Morrison, they being the VOTED. It was on a sunny Saturday last May when the VOTER made the terrible decision of making these fruitcakes the VOTED! Some of those VOTERS who made that terrible decision last May are the 'Forum Old Farts' brigade, and none are a day under 85! I ask at what age should we take the vote of Mr and Mrs Gerry Atric? A sinility test at 65 should do the trick, it would knock out some of the forums oldies that's for sure.
Posted by Paul1405, Monday, 9 March 2020 4:35:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Paul,

Have you considered the possibility that some of these "Gerry Attric"s may fully agree with you, but are only forced to vote in order to avoid the fine?

Many young people too, actually, curse the day they ignorantly handed in their AEC-registration form.

Let anyone of ANY age vote provided that:
1) they want to; and
2) they pass a basic test to indicate that they understand the process and what the different parties stand for.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 9 March 2020 5:55:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not forced to vote, just forced to front up and have your name crossed of the roll.
Posted by Paul1405, Monday, 9 March 2020 6:01:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We will recruit an 18 year old to go to war and kill the enemy.
Bazz,
It HAS been 50 years since that scenario played out. The situation is vastly different now & a National Service is probably the most needed social aspect today. Now, they're 10 years old & go out & rob people & steal to satisfy their drug abuse.
They're old enough to cause trouble but they're far too immature to vote. We need to get young people into a more sane environment so that hopefully they can have a positive impact on their immature parents. It'd only be the ALP that'd suffer setbacks but society would win big time.
Imagine a time when people vote for the betterment of our society instead of personal gain only !
Posted by individual, Monday, 9 March 2020 6:24:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's only a small fine Yuyutsu.

I refuse to vote as things are as one's vote can only go to either Child Abuser party 1 or 2.

And yes, with much relish, and narrowly avoiding an additional contempt charge, hha3, I have been prosecuted for it.

There needs to be a "conscientious objector" category i.m.o.

As currently, as best I understand it, there is only one legal reason for avoiding the vote, and that is "Religious Duty."

Yes, if you are a member of an officially registered and recognised religion, and if that religion has made it a duty not to vote for whatever reason, then you are exempt. But otherwise not, unless you are literally unconscious or possibly (not sure) without legal capacity.
Posted by rEPRUSu, Tuesday, 10 March 2020 3:23:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Small note here: I probably should have written the ratio in my last comment with whole numbers, ie. 2&2/3:3 should have been 8:9. So the last sentence reads easier as:
"Specifically the ratio of the youth vote under this proposal to the existing system is 8:9, assuming an even spread of population for each age year at these ages."

Additionally note that if you drop the voting age even lower to 15, so that 15,16,17 year olds have 1/3 of a vote and 18,19,20 year olds have 2/3 then the total number of votes from those below 21 under this new scheme equals that that currently exists. In other words, you spread out the youth vote over a broader age range but don't change the total contribution compared to the current scheme.
Posted by thinkabit, Tuesday, 10 March 2020 9:10:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would be happy to have the right to vote extended to those 16 and over but to leave it optional below 18. If a teenager is prepared to bugger up a perfectly good teenagers typical weekend by going to vote then that's good enough for me.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 10 March 2020 9:38:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This ezil should be concerning himself with voting in his own country, not ours. There they would probably be as interested in what has to say as we are - not at all.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 10 March 2020 9:47:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In all the conversation about people who pay taxes having the right to vote, no one has mentioned the group who are adults, never worked a day in their life and will vote for anyone who promises to increase their Centrelink payment.
Personally I think voting should only be the right of people who have contributed to the public purse, even once they have retired, and restrict those who have never contributed or only contributed a small amount.
Permanent welfare recipients generally see no benefit in any policies that don’t benefit them directly and aren’t concerned with long term economics.
Posted by Big Nana, Tuesday, 10 March 2020 9:54:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
At Aldi this morning, had bog paper, limit 1 pak per customer. Mrs Old Fart agro with staff, the old duck had 2 pkts . I told her to stick the bog paper up her arse! The wife don't like me doing that.
Posted by Paul1405, Tuesday, 10 March 2020 10:25:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Big Nana,

Those were pretty much the same arguments which were put forward against housewives getting the vote.

They were also employed by those wanting to preserve the right to vote only to landholders.

