The Shaming and Control of Women

Ambersky

I have been listening to some of the commentary around Mother and Baby homes in Ireland and it seems to me that a lot of people are unaware of, or have forgotten about, how different things were for women in the 60s 70s and 80s.
It seems to me people are aware that the RC church was repressive but there seems to be some lack of awareness of what the economic and social conditions were for women at that time.

Im also aware that some posters here on this forum may have had children in homes or some other similar situations or may be adult children born into such circumstances so I want to be conscious about any sensitivities around that.
Commentators have been saying they think we as a country are searching for a narrative because the story of how pregnant women and their babies were treated involves Irish society as a whole and maybe we are reluctant to face some of that.
I would like to add my bit to the conversation from my perspective. I believe it is important to see both the personal individual situation as well as the system in which the thing occurs in order to fully understand it.

Im wondering if any of you have any observations, commentary or stories to add.

I think its important to understand the social and economic conditions of previous decades because those conditions were even more immediate and important than any religious beliefs at that time when it came to what you were going to do as a woman married or unmarried on finding yourself unhappily pregnant.
Sure religion probably did shape the minds of those who made the laws but the control and shaming of women was Institutional in that it was also inbuilt into the social system of beliefs, education, legislation and welfare of the time.
Being Institutional the shaming and control of women was also invisible, in its pervasiveness and in its normality. Even though women and some men fought to change things other women and men resisted and fought to maintain the status quo. The changing of something that has become Institutionalised is difficult to see and that’s still why things like the remenants of sexism that still need changing can sometimes be difficult to see be aware of and change.

I also think its important to remind ourselves about conditions for women during that time because I think it is important for any people or sub set of people to remember where they come from. Remembering how things were, how they came about and maybe the work that went into changing things can sometimes explain why we now think as we do and sometimes it moves into our present by being part of the reason people may feel very emotive about an issue.
Some of you may have observations about how some of the issues listed below have changed but still have hangovers into our present time or may know of issues that still need changing.

I based the following lisst mostly on Fintain OTooles article
How things have changed - just ten things that Irish women could not do in 1970s
but with additions from articles linked to below which add some information about how these things were changed and the work people put into changing it. If you are interested in this issue those articles give more information and are an excellent read.

Id like you to maybe think as you read this list about how hard it would be to raise a baby independently, without family support, maybe having been thrown out of the house because you were pregnant and about how inviting the idea of being cared for in a home would be to you with little knowledge about what actually went on in such places or the repercussions for you or your baby. Also remember not all unwanted pregnancy's happened to single women. The burden of not being able to control your own reproductive abilities effectively bound women like it or not to a life of child care and homemaking no matter what her personal aspirations unless she was part of a family with money where women had time for or were allowed luxuries like personal aspirations other than childbearing and childcare.


In the 1970s Women in Ireland could not…

1. Keep their jobs in the public service or in a bank once they married
Female civil servants and other public servants (primary teachers from 1958 were excluded from the so-called "marriage bar") had to resign from their jobs when they got married, on the grounds that they were occupying a job that should go to a man. Banks operated a similar policy

2. Sit on a jury

Any Irish citizen who sat on a jury had to be property owners according to the 1927 Juries Act, thus excluding the majority of women. This unfairly left out any female perspective on court cases which was particularly relevant in issues of rape, sexual assault, and violence against women
This changed in 1976 when two women brought the case to the Supreme Court.

3. Buy contraceptives

According to the 1935 Criminal Law Amendment Act, the import, sale and distribution of contraceptives was illegal. As a result the majority of women had no access to contraceptives, apart from the Pill which was sometimes prescribed as a "cycle regulator".
It wasn’t until 1985 that the law changed so that you could buy condoms in chemists only

4. Drink in a pub

During the 1970s, most bars refused to allow women to enter a pub. Those who allowed women to enter generally did not serve females pints of beer.
Although this practice changed over time it wasn’t until 2002 that the equal status act made it illegal to refuse to serve women.

5. Collect their Children’s Allowance

The 1944 legislation that introduced the payment of children's allowances (now called child benefit) specified that they be paid to the father. The father could, if he chose, mandate his wife to collect the money, but she had no right to it.

This changed with the 1974 childrens allowance act. This was sometimes the only money a woman was able to collect herself without having to ask her husband as men being considered the main breadwinner often had the family bank account in the mans name only.

