Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When I finished high school in NSW the HSC results were published as pass or fail in the attempted subjects but we were not told our overall tertiary entrance mark. However there were Commonwealth scholarships awarded to cover the University fees and Teacher Scholarships, which covered fees, also paid a living allowance but came with a bond.
People just accepted that fact the boys were seemingly given Teachers scholarships with a lower mark as it was deemed important at the time to ensure a decent number of men were teaching in primary schools in particular.
What goes around comes around.
The world isn't and should never be Men VS Woman. It's Men AND Women. We have to do this together. Surely you have many male family members that you share at some empathy for who will be discriminated against if we continue down this road. If it was wrong to do to women years ago it is wrong to do with men now.
My point is that with the construction industry. An industry in an absoloute shambles at the moment you have companies worried about issues like this at a time when they can't even get enough male employees. It shows that in light of the housing crisis they are completely clueless. It's nothing more than virtue signaling by companies trying to win large contracts due to the moral structure of their company rather than being efficient and cost effective.
Do you honestly think this is done because the powers that be care about women in the construction industry? Of course not. It's nonsense policies that cover up incompetence with virtue signaling
I suppose it depends who you mix with but I would have thought that change is well underway. My brother actually chose a low key career and early retirement and the only one it bothered was my mother.
I do not know personally any young women who see their future in terms of the traditional female role. But I suppose there are some out there.
This is so untrue or at least for Western Australia. Here in Perth the VAST majority of mothers either work part time or not at all while the dads work full time. It's too difficult to have Two partners work 40+ hours a week with the kids. For those that do it only do it because they have to and I salute them as it's HARD. However thankfully here many wife's/mothers can get by doing part time at most so they can also work on raising the kids which is a full time job in and of itself. I also don't know any mother with young kids who does want to do full time work as this is already so much work.
We do what's best for the family. I feel the best scenario while the kids are young is only one parent working outside the home however due to the cost of living If a family can get away with one also doing part time it also means a good family balance can be kept.
This is so untrue or at least for Western Australia. Here in Perth the VAST majority of mothers either work part time or not at all while the dads work full time. It's too difficult to have Two partners work 40+ hours a week with the kids. For those that do it only do it because they have to and I salute them as it's HARD. However thankfully here many wife's/mothers can get by doing part time at most so they can also work on raising the kids which is a full time job in and of itself. I also don't know any mother with young kids who does want to do full time work as this is already so much work.
We do what's best for the family. I feel the best scenario while the kids are young is only one parent working outside the home however due to the cost of living If a family can get away with one also doing part time it also means a good family balance can be kept.
While I do not deny that it is hard work when both parents work full-time it is common at least in Sydney. My friend in Perth has a daughter who is a university lecturer married to a tradie and both work full-time and have young kids. I did not realise they were the exception.
Anyway we are here to trade opinions and perhaps we have done so and not reached agreement. But it is worthwhile to have the discussion.
Should we turn back the clock to 1950, or even 1970, when girls were encouraged to leave school at 15, work for a few years and settle into a job that would not be too taxing and that they could leave if they followed the expected path of finding a husband and having kids?
I wanted to go to University and my parents agreed on condition that I become a teacher as it was a “nice job for a married woman” They considered that my preferred options such as journalism and architecture were not suitable. At that stage I was entirely single, as an aside. People like Hazel Hawke recalled being dux of their junior school but not being allowed to complete high school.
Having studied for four years at uni, I was not inclined to abandon my career and be a stay home mother on a permanent basis. I encouraged my kids to make choices on their interests and abilities, not on society’s view of their future role.
One has a senior business role, way out earns her spouse and he takes on far more of the tasks of organising the kids and home. They have a few friends with a stay at home dad supporting a mother and wife working in professional jobs. Our other kid has chosen to work part-time while her husband works full-time. Choice is now much more available.
When I think of life in 1970, with most girls not completing high school, with somewhat unreliable contraception, no supporting parents payments, illegal abortion, a strong culture of shotgun marriage and adoption, I would not want to turn the clock back to that.