We thankfully discarded and moved past them as a society.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 10 March 2020 11:41:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steele,

Back in the day, nobody would have said that 'housewives don't work a day in their lives'. Women still worked, by the way (and on lower pay) - as well as doing their housewifely duties when they came home each night. My mum did that probably from when she was 14 or so, with a few years out to raise us kids, and until she retired at 63.

I think Big Nana means people, able-bodied people, who make sure that they either acquire no skills or live where there is no possibility of work, or both - and who never do a day's work in their lives.

I vividly recall one family of two sons and a daughter who, between them, as far as I could tell, did exactly that - not a single day's work. They all died of the grog in their thirties, so they didn't get to enjoy their free time for long. They coasted along on the reputation of their father as a top tracker.

And of course, in many communities, women, by definition, never work again once they have started to have their kids, even though seasonal work on fruit-picking, etc., is freely available.

Joe
Posted by loudmouth2, Tuesday, 10 March 2020 12:20:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When my folks were married in 1935 my mother was dismissed from her job.

Women were not supposed to work after marriage, they were supposed to take to home duties, & start raising kids.

In the country towns where we lived after the war there were very few or no jobs for wives. It was only after they returned to Sydney that she went back to work in the 60s.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 10 March 2020 12:54:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear loudmouth2,

This could be an interesting discussion.

As Hasbeen said “Women were not supposed to work after marriage, they were supposed to take to home duties, & start raising kids.”

But you would rather them out fruit picking?

Obviously kids are raised in households with parents who are unemployed. This requires work. While not directly paid it is work none the less. Why is it any different to when women were not a large part of the workforce?

I know a number of single mums who do not do paid work except for minding other kids for cash. Should they be denied a vote as well?

When unemployment is allowed to surge because of government policies should those impacted not have a say about them?
Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 10 March 2020 1:32:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen,

Good point about their being little work for women in rural areas. Until well after the War, perhaps even now, middle-class girls could maybe become governesses, or go to town and study to become teachers or nurses. But otherwise, for working-class and Indigenous girls, about all that was available was as cooks and housemaids.

And of course, until well after the War, and with little secondary education opportunities in the countryside, girls started such work at fourteen. My mother-in-law was fortunate, in a way, to get housemaid's work in the city during the War; my late wife was still doing the same sort of work in the country in the sixties, on a sheep station.

Nowadays, when it would be unthinkable for Indigenous girls and even women to do that sort of work, that past history can be portrayed as compulsory, slave-labour, etc., part of the intentional and deliberate 'stolen generation' policies. But in those days, what else was there for rural women with few skills ? As it happened, my wife quickly decided to take her chances in the city. And the rest, as they say ......

Joe
Posted by loudmouth2, Tuesday, 10 March 2020 1:38:09 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My observation is that women who have chosen to stay at home and look after their kids are generally happier than some of the nasty feminist career women (like on the abc) who love to see themselves as victims. Sad that families no longer see themselves as a unit but rather selfish individuals just taking what they can. No wonder we have so many entilted brats such as the extinction rebellion crowd, divorces and fatherless kids making teachers lives miserable.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 10 March 2020 1:47:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steele,

Strange things to conclude. Of course, women should have the choice of working or not, especially if they have a number of kids. Of course it should have no effect on their rights to vote.

What I had in mind was the phenomenon in Aboriginal communities of many women with one or two kids and clearly no intention of ever working. I don't know about other states, I know only a bit about SA, and nowhere else, but it seemed to us that if a woman started her family before about 1964, she had a lot of kids; if she started after about 1968, she had one or two. Birth control made that change easier. This was partly mirrored in the national birth figures around that time.

My wife ran the pre-school in one community across the seventies: she started with kids born around 1968-1969, some born late in large families; some born as singletons or one-of-two from about 1969-1970. By 1976, it was clear that there soon wouldn't be enough kids to warrant a pre-school, so we came back down to Adelaide to study as mature-age students.

But the understandable practice of earlier mothers having large families (and often few labour-saving devices) and never working was partly adopted by their younger sisters insofar as they never worked, even though they may have had one child and all the paraphernalia of labour-saving devices. I suspect that their daughters religiously carried on the same practice of carefully avoiding work. And now their grand-daughters. That's their choice, of course. But it should have no effect on their rights, particularly the right to vote.

