Men and the mother and baby homes

mariaalice

In the end a lot of it was probably to do with poverty, what go me thinking about this is listing( mostly on the radio ) to the stories of the woman over and over again... mostly the same story but a different women and I was struck by the absent voices of the men who must have been the fathers in the situation.

diveout

mariaalice wrote: »

In the end a lot of it was probably to do with poverty, what go me thinking about this is listing( mostly on the radio ) to the stories of the woman over and over again... mostly the same story but a different women and I was struck by the absent voices of the men who must have been the fathers in the situation.

Yes I have to agree with you, but maybe in time. It certainly stands out in a negative relief kind of way.

mariaalice

visual wrote: »

I would go on to say that it was women(nuns) who inflicted the harshest misery on these girls and their babies who where both baby boys and girls and from the death rates can assume they as good as mudered those chrildren.
Yet this is turned into a male bashing excise !

I object to that I have said several time it is not male bashing it very complicated area their are no simple answers, as I said many men did their best and were often powerless to do anything because of their families and society, however a substantial amount men abandoned the women to their fate. NOT ALL MEN BY A LONG SHOT.

Maguined

mariaalice wrote: »

I object to that I have said several time it is not male bashing it very complicated area their are no simple answers, as I said many men did their best and were often powerless to do anything because of their families and society, however a substantial amount men abandoned the women to their fate. NOT ALL MEN BY A LONG SHOT.

mariaalice wrote: »

That means there were and are thousand men out there maybe old now, who either raped the woman, abandon them after sex or after a relationship, felt the woman were repugnant to them because they were willing to have sex with them before marriage as was the convention of the time and let them go in to mother and baby homes because they were seen as somehow not chase. The men's lives were never ruined they went on to married more respectable or suitable women, Not all men of course theire were some I am sure who were devastated by what happened but most did not seem to care.

You say this is not a man blaming or hating thread but your opening post seems to suggest otherwise as there is no records or data about the mens actions or motivations in these individual cases but your first instinct is to assume that the men involved either raped the women, abandoned the women and felt repugnated by the women. You then say not all men but that most did not care.

As you have no proper evidence about these cases your pure speculation is blatantly that most of the men were callous in these events and that just seems biased speculation.

I am sure there were plenty of selfish men that did not care, however I am sure there were plenty of men that did care and since I have no evidence I can't predict what most men were like. I can only comment on the personal experience I do know and that is my Aunt became pregnant in her teens. She did not tell the father as she knew her mother would pressure her into getting married so her mother sent her to one of these homes and her daughter was taken away from her and given up for adoption. My grandfather may have been the man of the house but everyone in the family knows it was my grandmother who was in charge. The father of the child was never told, yes his life was never ruined or stigmatised because it was kept hidden from him. This is only one story and I do not believe it is representitive of what happened to others at all.

OldRio

mariaalice wrote: »

I am wonder what thought do you have on men and the mother and baby homes.

The church gets talked about.

The woman gets talked about.

Society at the time gets mentioned.

You rarely hear from the men and as it takes two to get pregnant for every mother and baby in the homes there must have been a man who got the mother pregnant.

That means there were and are thousand men out there maybe old now, who either raped the woman, abandon them after sex or after a relationship, felt the woman were repugnant to them because they were willing to have sex with them before marriage as was the convention of the time and let them go in to mother and baby homes because they were seen as somehow not chase. The men's lives were never ruined they went on to married more respectable or suitable women, Not all men of course theire were some I am sure who were devastated by what happened but most did not seem to care.

Well that's your first post on the issue. It seems in that post that men are the main issue.
You firstly say 'it takes two to get pregnant' then in the same sentence say ' a man who got the mother pregnant' So which way is it?

Then the women are either raped or abandoned. Or the men found them repugnant because of sex before marriage. 'Most' didn't seem to care in your words.
Any proof on this allegation? Or can anybody make wild assertions that perhaps the mothers of these women didn't seem to care. Or the grandmothers. Or the sisters. Or the nuns.

These mothers and babies were treat in a shocking way by society as a whole. To try and bring gender into it is appalling IMHO.

mariaalice

Again NOT ALL MEN. I happen to have been listening to the radio a lot lately and their are a lot of the same stories of women who were in mother and baby homes and mostly their stories are the same and it one of the men leaving them and either their families or a local priest or nun sending theme to a mother and baby home. These stories are form the 50s 60s so by default a lot of those men are still alive.

whatdoicare

I think that there are a lot of male victims in this too and im saying this as a female.