6. Women were unable to get a barring order against a violent partner

You either put up with it, or went homeless as your house was in the husband’s name. It was 1976 before any legal protection was afforded to women.

7. Before 1976 they were unable to own their home outright

According to Irish Law, women had no right to share the family home even if she was a breadwinner and her husband could sell their property without her consent
Under the Family Home Protection Act of 1976, neither spouse can sell the family home without the written consent of the other.

8. Women could not refuse to have sex with their husband

In 1970 the phrase ‘marital rape’ was a contradiction in terms. A husband was assumed to have the right to have sex with his wife and consent was not, in the eyes of the law, an issue.
The first successful prosecution for marital rape was in 2002.

9. Choose her official place of residence

Under Irish law, a married woman was deemed to have the same “domicile” as her husband. This meant that if her husband left her and moved to Australia, her legal domicile was deemed to be Australia. Women, who could not get a divorce in Ireland, could find themselves divorced in countries where their husbands were domiciled.

10. Women could not get the same pay for jobs as men
In March 1970, the average hourly pay for women was five shillings, while that for men was over nine. The majority of women were paid less than male counterparts.
Legislation on equal pay was introduced in 1974 as part of the conditions for joining the EEC but was resisted by the Irish government. Employment equality legislation followed in 1977 as a result of a European directive.


http://www.irishcentral.com/news/how-things-have-changed-ten-things-that-irish-women-could-not-do-in-1970s-183526621-237593131.html

HAL wrote in Gaelick in 2010 http://www.gaelick.com/2010/05/not-so-long-ago/9031/

http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/57301/ten-things-an-irish-woman-could-not-do-in-1970-and-be-prepared-to-cringe

iwantmydinner

Chriiiist.

Ambersky

Iwantmydinner said
Chriiiist.

Yep shocking isnt it when its put together.

iwantmydinner

Ambersky wrote: »

Yep shocking isnt it when its put together.

Totally. I actually knew almost all of those things (didn't know the domicile thing) but in a list... It just makes it all somehow worse.

username123

There are reminders of the opening post all over the country, how many people have an old local pub that has no ladies toilet in the bar? (Or a retrofitted one).

We are still denied reproductive freedom with no access to abortion services.

Women who got pregnant outside of marriage were viewed with the same distaste that junkies are in modern society, as though because they had made a particular choice, they were subhuman, seen as people who had committed a moral wrong. They were seen as the author of their own misery.

Ignorance was rife, my mother told me that she went to her first dance as a teenager, danced with a stranger, and worried for weeks afterwards in case she was pregnant. She literally did not know how you got pregnant. People were having sex not knowing that this was the thing you did that could cause pregnancy, because the whole area was loaded with so much shame and disgust that no one was talking about it.

In my own time the president of our students union was arrested for putting a condom vending machine in the toilets of the college. The Guards arrived, arrested him, and put a cage over the machines so you couldn't reach in to use them. Of course later the same day snips were used to cut strategic holes in the cages, but the point is, it was actually illegal to provide this access to contraception.

On my J1 visa in the US I told some Americans that we had (at that time), no access to contraception, no abortion, and no divorce and they were horrified at what a backwards place I came from.

Ambersky

And you know this isnt the complete list. In another thread I told about the time when I got my first full time, pensionable, permanent job and went to rent a television in Dublin near where I was living in Ranelagh. I wasnt let sign the rental contract without a signature from a husband or father to say that was ok.
That was in the early 80s but how many other petty controls were there on women that when added up left you without much autonomy at all.
Have to say I went through my teens and twenties angry as f**k. Its funny now when I say that people ask "What were you angry at?" You know its hard to explain.

Morag

A Woman could not even get a mortgage in her name alone while a man could back in the 80s.
I know of someone who back then was one of the first and she was a bank official and they would not give her a staff mortgage unless she had her father or husband (which she didn't have) listed on it with her.

username123

Although the Marriage Bar only legally applied to civil service and public jobs, it was a cultural norm and many women gave up work after marriage even if they didnt have a civil service or public job. Combined with the fact that woman could not collect Childrens Allowance, this meant many woman had no access to money at all.

iwantmydinner

The actual thought of not having access to money is making me feel anxious to the point of feeling a bit nauseous. I literally have a sick feeling in my stomach just contemplating that.

Luckily, I'm sitting here at my lovely desk, earning good money doing a job I love. You can be sure I'll never forget that great women fought hard for my right to sit here.