Joe
Posted by loudmouth2, Tuesday, 10 March 2020 1:54:13 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
the group who are adults, never worked a day in their life and will vote for anyone who promises to increase their Centrelink payment.
Big Nana,
I have long said that Public Servants should not be allowed to vote ! The Public Service is one immense Centrelink !
Posted by individual, Tuesday, 10 March 2020 2:10:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear loudmouth2,

I have a niece who recently gave birth to her second child, at home without a midwife.

She has no intention of returning to work in the near future. She is avowedly a stay at home mum who intends to home school.

It seems you and Big Nana would like her either stripped of her vote or out fruit picking. or does she get a free pas because she isn't indigenous and living in remote community?
Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 10 March 2020 5:25:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steele,

You have a problem with either-or situations, and situations which aren't either-or. What a stupid comment. Of course a young mother has to stay and care for her baby, and probably for many years yet. Nobody is expecting any mother who is actually looking after young children, not at school, to go out and do any sort of work, (but many do, of course).

My point was that many young women, especially in Indigenous communities, may have had no kids or only one or two, but also have few skills, and seem to take all that for granted as a pass on any sort of work, that 'women don't work'. Their kids may be picked up from home to and from school, their pre-schoolers may be looked after half the day as well.

I'm not suggesting getting out in the cotton-fields all day, but if people can work, if they are able-bodied, then if they are having financial problems, they should be encouraged - especially if they have access to a vehicle - to seek out work like 'ordinary people' have to.

Joe
Posted by loudmouth2, Tuesday, 10 March 2020 5:45:35 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
She is avowedly a stay at home mum who intends to home school.
SteeleRedux,
Why shouldn't she vote if the father/s of her children support her ?
Posted by individual, Tuesday, 10 March 2020 5:50:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maybe their shouldn't be an age, but a test.

You have to prove that you have a basic understanding of things and are capable of making rational decisions.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Tuesday, 10 March 2020 8:07:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear loudmouth2,

Yup mate I'm calling you out.

Your criteria once again appear to be those “especially in Indigenous communities”.

What does it matter whether they are intent on working after raising their children. We are discussing the period where they are taking care of their offspring. I certainly agree the independence and self esteem that work brings is important. But you are the one making the distinction between my niece and a young mum in an indigenous community so you really don't get to call my comment stupid, especially when you have just validated its premise.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 10 March 2020 8:37:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Posted by Runner, Tuesday, 10 March 2020 1:47:48 PM

" .. My observation is that women who have chosen to stay at home and look after their kids are generally happier than some of the nasty feminist career women (like on the abc) who love to see themselves as victims. Sad that families no longer see themselves as a unit but rather selfish individuals just taking what they can. ... "

Posted by loudmouth2, Tuesday, 10 March 2020 12:20:56 PM

" ... And of course, in many communities, women, by definition, never work again once they have started to have their kids, even though seasonal work on fruit-picking, etc., is freely available. ... "

I have to say that broadly, if not entirely, I agree with Runner on this one and find Joe LM comments and those similar to be quite repugnant.

There are few things better than a traditional stay at home parent. Many men, would never have got anywhere near as far as they did were it not for the power behind the throne.

Often times, a very capable woman, who keeps the home luving, clean and orderly, who makes the most wonderful home cooked foods, who does provide the bedrock for productive, healthy and well adjusted children

(running them around for all their needs)

clean and ironed clothes, a beautiful and well kept garden and the list goes on.

To suggest in any shape or form that this is not work is an absolute and complete and utter ....'ing nonsense. The reality is that too many bludging, trash males have been parasitically taking advantage of their women for far too long and in my mind, the role of the stay at home partner should be enshrined and protected such that they cannot be financially or otherwise taken advantage of.
Posted by rEPRUSu, Wednesday, 11 March 2020 2:57:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Currently, I am happily single. And after work and study is done, I make my own ...'ing bed. Do my own ....'ing washing. Cook my own ....ing meals etc

Do you really reckon that I don't miss some of the creature comforts of a luving home carer? Fully shagged after being at it all day dealing with #@%^ #%^s and then having to tend house on top?

Some of you really need to have a good look at yourselves in the mirror, when the reality is some of you do little more than sit on your fat @#%^E's half the day fiddling with your phone and your pencil and full of bloated self conceit, then turn up home and expect everything to be done for you. @#&^ off.

