Magdelene Laundries - Eugenics by another name?

Ickle Magoo

CDfm wrote: »

It is fairly clear to me here that these launderies were essentially businesses run for profit and when they ceased to be profitable they were closed.

There were still laundries going strong which were only closed in 1996 after bodies were discovered in the grounds of a laundry in the 1993 - I'm dubious that the "profitability" angle isn't yet another wiggle-out to make it all sound slightly less appalling.

If they were profitable businesses with nothing to do with religion, then I assume there were plenty laundries that weren't run by religious orders?

CDfm

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'm dubious that the "profitability" angle isn't yet another wiggle-out to make it all sound slightly less appalling.

nun's wiggling :eek:

If they were profitable businesses with nothing to do with religion, then I assume there were plenty laundries that weren't run by religious orders?

The nuns didnt have a labour cost or a motivated workforce so the time came when the return on the capital value of the property exceeded the profit from the launderies to support their lifestyles.

They could hardly modernise into " Sister Stan's Laundry & Dry Cleaning". as the ladies were hidden, called "children" and could not be allowed handle money.

So I think the simpler explanation is the more believeable one. These nuns were not Julie Andrews in the Sound of Music . The religious argument might be trotted out but the secrecy angle suggests they didnt believe it. They knew what they were up to was wrong.

metrovelvet

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

There were still laundries going strong which were only closed in 1996 after bodies were discovered in the grounds of a laundry in the 1993 - I'm dubious that the "profitability" angle isn't yet another wiggle-out to make it all sound slightly less appalling.

If they were profitable businesses with nothing to do with religion, then I assume there were plenty laundries that weren't run by religious orders?

So this was essentially slavery?

Ickle Magoo

CDfm wrote: »

nun's wiggling :eek:

Worse, those insidious apologetics wiggling.

CDfm wrote: »

The nuns didnt have a labour cost or a motivated workforce so the time came when the return on the capital value of the property exceeded the profit from the launderies to support their lifestyles.

They could hardly modernise into " Sister Stan's Laundry & Dry Cleaning". as the ladies were hidden, called "children" and could not be allowed handle money.

So I think the simpler explanation is the more believeable one. These nuns were not Julie Andrews in the Sound of Music . The religious argument might be trotted out but the secrecy angle suggests they didnt believe it. They knew what they were up to was wrong.

Yet another side-step that doesn't get close to answering my question.

When listening to the appalling abuses that took place in Ireland, it is a constant stream of religious organisations and church affiliated groups which have been involved. Christian brothers, sisters of mercy, St whomever of whatever...

If there is any merit at all to the argument that religion was not involved, it was purely a business venture that had no relationship with the state, then surely there would be examples of similar business ventures that had no religious ties? If they were profitable and open to anyone to run, I'm sure there would be plenty.

Metrovelvet wrote:

So this was essentially slavery?

I'm not sure - some argue it was "just" slavery & greed with a side of control; which in my book goes little way to explaining the justifications, methods and widespread nature of the abuse. Others suggest the abuses happened mainly thanks to unchecked and unfettered pietistic cruelty made possible by the blinkered reverence given to those of the cloth - who were typically canny enough to also see where a profit could be made...which I guess the litany of abuses which carried on with much the same theme by much the same people, well away from any laundry or profit, are testament to.

They started out as Evangelical "rescue" centres for the morally down-trodden - what they ended up as is much darker than slave houses.

CDfm

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Worse, those insidious apologetics wiggling.

And, it is not just the religious that are silent , the state cannot explain what its role (any ) and lots of groups and individuals that I would expect to be on the attack are not.

Yet another side-step that doesn't get close to answering my question.

LOL Ickle I disagree with you on the motivations of the nuns involved.

When listening to the appalling abuses that took place in Ireland, it is a constant stream of religious organisations and church affiliated groups which have been involved. Christian brothers, sisters of mercy, St whomever of whatever...

Thats was a standard model that was involved that was copied- like the religious orders had an education franchise.

I think the "just following orders" excuses are just bull****.

These were educated and intelligient people who acted deliberately.