Morag

There was also a time when a man had the right to access his wife's bank account, carte blanch.

I know of someone who had hidden the fact she had one and was saving up to get away from him as he was an abusive alcoholic and when she got close to having enough someone mentioned to him that they had seen her coming in to the bank and he went in and cleared out the account.

Jenneke87

Morag wrote: »

There was also a time when a man had the right to access his wife's bank account, carte blanch.

I know of someone who had hidden the fact she had one and was saving up to get away from him as he was an abusive alcoholic and when she got close to having enough someone mentioned to him that they had seen her coming in to the bank and he went in and cleared out the account.

I don't know why but this post struck a cord with me. How vile some people can be and what additional misery that other (unknowingly) must have caused. My grandmother used to tell me stories about how things were for women in her time, and I'm so happy I was born a few decades later. I've had my share of unplanned pregnancies and I can only imagine what my life would have become back in those days....

Neyite

I was a teen in the 1990s, and remember the wonder that was condom vending machines in some forward-thinking pubs.

I remember as a youngster overhearing my mother and a neighbour discuss my mothers upcoming trip to the UK. The neighbour was asking mum to smuggle in contraceptives for her. This was late eighties.

I remember none of my friends knowing at 16 if we could get the pill from our GP (some thought you would have to pretend to be engaged) though my lovely female GP prescribed them without quibble, there were plenty of rural GP's that wouldnt.

In the early Noughties, I worked with a promising young girl who had just aced her leaving cert, and she was pregnant. In her small rural town, both the only GP and Pharmacist were staunch catholics and either refused to prescribe contraceptives or fill said prescription. They also leaned hard on the local pubs to remove condom machines. The guy who got her pregnant, also had gotten another girl pregnant.

iwantmydinner

Morag wrote: »

There was also a time when a man had the right to access his wife's bank account, carte blanch.

I know of someone who had hidden the fact she had one and was saving up to get away from him as he was an abusive alcoholic and when she got close to having enough someone mentioned to him that they had seen her coming in to the bank and he went in and cleared out the account.

Oh my god that's horrific

A great-aunt of mine worked in the Civil Service when the equal pay legislation was enacted. All the men in her department were immediately promoted so that they didn't suffer the humiliation of being paid the same as a woman the same grade.

fits

Its all hard to understand isnt it? How much progress we have made in 30 odd years. Thats just a blip in history. Have to be careful not to let things regress to the way they were too.

username123

username123 wrote: »

Although the Marriage Bar only legally applied to civil service and public jobs, it was a cultural norm and many women gave up work after marriage even if they didnt have a civil service or public job. Combined with the fact that woman could not collect Childrens Allowance, this meant many woman had no access to money at all.

And there is nothing more vulnerable than a person without their own money. In those days the vast majority of men would have been happy to think of their salary as the families money, but there were more than a few who were the products of their time and saw it as theirs alone, and money given to the wife as a 'favour'.

And then there were the simply abusive ones who controlled all the money and how it was spent. I know of one woman who's mother never handled money in her entire married life. The husband insisted on nothing being bought unless he was holding the money when it was paid for. You can only imagine the number of households where there may have been drink problems, and how the wives and children did without as a result.

While I would have hoped that sort of thing was rare, I'm told it was actually quite commonplace.

iwantmydinner

I've heard about a number of women who were given grocery money and had to ask for anything else - even to see the doctor. Imagine having to ask your husband for money so that you could see the doctor... Frightening.

Ambersky

I think its important to realise that men were encouraged in the belief that the money was theirs by the institutions around them. It wasnt just that some men chose to share or were generous and some men didnt choose to look on earnings as family money. Equality should never be left up to the discretion or niceness of anyone.
There was an assumption and an expectation that the man was in charge of the money, some of the ways that expressed itself are in the list in the Op.