I remember a neighbour of mine back when I was very young in the 80s who's mother had just died leaving her very gentle quiet husband a widow to five daughters and two sons all under the age of fourteen. My mam was best friends with their mam and we were all like siblings at this stage.

well, ill never forget and thinking back on it now, im horrified by what could have happened. You see the father went into shock, he took to his bed and the neighbours were helping look after his kids. Now im only talking about for the few weeks right after her death. Normal mourning and sadness really.

I was out playing with the girl closest my age,we were about five, when a priest came along and ushered her and her siblings into their house. I,as an entitled five year old,was annoyed by this and ran in to complain to my mam, who dropped dads dinner on the floor and raced out the door like a lunatic with my dad in tow.

It wasn't until years later my mam told me that one of the uppity neighbours had gotten sick of helping out and not wanting to be seen as a neighbour who wasn't pious and good and ready to help at all times she paid the local church a visit and told them the situation.

The poor father was so out of it that he was actually agreeing to sign his daughters over to the Good Shepard convent in Limerick (a mam and baby home that was one of the last to close down) the priests were there telling him horror stories of how his daughters would all end up as prostitutes and on the streets if they didn't take them off his hands.

My mam and dad raced in just in time to stop it all happening and it actually took them and several other neighbours to hunt the priests away!! Who knows what kind of life those girls would have had! The youngest was only a few months old!

Of course the father is grand now and all his kids are married with families of their own but all it would have taken was one bad minded neighbour to have changed all that and ruined lives!

Im sure this wouldn't have been a once off, how many fathers signed their kids over to homes thinking they were doing right and noone was there to stop them or be the voice of reason?? These were times when you didn't question guards,priests or doctors, you did what you were told! Men were told constantly that they couldn't look after children, sure only women could do that!

My own mam, as progressive as she is has come out with comments like that regards my own husband with our baby girl, like horror that he brought her to a baby massage class without me or that he goes anywhere with her in tow. Stupid things but in her time this was far out thinking! Men just didn't do these things! Its crazy if you think about it but its how people used to think, everybody and everything in its place.

Vinz Mesrine

mariaalice wrote: »

Again NOT ALL MEN. I happen to have been listening to the radio a lot lately and their are a lot of the same stories of women who were in mother and baby homes and mostly their stories are the same and it one of the men leaving them and either their families or a local priest or nun sending theme to a mother and baby home. These stories are form the 50s 60s so by default a lot of those men are still alive.

After reading through this thread, I've come to the conclusion that you haven't a notion what you are talking about.

ancapailldorcha

mariaalice wrote: »

Again NOT ALL MEN. I happen to have been listening to the radio a lot lately and their are a lot of the same stories of women who were in mother and baby homes and mostly their stories are the same and it one of the men leaving them and either their families or a local priest or nun sending theme to a mother and baby home. These stories are form the 50s 60s so by default a lot of those men are still alive.

You seem to be fixated on the role played by the men on this while ignoring that played by nuns and other women.

Maguined

mariaalice wrote: »

Again NOT ALL MEN. I happen to have been listening to the radio a lot lately and their are a lot of the same stories of women who were in mother and baby homes and mostly their stories are the same and it one of the men leaving them and either their families or a local priest or nun sending theme to a mother and baby home. These stories are form the 50s 60s so by default a lot of those men are still alive.

Not all men but you do believe most men did not care?

newport2

mariaalice wrote: »

I am wonder what thought do you have on men and the mother and baby homes.

The church gets talked about.

The woman gets talked about.

Society at the time gets mentioned.

You rarely hear from the men and as it takes two to get pregnant for every mother and baby in the homes there must have been a man who got the mother pregnant.

That means there were and are thousand men out there maybe old now, who either raped the woman, abandon them after sex or after a relationship, felt the woman were repugnant to them because they were willing to have sex with them before marriage as was the convention of the time and let them go in to mother and baby homes because they were seen as somehow not chase. The men's lives were never ruined they went on to married more respectable or suitable women, Not all men of course theire were some I am sure who were devastated by what happened but most did not seem to care.

visual wrote: »

I would go on to say that it was women(nuns) who inflicted the harshest misery on these girls and their babies who where both baby boys and girls and from the death rates can assume they as good as mudered those chrildren.