We have just been in Taiwan and we’re both getting a surprise when we glance into a pram or stroller in Sydney and see a child. In Taiwan we would see a little puppy, generally dressed in a tutu or waistcoat. But a discussion with our guides would lead to the conclusion that there are multiple reasons for that country’s very low birth rate, which is much the same as places like Japan.
Turn the clock back not, but neither should we succumb to the con job that masquerades as a bright new future . WE need to be wary of false fads which suit the vested interests of a few.
I would have thought over time more women , who had the desire would have gone to university. Times would have changed I think it would be fair to say. But with the change there would have been greater choice. Instead there became pressure on women to work, not only work, but to compete on the highest levels, over time with men.
For example The Soviet Union was a world leader in granting equality and rights. Womens Day is a big celebration in that country even today I believe. Interesting to read accounts on that .
But the rush in The West to change traditional social dynamics has surely been a two edged sword.? It could be argued that choice was removed for women, as expectations raised pressure on women to reject traditional roles, and become competitive. Sadly men did not get the choice to drop the role they always held, that being the main bread winner in most cases. Most women expect their partner to earn as much as them or more and are usually 'very picky' when seeking a partner based on earning potential. In the process, women have developed the ailments that once impacted men such as stress , drug and alcohol abuse and so on.
Women appear to some to have taken on more male behaviour. I recall once the thought was the feminisation of the work place, may well have resulted in a less aggressive, softer, more considerate place , more pleasurable to attend. I recall the reality being rather different.
Are we supposed to be equal ? Or complimentary perhaps?. Does the confusion over roles, simply create a lot of confusion?
The results being visible in many developed countries, where the cost of rising children, the cult of greed, the sheer difficulty of child raising, simply makes it increasing redundant?
One last point you made on contraception. Surely by 1970 with The Pill already on the market several tears, that would not have been an issue, unlike the generation before. That period was around the height of the sexual revolution and was very openly expressed and acted upon.
While I do not deny that it is hard work when both parents work full-time it is common at least in Sydney. My friend in Perth has a daughter who is a university lecturer married to a tradie and both work full-time and have young kids. I did not realise they were the exception.
Anyway we are here to trade opinions and perhaps we have done so and not reached agreement. But it is worthwhile to have the discussion.
Perhaps Perth is a bit of an exception? Very mixed bag in The Wild West on a range of things,
While I do not deny that it is hard work when both parents work full-time it is common at least in Sydney. My friend in Perth has a daughter who is a university lecturer married to a tradie and both work full-time and have young kids. I did not realise they were the exception.
Anyway we are here to trade opinions and perhaps we have done so and not reached agreement. But it is worthwhile to have the discussion.
My wife's child playgroup consists of all women who either are stay at home mums or part time workers. The average household income is only slightly higher than the average income of a single person therefore it's clear in most circumstances both parents aren't working full time otherwise the average household income in Australia would be much higher. What i notice much more common is that once the kids start going to school the mothers take on more hours at work and may eventually become full time because quite simply they now have much more time. To be honest i feel this is the best balance for families as it still means children get to spend more time with their families while they are young rather than at carers. Do you honestly believe most parents who work full time with young kids don't wish they could spend more time with them rather than being at work?
Troubes, with the contraception issue, yes it was available in 1970 but many doctors would only prescribe it to married women. Some would not prescribe it at all. It was also very much higher dose at that stage with many more side effects.
Take a look at these figures https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/adop...tents/summary#
I have seven cousins and three were adopted because both my aunt and aunt by marriage had issues which would probably be treatable these days. Adoption was regarded positively, unlike now.
Our personal experiences obviously colour our attitudes to things like feminism. My husband, whose parents were post war immigrants, never felt disadvantaged by his parents both working full-time and he has encouraged our daughters to the hilt to use their academic potential. He saw his mother, who had no choice but to leave school at twelve, work in an unskilled job which left her with severe arthritis.
My mother was a traditional stay at home mother, with my father refusing to allow her to work part-time when we were in high school. He felt people would consider he was not a good provider. She ended up with very severe clinical depression and the outcome of that has affected my entire life.
It is interesting to note how younger people reject some of the things many of us fought for. I suppose that is common in society.