If there is any merit at all to the argument that religion was not involved, it was purely a business venture that had no relationship with the state, then surely there would be examples of similar business ventures that had no religious ties? If they were profitable and open to anyone to run, I'm sure there would be plenty.

I am not saying that. Normal businesses did not have a supply of free labour -these were not normal businesses.

.

I'm not sure - some argue it was "just" slavery & greed with a side of control; which in my book goes little way to explaining the justifications, methods and widespread nature of the abuse. ........which I guess the litany of abuses which carried on with much the same theme by much the same people, well away from any laundry or profit, are testament to.

Ah yes, but the Hells Angels are much more than just a sunday biker club.

Each Chapter is aitomonous with a loose affiliation to the worldwide club. The sociology of organisations is a specific field of study and the basics are the same no matter what type of organisation you are looking at.

They started out as Evangelical "rescue" centres for the morally down-trodden - what they ended up as is much darker than slave houses.

Yes they took the soup . And , they may not have been that evangellical but may have been a nicer option to the workhouses originally.

metrovelvet

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Worse, those insidious apologetics wiggling.



Yet another side-step that doesn't get close to answering my question.

When listening to the appalling abuses that took place in Ireland, it is a constant stream of religious organisations and church affiliated groups which have been involved. Christian brothers, sisters of mercy, St whomever of whatever...

If there is any merit at all to the argument that religion was not involved, it was purely a business venture that had no relationship with the state, then surely there would be examples of similar business ventures that had no religious ties? If they were profitable and open to anyone to run, I'm sure there would be plenty.



I'm not sure - some argue it was "just" slavery & greed with a side of control; which in my book goes little way to explaining the justifications, methods and widespread nature of the abuse. Others suggest the abuses happened mainly thanks to unchecked and unfettered pietistic cruelty made possible by the blinkered reverence given to those of the cloth - who were typically canny enough to also see where a profit could be made...which I guess the litany of abuses which carried on with much the same theme by much the same people, well away from any laundry or profit, are testament to.

They started out as Evangelical "rescue" centres for the morally down-trodden - what they ended up as is much darker than slave houses.

It's very hard to answer this Ickle. It's hard to answer because of how religion mixes in with local custom and culture.

Take the Phillipino custom of crucifying yourself on Good Friday. There is nothing in the doctrine or sacriments about crucifying yourself, can this custom be pinned on Rome or on the Phillipino local custom?

The IRish taliban, same question.

Also, it was not just the clergy. The PARENTS put their kids there. The neighbors sneered. The secular society was part of it too.

People knew about the abuses, not just the laundries but the physical and sex abuse too, and people did nothing.

Religion was used as a vehicle to fill the power vacuum left by the coloniser. Just look at 1916, the hijacked Easter, a religious holiday for their own political purposes. Nothing in the Vatican says you have to start a war in a post office on Easter Sunday, but this is how the chemistry of the religion mixed in wtih local culture.

I went to Catholic school in teh US, I had montessori nuns in Italy, and nothing I have experienced comes anywhere near to the horror stories you hear to come out of this country.

I would still put it down to local exploitation of a religion to practise tyrranny and abuse, to fill the power vaccum left by a colonial power, to be come the oppressor itself, in the so called FREE state.

Not a rhetorical question: Do you think if the Brits remained in power here, we would have seen this happen?

CDfm

I think you have hit the nail on the head about US nuns being different as it being a more progressive society. The quality of the history in this area in terms of quality and accuracy of sources from newer women historians is to the highest standards in any genre. Several academics who post on the history forum are fans.

The Rising happened in Dublin and the choice of the GPO was to control the communication centre and use the latest telegraphic equipment to contact the worlds press. Some think it was a PR, political, and military disaster until a Corkwoman Hanna Sheehy-Skeffington singlehandedly took over and her campaign for an enquiry into civilan deaths was hugely significant.

Would it have happened if the Brits had stayed is a huge question and I would have to think about that one probably for months but the facts should guide you towards an approximate answer. I am not an expert on the history and others may know more.

You cannot compare Ireland with a Western Society because it was fairly unique. Marxist sociologists would point you to the Hegelian triad -thesis, antithesis and synthesis or management theorists to the Black Box theories.