I know a man who died recently, having had control of family money in his name only, all his life. He died leaving nothing to his wife, saying she would be fine with the state pension and the roof he had supplied to her over her head.
The family home was not his to will as his half went automatically into the ownership of the wife. Now a spouse can not legally leave their partner out of a will entirely. It turns out the wife if she hadnt had any children with him would have been entitled to half of his estate on his death but as she has had children with him that means she is legally entitled to a third of the estate .
The children do not have any automatic inheritance rights so a spouse can will two thirds of their estate away to the cat and dogs home if they like.
One third is something though and it would be hers in her name and in her control to do with as she likes. Not all the women in this womans circle of friends knew about this protection which comes into play for spouses not provided for in a valid will.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/married_couples/marital_status_and_inheritance.html

Ambersky

Ambersky wrote: »

I think its important to realise that men were encouraged in the belief that the money was theirs by the institutions around them. It wasnt just that some men chose to share or were generous and some men didnt choose to look on earnings as family money. Equality should never be left up to the discretion or niceness of anyone.
There was an assumption and an expectation that the man was in charge of the money, some of the ways that expressed itself are in the list in the Op.

Thats absolutely true, and that's why I referred to men being the products of their time in my post, although you've expanded on what I meant far better than I did or could have.

Men were raised to believe they were the kings of their castles, and women were raised to believe that also.

pwurple

The attitude is good to describe, as it's almost completely forgotten how women and children were lower citizens in alsmot every way.

I remember in school in the early 90's, being at an open evening for subject choices for the leaving cert. i wanted to do engineering and there were a few girls who wanted to do medicine. Our parents were inquiring why honours maths or physics were not taught in our girls school to leaving cert. One girl's mother asked how her daughter was to get the points for medicine without honours maths. The teacher answered "nursing is a fine profession".

fits

Two occasions in my family in previous generation where husbands willed property to their own side of the family rather than to their wives. And their families then kicked the women out on their ear on husband's death. One of the women contested it successfully and ran the business on her own until she was 90. The other had to be housed by her siblings.

This stuff is not long ago! Its all very well joining up your lives and possessions by marriage but I think any woman who does not look after her own long term security in this day and age is naive (eg stay at home mums with no fallback income and no pension).

Should always have running away money
Now that you can keep it like

iwantmydinner

I can't remember a time when my mom wasn't drumming the absolute importance of financial independence into me and my sisters. I was literally a small child when she started with the mantra.

FactCheck

fits wrote: »

Its all hard to understand isnt it? How much progress we have made in 30 odd years. Thats just a blip in history. Have to be careful not to let things regress to the way they were too.

The thing I find personally very hard to get my head around is how recent it all really was. And how young so many survivors - and propagators - of these values still are.

Ann Lovett died thirty years ago last January. If she were alive, she would be only 45 years old. That's nothing!

How many people, say from 40-50 years old up, who are still "with us" as in still going about their daily lives, working, shopping, socialising, living through the Celtic Tiger - were raised in this culture? It's crazy. Very hard to get my head around to be honest.

eviltwin

Marital rape was still legal until 1990, we only got the MAP a few years ago, abortion is still denied to almost all, We've come a long way but there's still more to do.

eviltwin

FactCheck wrote: »

The thing I find personally very hard to get my head around is how recent it all really was. And how young so many survivors - and propagators - of these values still are.

Ann Lovett died thirty years ago last January. If she were alive, she would be only 45 years old. That's nothing!

How many people, say from 40-50 years old up, who are still "with us" as in still going about their daily lives, working, shopping, socialising, living through the Celtic Tiger - were raised in this culture? It's crazy. Very hard to get my head around to be honest.

jesus is that all?!!! that's not much older than me, it happened in my lifetime. When you hear the details it sounds like something from the 50's.

Lou.m

It was not just Ireland.

It's amazing. I think that people have forgotten and it's partly why some men now resent the feminist movement. They have forgotten or are in denial of what it was actually like.

Really even us here when we were little girls in the late 80's early nineties it was still different.

Older men and women lived and grew up with that. Some of our politicians grew up with it.

I think its important to realise that men were encouraged in the belief that the money was theirs by the institutions around them. It wasnt just that some men chose to share or were generous and some men didnt choose to look on earnings as family money. Equality should never be left up to the discretion or niceness of anyone.
There was an assumption and an expectation that the man was in charge of the money, some of the ways that expressed itself are in the list in the Op.

I know a man who died recently, having had control of family money in his name only, all his life. He died leaving nothing to his wife, saying she would be fine with the state pension and the roof he had supplied to her over her head.

Financial independence is your freedom, you lose ALL control without it.
Bluewolf said

Should always have running away money
Now that you can keep it like

OMG did your mother use that phrase too? So did mine AND my aunt...' you always need running away money, money he doesn't know about, a girl never knows when she might have to bolt and start over!'.