Troubes, with the contraception issue, yes it was available in 1970 but many doctors would only prescribe it to married women. Some would not prescribe it at all. It was also very much higher dose at that stage with many more side effects.
Take a look at these figures https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/adop...tents/summary#
I have seven cousins and three were adopted because both my aunt and aunt by marriage had issues which would probably be treatable these days. Adoption was regarded positively, unlike now.
Our personal experiences obviously colour our attitudes to things like feminism. My husband, whose parents were post war immigrants, never felt disadvantaged by his parents both working full-time and he has encouraged our daughters to the hilt to use their academic potential. He saw his mother, who had no choice but to leave school at twelve, work in an unskilled job which left her with severe arthritis.
My mother was a traditional stay at home mother, with my father refusing to allow her to work part-time when we were in high school. He felt people would consider he was not a good provider. She ended up with very severe clinical depression and the outcome of that has affected my entire life.
It is interesting to note how younger people reject some of the things many of us fought for. I suppose that is common in society.
The next generations deal with the consequences, Its the way its always worked throughout history.
I highly doubt the Woman's Christian Temperance Union would have thought for a second their policy to enforce prohabition. We actually end up in making it far easier and more socially acceptable for women themselves to consume alcohol, and lead to massive rise in gang warefare etc etc.
Troubes, with the contraception issue, yes it was available in 1970 but many doctors would only prescribe it to married women. Some would not prescribe it at all. It was also very much higher dose at that stage with many more side effects.
Take a look at these figures https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/adop...tents/summary#
I have seven cousins and three were adopted because both my aunt and aunt by marriage had issues which would probably be treatable these days. Adoption was regarded positively, unlike now.
Our personal experiences obviously colour our attitudes to things like feminism. My husband, whose parents were post war immigrants, never felt disadvantaged by his parents both working full-time and he has encouraged our daughters to the hilt to use their academic potential. He saw his mother, who had no choice but to leave school at twelve, work in an unskilled job which left her with severe arthritis.
My mother was a traditional stay at home mother, with my father refusing to allow her to work part-time when we were in high school. He felt people would consider he was not a good provider. She ended up with very severe clinical depression and the outcome of that has affected my entire life.
It is interesting to note how younger people reject some of the things many of us fought for. I suppose that is common in society.
I was still at school in 1970 but a few years later One only had to find a doctor who would prescribe it. I've no idea how it was in Australia in the seventies, but in many other places, and London is where I refer mostly through experience, it was simply obtainable through demand., it was easily obtainable, if saying had a partner . ( considering the conservative nature, but even so one could obtain an abortion in Australia at the time (latter seventies) so probably not too difficult to find a doctor who would prescribe The Pill. )
The negative aspects around health were not so well known at the time, if at all. Although that did come into wider recognition very late seventies, or perhaps early eighties. My memory is the liberation women felt in being able to control their risk of pregnancy over came other concerns, more hinted at than probably a proven reality back then.
I would agree the apparent widening of choice for women was welcomed by many. (including myself) The wider implications were not apparent until far later.
While a number of women welcomed the 'liberation' of career prospects expanding, there was always the prospect of women not fulfilling the roles studied for in professions by pulling out of a career after having children.
Sometimes out of necessity due to high cost of child care in some countries, or not finding the competitive edge of a career as rewarding as expected.
Many women carry on through necessity due to the high cost of living in employment situations they deplore. I know a few who have varied degrees of dislike in what they do.
The seventies was a decade of great social change. I do know what I am talking about as I started uni in 1970. Don’t forget that the church was a lot more influential in those days, especially the Catholic Church. My first real Catholic friend, at uni, reported that about half of her class from her Catholic girls high school ended up pregnant and mostly, as we would say “had to get married.” I have no idea whether they tried to access the pill but one would think not!
Some things that are a bit surprising now were that it was not frowned on for senior students at school to date younger teachers, at uni female students were just fair game to the academic staff. The drinking age was 21 but in Sydney it was almost totally unenforced and at my high school some of the senior boys would go to the local pub at lunch time and have a drink with the teachers. I did not start going to clubs and night clubs until I was 17, quite retarded really, but never had any issue with access.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