This is worth a read

"Catherine Corless’s research revealed that 796 children died at St Mary’s. She now says the nature of their burial has been widely misrepresented"


http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/tuam-mother-and-baby-home-the-trouble-with-the-septic-tank-story-1.1823393?page=1

visual

newport2 wrote: »

This is worth a read

"Catherine Corless’s research revealed that 796 children died at St Mary’s. She now says the nature of their burial has been widely misrepresented"


http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/tuam-mother-and-baby-home-the-trouble-with-the-septic-tank-story-1.1823393?page=1

a proper enquiry hopefully will uncover the truth but I doubt anyone will get jail time if there still alive to prosecute as the wording apology is already being bantered about by the state media channel.

Too much importance is placed on the actual number in the septic tank. The number should be zero and its not.

The death rates in the home like the other homes was much higher not because of love care and professional staff but because as per the death records crimal negligence, deception by a religious order trafficking in human misery. 

edit its now bigger than Catherines original reports

mariaalice

People want simple answers with nice easy identifiable baddies and goodies. I will leave it now and just say again I was struck by the absent of the voice of the fathers of the children in this debate. In today society men talk about it and men are involved, yet while we here from the woman and sometimes the nuns it is rare to here the voices of the men who fathered the children. That does not mean no man has talked about his experience.

OldRio

mariaalice wrote: »

People want simple answers with nice easy identifiable baddies and goodies.

No most of us are not that naive.

Maguined

mariaalice wrote: »

People want simple answers with nice easy identifiable baddies and goodies. I will leave it now and just say again I was struck by the absent of the voice of the fathers of the children in this debate. In today society men talk about it and men are involved, yet while we here from the woman and sometimes the nuns it is rare to here the voices of the men who fathered the children. That does not mean no man has talked about his experience.

Media companies naturally will talk to women who want to come forward about this issue but how many men would want to come forward? You already expressed your opinion that you feel the men either raped the women, abandoned the women or felt repugnanted by the women. Why then would you expect these men to come forward and voice their opinions when they clearly did something wrong? You are wondering why people do not want to publically admit when they have behaved poorly. It is self explanatory.

Tombo2001

mariaalice wrote: »

People want simple answers with nice easy identifiable baddies and goodies. I will leave it now and just say again I was struck by the absent of the voice of the fathers of the children in this debate. In today society men talk about it and men are involved, yet while we here from the woman and sometimes the nuns it is rare to here the voices of the men who fathered the children. That does not mean no man has talked about his experience.

Why were you struck by this?

Why is this a surprise to you?

Elderly Irish men are not known for being open and engaging about issues that are emotional. In fact they are known for being the exact opposite. They are known for internalizing and repressing their emotions, and talking about a limited set of topics ranging from the weather to the GAA.

Its not a surprise to me that elderly Irish men have not spoken out about this, because I know what elderly Irish men are like.

Coming back to your other point, can you point to me the Irish nuns that have spoken out about this, except to say that they did nothing wrong.....

newport2

mariaalice wrote: »

People want simple answers with nice easy identifiable baddies and goodies. I will leave it now and just say again I was struck by the absent of the voice of the fathers of the children in this debate. In today society men talk about it and men are involved, yet while we here from the woman and sometimes the nuns it is rare to here the voices of the men who fathered the children. That does not mean no man has talked about his experience.

I agree with what you say mariaalice, but I'd also bet a significant number of these men never know the child existed. When it was discovered the woman was pregnant, either she or her family took action. Going public with it was usually not an option, so unless she felt the man was likely to agree to marry her on the spot, silence may have prevailed in a lot of cases.

It would be interesting to hear from any men who were aware these children existed though and what their perception of what happened was.

diveout

mariaalice wrote: »

People want simple answers with nice easy identifiable baddies and goodies. I will leave it now and just say again I was struck by the absent of the voice of the fathers of the children in this debate. In today society men talk about it and men are involved, yet while we here from the woman and sometimes the nuns it is rare to here the voices of the men who fathered the children. That does not mean no man has talked about his experience.

They may have been institutionalised also. I know a late friend of mine was adopted and sold within Ireland and it turned out his parents were married but his father was sectioned during the pregnancy for schizophrenia and his mother was forced into one of these "labour camps."