My Dad knows nothing about this ...Mom actually DID have running away money until she started her business!

I dunno if it has just been drummed into me but I still think running away money is a good idea!! :-)

In almost every situation where the man has control of the finances he controls the relationship too. Maybe it is not always true nowadays and some men see earnings as family earnings if the women is looking after children.


I think financial independence is really what drove the women's movement more than feminism as an ideology.

My mother didn't - she didn't need to - but I've heard it elsewhere


That famous actress was in a movie in the states where the same thing happened about a bank account and abusive husband. Was it a stephen king novel? hmmm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolores_Claiborne_(film)

eviltwin

I find the whole notion of running away money quite depressing unless your actually in an abusive relationship

eviltwin

eviltwin wrote: »

I find the whole notion of running away money quite depressing unless your actually in an abusive relationship

These days thankfully it's a joking term about financial independence.
Even in an ideal relationship, should the worst happen, joint accounts would be frozen for a while etc, afaik. It's always necessary for either

username123

eviltwin wrote: »

I find the whole notion of running away money quite depressing unless your actually in an abusive relationship

The problem was, a relationship could turn abusive after marriage, at which point a woman's personal freedom was already gone!

I'm friends with a woman whose husband turned to her in the car on the way from the church to the wedding reception and said "you're mine now" and punched her in the head. He raped her and beat the **** out of her that night and for the next 3 weeks at which point she turned up at her mothers and was told "you made your bed". She had dated this guy for 3 years before marriage so it wasn't a case of not knowing him, he just hid it. While this is an extreme case, many women were subject to abuse after marriage and had no social or legal support, no access to money, no access to contraception and no access to divorce.

Ambersky

Lou.m said
I think financial independence is really what drove the women's movement more than feminism as an ideology.

That and control of your body and reproductive ability, which we dont fully have with so many women going abroad for abortions every year.
Imagine what it would be like to not be able to stop having babies, how much independence would you have then.

Lou.m

username123 wrote: »

The problem was, a relationship could turn abusive after marriage, at which point a woman's personal freedom was already gone!

I'm friends with a woman whose husband turned to her in the car on the way from the church to the wedding reception and said "you're mine now" and punched her in the head. He raped her and beat the **** out of her that night and for the next 3 weeks at which point she turned up at her mothers and was told "you made your bed". She had dated this guy for 3 years before marriage so it wasn't a case of not knowing him, he just hid it. While this is an extreme case, many women were subject to abuse after marriage and had no social or legal support, no access to money, no access to contraception and no access to divorce.

Wow *shudder*

I have been in the situation where Mr perfect nice guy turned into a brute but not within marriage thank god.

I know people don't often believe that some humans can hide their true character so well. They can.

It kind of makes me feel less stupid knowing it has happened to others. It kinda makes me feel I can trust my own judgement.


People don't believe a partner can be so violent and psychotic. They can, it is a total mind **** when it is supposed to be someone who loves you or says they love you.

Both male and female abusers are master manipulators. They wear a hundred different guises and masks.

eviltwin

username123 wrote: »

The problem was, a relationship could turn abusive after marriage, at which point a woman's personal freedom was already gone!

I'm friends with a woman whose husband turned to her in the car on the way from the church to the wedding reception and said "you're mine now" and punched her in the head. He raped her and beat the **** out of her that night and for the next 3 weeks at which point she turned up at her mothers and was told "you made your bed". She had dated this guy for 3 years before marriage so it wasn't a case of not knowing him, he just hid it. While this is an extreme case, many women were subject to abuse after marriage and had no social or legal support, no access to money, no access to contraception and no access to divorce.

that poor woman i can't understand people who don't live together before marriage, its a hell of a gamble

username123

Part of the problem was that people were not living together or sleeping together before marriage, so they didn't see all facets of each other until it was too late.

How many men and women discovered after marriage that they were not sexually compatible or simply didn't like each other after living together? It was a breeding ground for frustration and abuse. Locked together in a loveless marriage with no legal repercussions for rape, no property ownership for the woman, no earning power, no accepted role in society except wife/mother/nun.

convert

Ambersky wrote: »

INow a spouse can not legally leave their partner out of a will entirely. It turns out the wife if she hadnt had any children with him would have been entitled to half of his estate on his death but as she has had children with him that means she is legally entitled to a third of the estate .

The scary thing is that this hasn't changed much since the seventeenth century. This was confirmed in the 1698 Act for the better settling if Intestates' Estates. I did my thesis on it back in college.