The way I look at it was that the nuns in Ireland from around 1880 became an elite and in the period of the Land Acts etc and disestablishment of the Church of Ireland filled the spot held by anglo-irish ascendency women. They developed links with the British military and civil service in Ireland and outside Ireland. Compare this to the Ladies Land League and their treatment by the Home Rule Party and Parnell and they i.e. the nuns had a head start of 30 years on other organisations , even those dominated by men of dealing with people in real power.

My next point, is that Irish women got the vote in 1922 with men on Independence 3 years after the men while British Women under 30 had to wait until 1930. So in theory Irishwomen had more rights on paper.

The more politically radical Irishwomen such as the Gore-Booths, Maude Gonne etc were anglo-irish ascendency and post independence many of these and the protestant middle classes left Ireland. Dublin being the exception as the civil servants stayed on.

I think you need to look at how womens employment rights progressed versus the UK and your answer will be there.

Hanna Sheehy-Skeffington -even though she played a very important role in Irish independence and lived till the 1940's had no pension etc and earned her money from teaching and writting. She had refused a £10,000 settlement from the British Government in 1916 as compensation for her husbands murder. That was not anti woman as Sam Maguire another important figure was also left whistle for his supper and died in poverty in the mid 20's. Her next project after independence was women's employment rights.

In her profession, education, the organisations that controlled it were the nuns and by definition they were not married. The nuns were at their strongest numerically at 13,000 in 1970 the same number of gardai we have today.

Historical analysis is often lazy cos none of us like to be descended from peasants - kings yes. Even DeValera was obsessed by his parentage and Patrick Pearses half sister Mary Emily is not in the history books.

The catalyst for change was Ireland joining the EU in 1973 and all these exemptions went after that and were conditional on EU grant aid. Following independence , Irelands economic situation was awful or so-so until 1948 when the American's pumped in money under the Marshall Aid plan for post-war european re-construction -which in turn led to attempts to join the EU in the 1960's.

So why did the nuns do what they did ? In some cases you had sexual abuse and incest at home. Boys ,as well as girls were removed from their homes because they were in "moral danger" from their parents or family members of either gender. Abusers are also attracted to organisations where their abuse can go undetected or unreported and it remains to be seen if the nuns handled their members any better than the men did theirs.

I don't think when the irish social history is written that we will come out of it as the happy go lucky leprechauns that we like to think we are.

Ickle Magoo

metrovelvet wrote:

It's very hard to answer this Ickle. It's hard to answer because of how religion mixes in with local custom and culture.

But again, how do you explain the recurrent theme with the abuses and abusers which is on a global scale? Why are certain religions now synonymous with child abuse across the world? How can a world-wide issue be down to local custom? While the issue may have been more wide-spread and brushed under the carper longer here thanks to the cap-tugging irreverence given to those of the cloth - abuse scandals by religious organisations praying on the vulnerable are hardly limited to irish shores.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Not a rhetorical question: Do you think if the Brits remained in power here, we would have seen this happen?

I would imagine had the brits stayed put then there would been greater secularisation and the opportunity for religious bodies to pray on the vulnerable would have diminished in line with state taking responsibility for education, health and so on from religious bodies as they did in the UK in the early 20th century. Even so, my first post on this thread was about a nun in the UK in the 21st century who beat girls for being evil and monstrous enough to dare get their periods and other such sexually repressed nonsense...but she was charged and prosecuted so perhaps if the brits were still here, there might at least be some re-dress and accountability and fewer excuses? At least in relation to laundries - the political situation would still be a quagmire!

metrovelvet

Look where in the world they are...Boston, Chicago, Australia...

Ickle Magoo

They are also in Kenya, Mexico, Peru, Sweden, Slovenia, Italy, Belgium, etc...

CDfm

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

They are also in Kenya, Mexico, Peru, Sweden, Slovenia, Italy, Belgium, etc...

metrovelvet wrote: »

Look where in the world they are...Boston, Chicago, Australia...

So what are they doing in those places and is it good or bad on your opinion.

Do they provide education, orphanages?

Any launderies ?

metrovelvet

CDfm wrote: »

So what are they doing in those places and is it good or bad on your opinion.