Amirani

mariaalice wrote: »

People want simple answers with nice easy identifiable baddies and goodies. I will leave it now and just say again I was struck by the absent of the voice of the fathers of the children in this debate. In today society men talk about it and men are involved, yet while we here from the woman and sometimes the nuns it is rare to here the voices of the men who fathered the children. That does not mean no man has talked about his experience.

Fathers had essentially no rights. Firstly, most would never have known they'd fathered a child, the woman would likely be sent away by her parents with or without the influence of the church far before that.

If it was the case that the father managed to find out, his only option of "taking responsibility" is to enter into a PERMANENT marriage contract with the woman, despite the fact they may not love each other - probably an unreasonable expectation. The option of paying maintenance or "living in sin" wasn't really on the table.

Obviously what happened is tragic and shameful, but I'm really struggling to see how you're focusing so much on the role of the fathers, they essentially had none because of the church, state and/or parents. They're for the most part victims here too, they had their kids robbed from them by the church and State.

visual

mariaalice wrote: »

People want simple answers with nice easy identifiable baddies and goodies. I will leave it now and just say again I was struck by the absent of the voice of the fathers of the children in this debate. In today society men talk about it and men are involved, yet while we here from the woman and sometimes the nuns it is rare to here the voices of the men who fathered the children. That does not mean no man has talked about his experience.

its too serious an issue to deflect attention from what happened in the mother baby homes.
But you haven't realised the crime isnt that men and women have sex and women become pregnant. The crime isn't that even if the man knew the woman was pregnant and was in a position to support and marry the woman but didn't.

Im not saying some of these women where not raped as that is a crime

but it seems most of these women where forsed into these homes by their own family.

You can blame society, family saving face, poverty or teachings of the church. But to single out fathers who may not have known or been in a position to do anything is reaching too far.

It might not be fair that women get pregnant and the father doesn't always stay around to support her and the child but this isnt the crime here in the mother and baby homes.

Buzz Killington the third

David McWilliams is on Newstalk this week and he was just discussing this whole thing. According to a few listeners it's all the fault of men as it suited them, as is abortion nowadays. Jesus wept!

visual

Buzz Killington the third wrote: »

David McWilliams is on Newstalk this week and he was just discussing this whole thing. According to a few listeners it's all the fault of men as it suited them, as is abortion nowadays. Jesus wept!

Some just can't miss any opportunity to get their agenda across. Sad part is they do it at anyones expenses.

What happend to these mothers was terrible what happened to the chrildren was much worse as they died from negligence, medical experiments and if the managed to survive sold to highest bidder and denied their history.
Even in death they where sent to medical schools to be carved up or dumped in unmarked mass graves or septic tank.

Azwaldo55

For obvious reasons it is hard for a woman to pretend she is isn't pregnant or that she has never been with child due to the physical changes to her body.
For a man there is no obvious physical change that will tell you he is a father of a child.
So if a man wants to evade responsibility all he has to do is deny he is the father.
Before DNA tests how would anyone be any the wiser?
Let's face it. How do any of us really know who our father is for sure? He can only take our mother's word for it.
So it would have been next to impossible to punish men for breaking Catholic sexual taboos.
This is why men could and did avoid responsibility while women could not.

Sauve

No Pants wrote: »

This thread is an exercise in whataboutery and I'm surprised it is still open.

On-thread is not the place for feedback. If you have an issue, please pm a mod or report a post. Thank you.

fits

The one case I know of, man fell for woman. His mother wouldn't let them marry as she was a labourer's daughter and not deemed good enough. He was threatened with disinheritance of farm. They continued to see each other and she became pregnant. She disappeared never to be seen again. He died shortly afterwards suddenly. (aggressive cancer). He should have walked. Strange and terrible times.

professore

I am certain that many of these pregnancies were just down to young couples doing what young couples do. Once the woman got pregnant she had 2 choices:

1. Tell her parents and most likely have her child end up in a home
2. Run away with the boyfriend somewhere (most likely England)

If the families were not happy to let the couple get married, mainly because he or she wasn't "good enough": e.g. a big farmers' son getting a farm labourers' daughter pregnant - the labourers' family would have been delighted, but the farmer less so, particularly with property rights etc. There was even an expression I've heard my mother use - she "caught" him - meaning she got pregnant so a well-off man she fancied would have to marry her.