Lou.m wrote: »

OMG did your mother use that phrase too? So did mine AND my aunt...' you always need running away money, money he doesn't know about, a girl never knows when she might have to bolt and start over!'.

Ironically, my OH and I use that term still! When we eventually manage to live together, we've both decided (independently) that we have a joint account for bills, rent, etc., and each pay in a proportion of our salaries, but that the rest of the money we each earn is our private fund, not for use for the other, except in case of emergency, etc.

When my mum and I got married (late 70s), mum was seen as being quite 'modern', as she didn't change her name (until she decided it was easier when they had kids), kept her own bank account, and, essentially, was seen as 'independent' from her husband. Utter rebel!

Animord

FactCheck wrote: »

The thing I find personally very hard to get my head around is how recent it all really was. And how young so many survivors - and propagators - of these values still are.

Ann Lovett died thirty years ago last January. If she were alive, she would be only 45 years old. That's nothing!

How many people, say from 40-50 years old up, who are still "with us" as in still going about their daily lives, working, shopping, socialising, living through the Celtic Tiger - were raised in this culture? It's crazy. Very hard to get my head around to be honest.

lol at 'still with us"! Of course we are still with you! I was 17 and doing my leaving the year Ann Lovett died. I didn't know her but a couple of girls in my year did. We were horrified and shook and all the things that you would expect.

And now, 30 years later I wonder who the father was? Presumably he is still around. I don't remember there ever being any mention of him at all. And I am angry. I am angry that I spent so many years being angry at men when they weren't the enemy at all. They were just as screwed as we were by the way society was run.

I can remember my mother telling me in 1984 when I left school, you have no idea how lucky you are... "you are free, you can do what you want". I was taught typing, cooking and household accounts at school. It was inferred, but never really said, that a man will come along and 'take care' of all the complicated stuff for you. University was available to us but it was not something that you actually did. Why would you? A man was going to look after you.

It was a lot better than our mothers had, but you have no idea how easy you have it now.... :pac:

Addle

eviltwin wrote: »

i can't understand people who don't live together before marriage, its a hell of a gamble

People might or might not live together for years, marry, have kids, lose a job, become seriously ill.
Dynamics change.
You really don't know how you or your OH will deal with certain things until they're in it.

Animord

Animord wrote: »

lol at 'still with us"! Of course we are still with you! I was 17 and doing my leaving the year Ann Lovett died. I didn't know her but a couple of girls in my year did. We were horrified and shook and all the things that you would expect.

And now, 30 years later I wonder who the father was? Presumably he is still around. I don't remember there ever being any mention of him at all. And I am angry. I am angry that I spent so many years being angry at men when they weren't the enemy at all. They were just as screwed as we were by the way society was run.

I can remember my mother telling me in 1984 when I left school, you have no idea how lucky you are... "you are free, you can do what you want". I was taught typing, cooking and household accounts at school. It was inferred, but never really said, that a man will come along and 'take care' of all the complicated stuff for you. University was available to us but it was not something that you actually did. Why would you? A man was going to look after you.

It was a lot better than our mothers had, but you have no idea how easy you have it now.... :pac:

I agree with almost everything you've said, but I don't really think men were as screwed by the status quo as women were.

They were the heads of the households and had much greater access to education, training and career opportunities. Their earning potential was much greater, their name was on the mortgages, they were the head of the family, the Child Allowance was paid to them, they were the captains of industry and the masters of the universe. If you were a man with an education and ambition, the opportunities you had were absolutely boundless compared to those available to a woman.

They were screwed in some ways alright, and certainly by the expectation of being the sole breadwinner responsible for the financial health of the whole family, but by and large there were huge advantages to being born male instead of female at that time.

They weren't 'the enemy' but men held all the cards, women, by and large, had to take the hand they were dealt.

That why I always think the first empowerment is economic empowerment, people can go on about the church/religion or culture and society etc., however if you don't have your own money/job/careers them you choices are very narrow.

IvyTheTerrible

My parents bought their first house when they were engaged, just around the time when the right to domicile came in.
My uncle (who I don't speak to anymore) convinced my father to put him as his next of kin on the documents instead of my mother. When they went to sell that house and buy another one, after their wedding, the new solicitor went mad when she saw that. It was all part of my uncle's attitude about women being out for what they could get.