Do they provide education, orphanages?

Any launderies ?

I was referring to the sex abuse and laundry scandals. Not the entirety of the religious orders.

It was unknown to me that there were such atrocities in the places Ickle mentioned.

As far as I am aware the sex abuse scandals were in Ireland, Boston, Chicago, Australia, ...Irish parishes. I have not heard about any in other places.

CDfm

So it may even be an Irish Catholic thing ?

Ickle Magoo

metrovelvet wrote: »

I was referring to the sex abuse and laundry scandals. Not the entirety of the religious orders.

It was unknown to me that there were such atrocities in the places Ickle mentioned.

As far as I am aware the sex abuse scandals were in Ireland, Boston, Chicago, Australia, ...Irish parishes. I have not heard about any in other places.

Oh no, it's been a global issue.

You have people who have the free-abuse meal ticket wrapped up as well-meaning, if not local culture destroying evangelism being passed off as innocent and helpful "charity" getting close to and holding power over people who have little to no voice in conjunction with a hierarchy who both hide and ignore abuse happening - recipe for disaster.

CDfm

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Oh no, it's been a global issue.

You have people who have the free-abuse meal ticket wrapped up as well-meaning, if not local culture destroying evangelism being passed off as innocent and helpful "charity" getting close to and holding power over people who have little to no voice in conjunction with a hierarchy who both hide and ignore abuse happening - recipe for disaster.

OK Ickle, but I do not want an anti catholic discussion or hierarchy debate.

Nuns power was very much derived from their strangle hold on education and health. Did they do a good job with them ?

With the magdelene launderies the nuns were firmly in charge, I would like to know where else they and what other nun led scandals do we have wuth adoption agencies and the like. The numbers affected thru all sections they worked in.

I have elderly female relatives and one had some really weird experiences at a convent until she left aged 19. Give her a few brandies and mention a certain nuns name and she is off. Corporal punishment is her special subject. This kind of stuff.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/198833/thread/1137957846/last-1142001588/schoolgirl+bottom+smacking+in+60%27s70%27s+papers

The op mentions eugenics and is there a profile laundry inmates by class and educational achievement or of the parents that signed the children in.

metrovelvet

When you have absolute power such as the church did in Ireland with no checks and balances, etc, you are creating very fertile ground for the attraction and sustenance of sociopathic predators and sadists.

Not only that but they had a moral backing to hide behind, they had an authority that they exploited and was endorsed not only by the government but also by the people of Ireland who knew about and through their silence, let it happen.

Ickle Magoo

CDfm wrote: »

OK Ickle, but I do not want an anti catholic discussion or hierarchy debate.

It's impossible to discuss the abuses that have taken place in ireland or across the world without pointing out the hierarchy that was involved in both creating the conditions for such abuses to happen in and ensuring abuses continued, they did not happen in isolation; the two are inextricably linked...and that's before you get to the support given to convicted abusers and fighting to save accused abusers from being named and standing trial. Pretending otherwise is doing a gross disservice to those affected.

CDfm wrote: »

Nuns power was very much derived from their strangle hold on education and health. Did they do a good job with them ?

All religious power is derived from a strangle hold on education and health, let's not kid ourselves here. Ireland currently has a rate of 1 in 4 adults with literacy issues, 1 in 3 in deprived areas (NALA) - more with numeracy issues - but faith schools account for 95% of the available educational establishments - given their main priority I would consider that a job well done.

If by providing a service the state was (is) lax to provide then you'd have to concede they did a great job - however, that's completely ignoring the fact that religious orders love to swoop down and fill the void when it comes to educating the ignorant or building and running hospitals - places where vulnerable people end up and visit which has little to nothing to do with "charity" in the true sense and is more about entirely self-serving reasoning such as retaining influence over what was (is) being taught to the next generation of those who decide where state funding goes and what level of secularism the country will have.

CDfm wrote: »

With the magdelene launderies the nuns were firmly in charge, I would like to know where else they and what other nun led scandals do we have wuth adoption agencies and the like. The numbers affected thru all sections they worked in.