It didn't matter a damn what the guy felt - he wasn't getting anywhere near the girl or that baby. I would say these kind of pregnancies made up a good share of the women going to homes, especially listening to my mam's stories.

So basically I blame the society at the time - of which the church has to take a fair proportion of it. After all there were people complaining at the time - again my mum tells the story of someone she knew who was raised in an industrial school - he told everyone who would listen about the horrors but no one believed him - men or women - and said he was "a bit touched". In my mum's case she said she couldn't believe that the clergy could do such things. She knows different now.

professore

fits wrote: »

The one case I know of, man fell for woman. His mother wouldn't let them marry as she was a labourer's daughter and not deemed good enough. He was threatened with disinheritance of farm. They continued to see each other and she became pregnant. She disappeared never to be seen again. He died shortly afterwards suddenly. (aggressive cancer). He should have walked. Strange and terrible times.

wow I said something similar in my post ...

Bafucin

mariaalice wrote: »

I am wonder what thought do you have on men and the mother and baby homes.

The church gets talked about.

The woman gets talked about.

Society at the time gets mentioned.

You rarely hear from the men and as it takes two to get pregnant for every mother and baby in the homes there must have been a man who got the mother pregnant.

That means there were and are thousand men out there maybe old now, who either raped the woman, abandon them after sex or after a relationship, felt the woman were repugnant to them because they were willing to have sex with them before marriage as was the convention of the time and let them go in to mother and baby homes because they were seen as somehow not chase. The men's lives were never ruined they went on to married more respectable or suitable women, Not all men of course theire were some I am sure who were devastated by what happened but most did not seem to care.

No one talks about them because we don't know who they are. They never came forward. They never said here I am.

And the women back then for the most part would have loved them to I would wager.

They did one.

There is no way a family back then would prefer a girl to go through a pregnancy unwedded than marry a poor man. No way.

There was no divorce then. You had to marry the girl ...for life! There was no contraception....

They did not love the girls...more than likely the girl did not love them...maybe they were married.

I know there were a lot of inter religious couples who gave up babies because they would not inter marry.

It was not just supporting you child as a father. YOU HAD TO MARRY HER. In a country with no divorce or contraception ..you would end up with five kids with a woman you never loved. And many did.

It might not have been a relationship...with no contraception it could have been a one off.

He might not have believed it. Who knows. But most of all they never stood up and said here I am. That's why we don't talk about them.

Unmarried fathers had no rights. The only way for him to get them was to marry her.

If a man publicly acknowledged a child he was committing career and social suicide unless he married her.

Men years later have less of a connection. I doubt they knew. I doubt they thought much of it. If they even knew. And they are not going to come forward.

Here is the truth...the type of men ..who would come forward now ..would have had the honor to stand by the girl then.

Back then marrying was the right thing to do. That is what a man who would come forward now would do.

It's different now. Thank god.

diveout

fits wrote: »

The one case I know of, man fell for woman. His mother wouldn't let them marry as she was a labourer's daughter and not deemed good enough. He was threatened with disinheritance of farm. They continued to see each other and she became pregnant. She disappeared never to be seen again. He died shortly afterwards suddenly. (aggressive cancer). He should have walked. Strange and terrible times.

It's funny how religious morality enabled the inherent feudal classicm of Irish culture.

Everytime I hear the word respectable I cringe. It has such an ugly connotation for me.

maguic24

Evil, evil men!!

On a serious note, you can't just blame one gender for what happened. It was society at the time, women were just as much responsible as men for what happened.

I love the way people turn and around and say 'if I was there I wouldn't have let it happen etc, etc.' You have to understand the amount of influence that the catholic church had at that time in Ireland. It's like me as a woman going out to Saudi Arabia tomorrow, not wearing a burka and driving a car. No, ta! I know that is an extreme example but just try to picture it from their perspective! If you went against the grain prepare to be punished and shunned by society.

The families could have stepped in and told the church to F off but no doubt they would suffer the consequences. I am not trying to defend the actions of these people in any way, shape or form, it was truly disgusting!! I am only trying to point out why it occurred.

I see your point OP about men being responsible for pregnancies but people were so ignorant at that time. It was always the woman's fault as they were the 'temptation'. You must also remember that a huge amount of men suffered during them times as well in industrial schools and having a pregnant gf carrying their babies shipped off to one of these homes.

I don't blame men. I blame the church to a certain extent but I blame society the most!!