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

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.

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

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 !

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?

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