I have elderly female relatives and one had some really weird experiences at a convent until she left aged 19. Give her a few brandies and mention a certain nuns name and she is off. Corporal punishment is her special subject. This kind of stuff.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/198833/thread/1137957846/last-1142001588/schoolgirl+bottom+smacking+in+60%27s70%27s+papers

While I think most schools throughout the world used to practise corporal punishment of one kind or another (it wasn't actually banned here until 1982, jeez, those 80's must have been shock change), endemic and wide-spread sexual abuse, beating and raping is taking things to whole new level of sadism. Why haven't other private schools or establishments had the same rate of scandal?

CDfm wrote: »

The op mentions eugenics and is there a profile laundry inmates by class and educational achievement or of the parents that signed the children in.

I don't think it was eugenics in terms of genetic moulding. The laundries as centres of abuse came about because people cared more what the parish priest and neighbours thought than cared about kids. Because they allowed themselves to be blinkered and blinded as to what morals are by those preaching at the pulpit. They were about moral enforcement by degradation and shame - whether in the laundries themselves or providing a reason for laundries to exist via widespread influence in social behaviours and thinking.

premierlass

metrovelvet wrote: »

The Magadelene Laundries and the Industrial schools, from what I can see are about more than eugenics, but about the unleashing of the sadistic imagination and the saturation of Irish culture with violence.

Really, why this country has not been convicted for torture on both counts, why it doesnt have a human rights record is beyond me. Because it sure as hell deserves one.

Because several countries engaged in official eugenics programmes and to sanction Ireland would focus attention on that. Australia has refused compensation to the Stolen Children (aborginal children taken from their families of origin). Several countries, including the U.S. and even Sweden, have engaged in forced sterilisation based on race, class and mental incapacity. Single mothers were routinely sterilised in the U.S. up to the 1970s. North Carolina is presently considering compensation of its victims.

Now, what Ireland's role in all this was is interesting. A lot of the forced sterilisations in various countries were carried on in an unoffical manner but were clearly part of official policy. In that respect the religious aspect is a bit of a red herring, IMO - the eugenics projects were especially popular in Protestant Northern Europe - but pre- and post-treaty the Catholic church in Ireland always sought political and social control and influence, whether it was sending young men off to the trenches to effectively excommunicating anti-treaty fighters as a means of bolstering the Provisional Government.

I would imagine had the brits stayed put then there would been greater secularisation and the opportunity for religious bodies to pray on the vulnerable would have diminished in line with state taking responsibility for education, health and so on from religious bodies as they did in the UK in the early 20th century.

The British exploited religion and religious divisions in Ireland in pretty much the same way as they did in India. The church's increased social control after the Famine was very useful in many ways. They instituted partition on sectarian grounds - I think that's indication enough.

CDfm, I agree that the nuns can be commended for their work in the nineteenth century (I'd compare it to their work in many developing countries today), also that some of the institutions after 1922 merely fulfilled the same function as beforehand. The question is what exactly changed. The church evidently attempted to gain more political and social control than they already had - and they had a lot - and succeeded to some degree. Were they influenced by prevailing eugenics theories, and was the state involved? Did the state willingly cede control of such "social" matters to the church, and did the excess of power in the hands of the church result in gross abuse? Was it pure economics and greed? (There was a nice little black economy of children born to single mothers - it was illegal, but childless couples in the States knew where to come.)

metrovelvet

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

It's impossible to discuss the abuses that have taken place in ireland or across the world without pointing out the hierarchy that was involved in both creating the conditions for such abuses to happen in and ensuring abuses continued, they did not happen in isolation; the two are inextricably linked...and that's before you get to the support given to convicted abusers and fighting to save accused abusers from being named and standing trial. Pretending otherwise is doing a gross disservice to those affected.



All religious power is derived from a strangle hold on education and health, let's not kid ourselves here. Ireland currently has a rate of 1 in 4 adults with literacy issues, 1 in 3 in deprived areas (NALA) - more with numeracy issues - but faith schools account for 95% of the available educational establishments - given their main priority I would consider that a job well done.

If by providing a service the state was (is) lax to provide then you'd have to concede they did a great job - however, that's completely ignoring the fact that religious orders love to swoop down and fill the void when it comes to educating the ignorant or building and running hospitals - places where vulnerable people end up and visit which has little to nothing to do with "charity" in the true sense and is more about entirely self-serving reasoning such as retaining influence over what was (is) being taught to the next generation of those who decide where state funding goes and what level of secularism the country will have.



While I think most schools throughout the world used to practise corporal punishment of one kind or another (it wasn't actually banned here until 1982, jeez, those 80's must have been shock change), endemic and wide-spread sexual abuse, beating and raping is taking things to whole new level of sadism. Why haven't other private schools or establishments had the same rate of scandal?



I don't think it was eugenics in terms of genetic moulding. The laundries as centres of abuse came about because people cared more what the parish priest and neighbours thought than cared about kids. Because they allowed themselves to be blinkered and blinded as to what morals are by those preaching at the pulpit. They were about moral enforcement by degradation and shame - whether in the laundries themselves or providing a reason for laundries to exist via widespread influence in social behaviours and thinking.

There is corporal punishment and then there is torture. Mannix Flynn was on an RTE special lately [sorry forgot the name and date of the documentary] talking about a boy getting his head wollopped and it was bleeding and being dragged across the floor with the blood trailing behind him.

In Catholic schools in the US [private] you got corporal punishment, but you never had that level of torture. I know in my own school, the pushing and the hitting stopped once the girls were allowed in in the 1970s. But there were no horror stories ever on the same level as what you hear about over here.

But you also had and still have corporal punishment in the public secular schools. Its legal in 20 states.

As for charity, most Catholic schools in the US require the students do some kind of charity or community service, this ranges from soup kitchens to habitat for humanity, tosponsoring a child in Africa or some other hell hole. One student at 18 went undercover as a homeless man and investigated the abuses of the homeless in shelters, and exposed them.

All this charity that Catholic schools in the US and its students do really are not motivated by what you mention here, nor were we out proslytising about Christ and the ten commandments or retaining influence or control over areas or people.

Ickle Magoo

We seem to have bounced from "charitable" status educational facilities in Ireland in the 20th century to modern day private schooling in the US - I can't say I'm particularly surprised that the situations are not the same...

metrovelvet

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

We seem to have bounced from "charitable" status educational facilities in Ireland in the 20th century to modern day private schooling in the US - I can't say I'm particularly surprised that the situations are not the same...

I seem to be a little confused. You were talking about the religion and the hierarchy. Im talking about the same hierarchy and the same religion as you are, but am saying this is an Ireland issue, and you keep saying its the religion. So I pointed out many many examples of religious run schools who do not fulfill your theory.

CDfm

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

It's impossible to discuss the abuses that have taken place in ireland or across the world without pointing out the hierarchy that was involved in both creating the conditions for such abuses to happen in and ensuring abuses continued, they did not happen in isolation; the two are inextricably linked...and that's before you get to the support given to convicted abusers and fighting to save accused abusers from being named and standing trial. Pretending otherwise is doing a gross disservice to those affected.

OK - but I disagree with you about diosecean hierarchy involvement here in the case of Religious Orders as it does not exist. There are links as in the people have taken "holy orders" but not hierarchical links.Thats just not the way it works.

We both agree that their behavior was awful and those who were involved in the cover ups acted unconsionably but the debate should be about abuse. Most right minded people agree with this

I am pointing it out because people with religious beliefs should be able to contribute without feeling that odd about it.

All religious power is derived from a strangle hold on education and health, let's not kid ourselves here. Ireland currently has a rate of 1 in 4 adults with literacy issues, 1 in 3 in deprived areas (NALA) - more with numeracy issues - but faith schools account for 95% of the available educational establishments - given their main priority I would consider that a job well done.

And look at female participation in third level girls are doing better than boys.

The 1 in 4 "illiteracy" rate is similar to the UK (and Poland I recall) but our 25% is higher than the 20% avarage in Europe.

If by providing a service the state was (is) lax to provide then you'd have to concede they did a great job - however, that's completely ignoring the fact that religious orders love to swoop down and fill the void when it comes to educating the ignorant or building and running hospitals

You did not have a welfare state at the time and an important government principle in the 19th century was "laissez faire" and a lot of the resourses were private donations or money raised abroad.