And Runner, just remember that you speak of an idyllic situation.

And to a large extent I hear you.

But just think of how many women are grossly taken advantage of and not in any way appropriately rewarded for their efforts.

That's why there are so many feminazis and hairybacks. Because they've had a gut full of being taken advantage of by scumbag males.

Having said that, I saw to it my former partners were educated and also had employment. So, we became part time workers, and part time home carers and for the most part we shared equally in these roles.

But to listen to some of the sh!t written here that suggests looking after a child and being a home maker etc etc is not a job makes me hostile.

Back in the day when one home maker was the norm, one wage was enough. But then what happened? All of a sudden, the economy was re-set and for the working poor, there was no choice but for Mum to go out and work too Runner. Not just for personal self development.

And who do we have to blame for that. Child Abuser party 1 and Child Abuser party 2.

For %#@&*%'s ....ing sake, give some one else a go at the top job.
Posted by rEPRUSu, Wednesday, 11 March 2020 3:21:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul,

"The LNP have no problem using our youth as cannon fodder in wars, lower the voting age to 16. While we're at it apply a sinility test to all old farts..."

You keep your nose out of my sins.
Posted by Is Mise, Wednesday, 11 March 2020 7:29:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maybe there shouldn't be an age, but a test.
Armchair Critic,
That goes without saying but considering the poor education mentality it really needs to be age & test !
There's a sudden light at the end of the education tunnel since a couple of days ago. Teachers are threatening strike action re the Naplan show. This is a rare case where a Union is needed & actually proposes the morally & technically right stance.
Now, don't let the momentum slow down, do the same with school discipline & afford teachers the right to slap the little craps ! Also, load parents with disciplinary responsibility !
Posted by individual, Wednesday, 11 March 2020 7:33:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry, Steele, you lost me.

Joe
Posted by loudmouth2, Wednesday, 11 March 2020 9:33:16 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
But then what happened?
rEPRUSu,
The Labor orientated Unions got greedy & now look where it's gotten us to ! No manufacturing industry, poor education, poor mentality of the average bureaucrat, selling off appears to be the only industry left thanks to the Left !
Posted by individual, Wednesday, 11 March 2020 10:16:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear loudmouth2,

That's okay mate, it happens.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Wednesday, 11 March 2020 11:42:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Individual perhaps you have also noticed that it is since the education system was taken over by the ladies, that it has become more a joke than anything else. The range of subjects the ladies have introduced, & the way they are taught is the real reason for our collapsing education standards.

I would feel sorry rEPRUSu, for all those ladies slaving away at home bringing up their mans children, if it weren't for one thing.

I have never met a young bloke in any rush to have kids, in fact I have met many who don't want kids, or at least don't want them for quite a few years. In my experience it is the lady who, once she has secured her man, is in a huge rush to start the childbearing.

Thus it is the bloke who suppresses his desires for the things he wanted, a nice car, a boat or whatever, while he raises the expensive family she wanted. Most do it perfectly happily, believing that first pregnancy was an accident, & don't need some clown denigrating them for doing it.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 11 March 2020 1:02:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen,
no queries re your post from the pseudo intellectuals ? You must be right !
Posted by individual, Friday, 13 March 2020 2:23:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear individual,

Of course he is right. That is exactly why the age of women's first pregnancy has been getting longer and longer. In fact the median age of mothers giving birth was around 24 in the 1970s and is well over 30 now. Legalised abortion certainly had a role but availability of birth control meant women were deciding to have children much later.

All this utterly supports Hasbeen's position.

Oh wait, it doesn't does it.

One doesn't have to be an intellectual of any sort to figure out Hasbeen's full of it. It is patently obvious to all and sundry.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Friday, 13 March 2020 2:37:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Regardless of the arguments for or against, there's no point in arguing to take the ability to vote away from people. Whether they be the old, or the young, the educated or the average person. Just try to take the vote away from any if them and you'll see that all your doing is spitting into the wind. There's no reason to argue for any of it because it won't happen. Regardless who agrees or disagrees with that, that is how it is.

The best you can do is limit who else can vote if that is your stance. And on that point I agree that the voting age should not be younger then 18. There's no reason for it, and the kids are too distracted by other things to care, as well as most protected in their parents household so they aren't affected anyways,
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Saturday, 14 March 2020 3:15:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy