Of course the lower class women would have to work, at the farm or the factory, or in service as a maid or governess.  I was speaking of upper class and middle class, such as it existed then.  My point concerned the changing of  attititudes towards children and child labor. In today's society, a person who found a child and put him to work would be arrested for exploitation. Yet, this woman who was for her time liberal and caring in her ay (she adored all the animals of the bush) felt it quite acceptable to put this child to work at physical labor, and she never asked about his family, etc.
 
Kate



-----Original Message-----
From: Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Sun, Nov 28, 2010 9:25 pm
Subject: Re: Attitudes / Prejudice

Kate Troy: I remember the late 1800's going into the early 1900's.  The
women wore long dresses, didn't work except in the house, 

====

Well, _some_ women. Read Melville, The Tartarus of Maids, The Paradise of
Bachelors (title?). And a large proportion of factory workers in the 19th-c
were women or children. As late as around 1900 mines were excluded from the
act which limited child labor: the mine operators wanted to save money by
keeping the tunnels low - the tunnels thrugh which the coal was pulled in
carts along rails. Since they were low, they needed children to pull them.

And I 1905 you would have found my grandmother driving a pair of horses
pulling a sprayrig while my grandfather spra1905 you would have found my
grandmother driving a pair of horses pulling a sprayrig while my grandfather
sprayed the fruit trees.

Carrol