Ireland did not have the money.

places where vulnerable people end up and visit which has little to nothing to do with "charity" in the true sense and is more about entirely self-serving reasoning such as retaining influence over what was (is) being taught to the next generation of those who decide where state funding goes and what level of secularism the country will have.

Maybe so - but one thing the religious had were exemptions from employment laws and a nun in a community is not going home for Xmas etc. State funding is not unlimited anymore.

While vulnerable people are attracted as clients and good people attracted to religious organisations - what I think is a fair number of abusers were/are attracted too simply because the client group is vulnerable.

While I think most schools throughout the world used to practise corporal punishment of one kind or another (it wasn't actually banned here until 1982, jeez, those 80's must have been shock change), endemic and wide-spread sexual abuse, beating and raping is taking things to whole new level of sadism. Why haven't other private schools or establishments had the same rate of scandal?

I suspect you will find that boarding schools were exempt from the enquiries and compensation arrangements as the state did not monitor them at all. That seems to be the argument that is used is that their families enrolled students in boarding schools and they were acting "in loco parentis". You have had some prosectutions ,but, not many.

I don't think it was eugenics in terms of genetic moulding. The laundries as centres of abuse came about because people cared more what the parish priest and neighbours thought than cared about kids. Because they ..........

Had no money and there was no welfare state.

Eugenics , does this mean that some of those taken in were not the brightest and could not survive on their own ?

premierlass wrote: »

Because several countries engaged in official eugenics programmes and to sanction Ireland would focus attention on that........ North Carolina is presently considering compensation of its victims.

So Ireland was not alone.

Now, what Ireland's role in all this was is interesting......... the eugenics projects were especially popular in Protestant Northern Europe - but pre- and post-treaty the Catholic church in Ireland always sought political and social control and influence, whether it was sending young men off to the trenches to effectively excommunicating anti-treaty fighters as a means of bolstering the Provisional Government.

++ 1

The British exploited religion and religious divisions in Ireland in pretty much the same way as they did in India. The church's increased social control after the Famine was very useful in many ways. They instituted partition on sectarian grounds - I think that's indication enough.

Did the nuns increase secarianism or were they more focussed and ambious in achieving equality and independent enough to run themselves.

CDfm, I agree that the nuns can be commended for their work in the nineteenth century (I'd compare it to their work in many developing countries today), also that some of the institutions after 1922 merely fulfilled the same function as beforehand. The question is what exactly changed. ... Was it pure economics and greed? (There was a nice little black economy of children born to single mothers - it was illegal, but childless couples in the States knew where to come.)

That seems to be the case.

Economics has a lot to do with it and I wonder what the values were in society etc.

metrovelvet wrote: »

There is corporal punishment and then there is torture. Mannix Flynn was on an RTE special lately [sorry forgot the name and date of the documentary] talking about a boy getting his head wollopped and it was bleeding and being dragged across the floor with the blood trailing behind him.

Was this an Irish thing and did that level of abuse happen in institutions run by women. There were a lot of bodies dug up .

In Catholic schools in the US [private] you got corporal punishment, but you never had that level of torture. I know in my own school, the pushing and the hitting stopped once the girls were allowed in in the 1970s....................................nor were we out proslytising about Christ and the ten commandments or retaining influence or control over areas or people.

At that time the USA was an advanced country and Ireland was in receipt of considerable amount of EU money.

So we were getting EU aid post 1973 - in the mid/late 1980's I worked on EU Aid Applications for a mentally handicapped institution . The European Social Fund was who we applied to.