Also, there are a lot of those 'backward" attitudes still out there, it's just more hidden. My son was born "out of wedlock" and I heard recently that relatives were saying the shock of that is why my parents were ill.
Thank goodness I'm in a serious long term relationship or who knows what would have been said.

iwantmydinner

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

It was all part of my uncle's attitude about women being out for what they could get.

Love that. Deny women any and all independence by not allowing them to own property etc., then hate them when they seek security in marriage. Christ. You couldn't make it up.

Malari

I never heard of Anne Lovett and just read about her now when she was mentioned on the thread. Can't believe the way Byrne just odiously dismissed it on the Late Late show.

I knew a lot of the things on the OP's list and in a way it's a good thing that so many of them have been forgotten about because it really shows that society has changed so much in its attitude towards women.

My parents were pretty forward-thinking - they lived together before they married, my mom kept her civil service job when she married (the law had only recently been changed so pressure was still there to give it up) - and I think they encouraged us to have a healthy disrespect for authority and the "done thing".

Morag

iwantmydinner wrote: »

I've heard about a number of women who were given grocery money and had to ask for anything else - even to see the doctor. Imagine having to ask your husband for money so that you could see the doctor... Frightening.

Eh I know of husbands who used to go do the shopping with the wife and question everything that went into the trolly then when at the check out would stroll off to watch her load the belt, and then wander over to pay for it.

Or going back later there was an account in the butcher and grocers and he'd pay the bill that way.


If a woman was lucky she's have some skill and could ear 'pin money' that way.

iwantmydinner

Morag wrote: »

Eh I know of husbands who used to go do the shopping with the wife and question everything that went into the trolly then when at the check out would stroll off to watch her load the belt, and then wander over to pay for it.

Or going back later there was an account in the butcher and grocers and he'd pay the bill that way.


If a woman was lucky she's have some skill and could ear 'pin money' that way.

Oh my god I feel like crying reading this!

username123

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Oh my god I feel like crying reading this!

I saw it happening recently in a supermarket. A woman had to send her son out to the father in the car to get money for the groceries. The rest of us stood waiting in the queue. She was a traveller, I know they are still behind the rest of society in terms of those types of cultural norms.

eviltwin

username123 wrote: »

I saw it happening recently in a supermarket. A woman had to send her son out to the father in the car to get money for the groceries. The rest of us stood waiting in the queue. She was a traveller, I know they are still behind the rest of society in terms of those types of cultural norms.

That kind of thing happens more today than most people would realise, the problem is we've gone completely the other way that women in controlling relationships often feels ashamed and that people won't understand or will over simplify it.

Fizzlesque

Ambersky wrote: »

Im wondering if any of you have any observations, commentary or stories to add.....

.....I also think its important to remind ourselves about conditions for women during that time because I think it is important for any people or sub set of people to remember where they come from. Remembering how things were, how they came about and maybe the work that went into changing things can sometimes explain why we now think as we do and sometimes it moves into our present by being part of the reason people may feel very emotive about an issue.

Your thread, Ambersky, is incredibly timely for me. I am currently in the process of writing a piece/story/account for my daughter, should the day ever come when she asks me why I chose to have her adopted 25 years ago.

The short answer, should she prefer me to just tell her, is that I was 20 years old, unattached, with no career plans, no money, no real support and many, many layers of emotional damage due to a traumatic childhood, all of which combined to make me doubt my ability to cope. Unfortunately, the short answer skims over (or doesn't even touch upon) far too many additional elements that are necessary to the story if my daughter is to get a proper picture of the situation I faced at the time.

I suspect I am really writing the story for myself, because, I feel a great need to justify my decision - which isn't an easy thing to do, especially when I take into consideration the fact I didn't really want to choose adoption, but my father convinced me it was the best course of action - and the guilt I feel doesn't know when to stop growing. I was five months pregnant when my father's politician-like powers of persuasion won me over and I agreed to consider it. Before long it became the only solid option I had, until it eventually won my vote, not because I was happy with this plan but because I could see no other way.

The stable family unit really struck a chord with me, having grown up in a motherless (my mother died when I was a toddler), erratic household with periods of extreme emotional upheaval and neglect, I knew all the things I absolutely did not want for my child, and I wasn't strong enough in myself to believe that history wouldn't repeat itself. I had grown up in the times your opening post describe, and even though it was 1989 when I was pregnant, and a lot of the changes had begun in earnest by then, they were still in their fledgeling state and hadn't yet filtered down to my life. Nor were they fast enough, or strong enough to make a noticeable difference to how I felt about my 'situation' in terms of finding ways to make it work.

