Where were the men behind the mother and baby homes?

My Response to Mary McCaughey opinion piece in the Irish Times.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/where-were-the-men-behind-the-mother-and-baby-homes-1.1860773

I see that you, Mary trying to blame all men for the action of the ones who actually abuse the children and women. This is a very typical behaviour, from feminist viewpoints. Shift the blame on, as long it not on women abusers shoulders, who abuse other females and innocent babies over decades behind hidden doors in Tuam Bon Secours as well as many other places run by women (Magdalene Laundries), others in protestant run organisations which were women, and who these mothers and babies were taken into their care, not men care, women care. These organisations were mainly ruled and run by the Women. Men were told to butt out and shut up.

Many men (fathers) did not know she was pregnant. And if they did were not allow any choice in that matter either. It easy to blame men when men are easy targets to blame. It was the mother of these women who look for their daughters to be taken into care of these organisations more out of shame.

Let look at the "This was a society run by men, for men" argument you claim there is in this country.
For many a year, since the foundation of the state, Judges in Courts and politicians in Law in which many a politicians were voted in by more than 50% women were prevented men, who wifes had passed, who (State) wanted 1941 to 1955 to put the widowed father children into state care, despite the fathers wanted and financially able to look after their children themselves. Men were regularly refused access to their children of unwed mothers and still today (10th July 2014) the state actively denied men, if the mother refuse it.

Mothers rules today in the family home, as they did since the foundation of the state and well before that. The men were obliges to work for the family and support he wife under law, for the mother of children, who was not necessarily burden under the constitution of working outside the home. So your logic is bluntly wrong.

In the Irish Children Act, 1941. This law prevented a father from caring for his own children in the absence of their mother unless she was living and gave written permission for him to do so. This what you call "This was a society run by men, for men " actually do to men. He won his case by appealing the case to the Supreme court. In December 1955, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Desmond Doyle, and ordered that the children be returned to him.

To this day, A father has no right to claim the child of an unwed mother, who can gives up the child, with no obligation to look after it once she gives up the child. The father does not have automatic right to know the child exists or to claim it. The Father under mother word is put all of the financial obligations of financing of the raising of the child, where ever he wants to or not. He has no choice. The reality is that most fathers wants to be involved in their children lives, to help the grow, free and learn. The Mother has the decisions and she can exclude the father on the child birth certificate, denying the child the right to know his/her father. What is fair about that?

The mother can abort the child. He has no say even if he is willing to look after the child on his own, as many men have done successfully when they lost their love (Wife) or mother of the child. He has “No Choice”. It is women who have "All of the choices and rights" with regards to the child.

Shall I keep going Mary McCaughey? I live in reality in the pain of it.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/judges-are-breaching-human-rights-of-fathers-262504.html
The ECHR has now find The Irish State "with Men run for Men" is in breach of human rights against unwed fathers that putting them into poverty, placing unfair burden on fathers.

A Recent study in Judicial Separation and Divorce in the Circuit Court, a study of almost 1,100 cases including 187 anonymous family law case reports, reveals that the courts do not use any set criteria or formulae to determine maintenance payments.

In the circuits court cases in family law showed:
* 100pc of maintenance orders, both child and spousal maintenance, are made in favour of the wife.
* Child maintenance orders are frequently made against fathers in receipt of state benefits, placing many men below subsistence levels.
* Joint custody does not mean shared parenting, with children in more than nine out of 10 cases living with their mothers.
* In no cases were the views of any child heard directly by a judge.
* A significant number of divorce cases take eight years or more to be concluded.
Many a separate fathers or unwed fathers may even get a hour of two every two weeks if they are lucky. The mother does not get punish for refusing access to the father even under court orders.

There is a “Painful inadequacies”. It call taking accountability for one own actions, male and female included. My grandmother taught me that. She pointed out many of female faults of lack of accountability for their own actions while giving out about men faults, that same faults in women that we men tends to naturally overlook or excuse it. We keep finding excuses for bad women. Maybe we should look further. I believe some men are and that men going their own way leaving many women single and bear less and very much alone.

“This was a society run by men and for men” If this was true then the problems I mentioned, would not be true.
Where were the men behind the mother and baby homes?
Answer: They are denied access to their children, equal rights in the family and fair justice.

So Mary McCaughey, Why do you believe that men have a choice behind the Mother and baby homes? Because feminists told you so, perhaps?.