EUROPEAN GENDER EQUALITY LAW Origins Since 1975 gender equality law has developed rapidly in the European Community, despite the lack of initial support from women's organizations. (8) di fr / Instead, it fell to the European Commission and the Court of Justice to spur the member states to begin to bring national laws into compliance with European law. In actions brought by the Commission against the member states for infringement of their duties, as well as in cases referred to it by the national courts, the Court of Justice gamely pursued formal equal opportunity for women. (9) The Court interpreted the early cases against a backdrop of a single treaty article and three equality directives. Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome addresses women through its equal pay provision, providing for "equal pay for equal work." (10) The three original equality directives were the Equal Pay Directive, (11) the Equal Treatment Directive, (12) and the Social Security Directive. (13)

Article 119 was not given serious consideration until 1971 when Defrenne v. Belgian State first came to the Court of Justice. (14) In Defrenne, the Court interpreted article 119 strictly, holding that it did not reach occupational social security schemes or retirement ages. (15) But more importantly, the Court ruled that article 119 had direct effect within the member states and, in cases of direct discrimination, could be relied upon by individuals against the state in national courts. (16)

http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=5000143625

In 1980 , the mentally handicapped facilities were fairly basic and the ESF matched state funding (but not charitable donations) and grant aid for womens projects the funding was 200% of state funding i.e. the funds were matched plus 100 % extra grant aid .

I spent time comparing notes with a now very well known lecturer at the National Womens Council offices who had access to state aid. So I imagine there is a huge amount of info available since the early 70's on bringing facilities up to european standards and what the Irish standards were.

I find it hard to believe that civil servants,public sevants and womens organisations didn't know. Maybe the public didnt know but the Dept of Health/ Dept of Labour/ FAS and a whole lot of state boards such as the NRB etc conducted studies and state funding was reallocated to maximize grant aid. Thats why I find it hard to believe the operation of the magdelene launderies was such a secret.

CDfm

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

We seem to have bounced from "charitable" status educational facilities in Ireland in the 20th century to modern day private schooling in the US

It is very hard to find a good & accurate history of Irishwomen (and of Irishmen) so when the topic comes up I try to up the game a bit so that it is accurate and the sources checked.

( The amount of misinformation about Patrick Pearse even is huge

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056192193 )

- I can't say I'm particularly surprised that the situations are not the same...

Probably the reason is that education moved on to being a right not a priveledge. And in the US you did not have petty elites and people could hit back.

WindSock

There's a doco now on TG4 about the launderies.

WindSock

Jaysus, they got 18 quid per person per week in 1994 from the state and 900 from local businesses.

And not a penny seen by the girls and women.

Pure slavery.

CDfm

18 quid - some saving on unmarried mothers allowance for the state.

WindSock

CDfm wrote: »

18 quid - some saving on unmarried mothers allowance for the state.

Sure the state were customers of the laundry too, must have had a special deal.

Listening to the accounts of abuse too, makes my blood ****ing boil. There had better be an enquiry into this like the Ryan and Murphy reports.
Or is it because it was all women it is not worth the effort.

CDfm

WindSock wrote: »

Or is it because it was all women it is not worth the effort.

There were a lot of institutions operating based on 19th century principles and I did some work in the late 80's with the mentally handicapped. So it was not just women.

I don't know if people actually realise how chaotically our public services operated and how organisations such as FAS/Dept of Labour/ Dept of Heath etc gained control of training budgets and European Funding that should .have gone there.

So an enquiry would give answers in one direction and look in the wrong place.

Catari Jaguar

That documentary was tough to watch. Thought this thread would have more comentary, I guess because it was aired on TG4 it didn't reach the masses. Wonder would RTE have the balls to air it. Fair play to the fella for dedicating his time to the cause.

The recounts were horrendous, just so heartbreaking, unimaginable cruelty to innocent little kids and for no reason at all. ****ing moral high ground and power trips. Those nuns were sadistic, twisted bitches, and most dead now, so got away with it. Boils my blood.

CDfm

cherub rock wrote: »

The recounts were horrendous, just so heartbreaking, unimaginable cruelty to innocent little kids and for no reason at all. ****ing moral high ground and power trips. Those nuns were sadistic, twisted bitches, and most dead now, so got away with it. Boils my blood.

My problem with it is that the organisations are still there and civil service/social services that supported them.

I have a teenage daughter and it would take a hard bastard of a parent to kick your child out because of teenage pregnancy. But you have hard bastards who are parents too.

So when I look at the anti-magdelene laundry stuff I tend to think lots of people knew what was going on and it wasn't a secret. This was what Ireland was like.