A girl on my road had chosen adoption for her baby a few years earlier, and I wanted to talk to her about her decision, before I made mine, but in her household it was dirty secret, never to be mentioned again, so I was told I wasn't to try talk to her about it. This made me grateful my father wasn't chucking me out and doubly grateful I was able to opt for a semi-open adoption, because, despite my youth and lack of help, I knew I couldn't agree to say goodbye completely and forever, with no thread keeping us connected. It was the done thing, say goodbye and pretend it never happened. I know I embarrassed some extended family members by showing photographs at family gatherings and insisting on mentioning my daughter, so her existence couldn't be swept under the carpet, but that was down to my emotional pain being stronger than society's idea of shame. Unfortunately, I wasn't strong enough to choose to keep my baby with me, foolishly believing I would hinder her chances of having a happy life if I went down the single mother route.

My preamble is in danger of becoming the main feature, once I start, it's difficult to stop, but to try reign it in a bit and connect my story with your opening post, I want to thank you for starting this thread at this particular time because, lately, I realised it is important for me to travel back in time to remember how different this country was, even as short a time as 25 years ago. The mention of the ban on selling contraceptives brought a wry smile to my face because when I told my father I was pregnant, one of his comments was "well, at least you didn't use contraception" and he meant it :eek:.

As I look back, over my life, I can see that self doubt played a huge part in my decision. Doubts that were exacerbated by society's narrow notions of what women were capable of, by virtue of their gender. I wasn't brought up to think of myself as self-sufficient - as a few other posters have mentioned, the "sure, one day you'll marry and have a husband to take care of you" idea was still in circulation. As it happened, I never married and now have no desire to do so, but it was always assumed that would be the road I'd travel down. Even after my baby went to her new family it was assumed I'd eventually marry, have more children and 'forget' about my daughter. If only I'd known then, as I know now, that I am a very capable woman, full of resourcefulness and well able to make the best of a bad situation, I wouldn't have allowed myself be talked into believing I'd make a mess of both our lives. Over the last few years, three sets of neighbours around me have welcomed unplanned babies into their families, all of them to young, unmarried parents, and, despite it being 25 years since I was that young pregnant girl, my eyes still fill with tears when I see the grandparents/uncles/aunties etc being hands-on and involved with their unplanned and much-loved grandchild/niece/nephew, and I think back to my time and how much I'd have loved for society and my family to have been able to say "it's not the end of the world, it's a new life, let's celebrate this new life and together we'll find a way".

I have digressed and rambled, I hope I haven't gone too far off tangent. I'm still not there in terms of streamlining the differences between then and now, I just know it was a very different time back then.

[sorry, for long post - my fingers start to dance all by themselves once I let them off the leash - thanks for reading, those that have.]

Morag

I think as more women started to work and not get married by 20 ( my mother was told she was on the shelf at 23) they had money and so had more options and one of those option was to go to the UK and have an abortion. I do remember the attitude to unmarried mother's changing with the work Cherish did getting the first piece of financial support in 1973, the attitude was as much of a sin as it was to have a child out of wedlock it was better then having it 'taken care of'.

I remember the first 'bastard' baptised in the local parish, it caused uproar.

username123

Morag wrote: »

I remember the first 'bastard' baptised in the local parish, it caused uproar.

A single mother friend of mine had the door slammed on her by the parish priest while looking to have her son baptised. This was in the 1990s.

jos28

Great thread OP. I am old enough to remember the horrendous restrictions imposed on women in the 1970s and 80s. I remember as a young married woman I had to get a prescription for a packet of condoms !!
I take great joy in seeing young, confident, independent Irish women making their way in the world today. I have just finished reading the history of the Irish Women's Liberation Movement and I thoroughly recommend it to anyone with an interest in the subject. This incredible group of determined women fought and campaigned for the freedom we have today. It struck me that their achievements have never been properly acknowledged - no statues, no streets named after them. Women like Mary Maher, Mairin de Burca, Nell McCafferty and Maureen Johnston deserve some form of official recognition

http://www.theliffeypress.com/mondays-at-gaj-s-the-story-of-the-irish-women-s-liberation-movement.html