Limerick mum and five children told ‘go to hostel’

ceadaoin.

Stheno wrote: »

This womans story is a bit like your friends story that you posted about, she is not willing to move anywhere to settle her kids, but instead expects somewhere she wants.


She appears to be suffering from address snobbery, will only live where she deems suitable.

Oh ffs. If there is perfectly adequate accommodation in another area then she can move there. Just like everyone else has to when a situation like this arises. That's life.

masculinist

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

Every time a story like this comes up, there's a bunch of people saying things like, "...she should have kept her fanny shut", talking about the woman in question. Maybe "she" should have, but saying that after the fact isn't great advice and isn't going to help her in the present, or magically stop her from (possibly) having children in the future.

"Keep your fanny shut!" Why didn't I think of that?

mostly what I saw on the thread was along the lines of ''keep it in your pants'' - which is great advice for any man relating with a serial single mother by the way. However I think its not about ''keeping the fanny shut'' . Most of us would enjoy sex and see it as something not to be repressed so long as nobody is cheated. And being cheated is the point about where women have an unfair advantage over men. Women have the best control and most choices over contraception. Men don't have coils or pills etc. They basically only have a condom or surgery to choose from. For a woman it is infinitely less risky that things will not go her way. She can choose to have her baby and make him pay for it. She can cheat him- even if he and her agreed explicitly beforehand to have no babies. He has no right to adopt away his legal obligations to pay her vaginamony. She however has the right to put the baby up for adoption , to leave the country for an abortion or - the really simple choice to take her contraceptive pill like she agreed to with him.
There are a lot of fathers walking around who did not choose that position in life. Thats why it is unfair.
Now as for the money she receives, I dont think it is enough. And I know the country cant afford to give her any more. It saddens me that her children will not have enough compared to a family which had taken reasonable precautions to plan pregnancy until career or education goals had been met. Now if someone thinks its as simple as keeping it in your pants or your knickers on I think they are wrong. Thats totalitarian nonsense in the style of Charles McQuaid. There are hundreds of contraceptive options. And women control most of them. I long for the day when a reliable and safe male pill arrives.

eviltwin

masculinist wrote: »

mostly what I saw on the thread was along the lines of ''keep it in your pants'' - which is great advice for any man relating with a serial single mother by the way. However I think its not about ''keeping the fanny shut'' . Most of us would enjoy sex and see it as something not to be repressed so long as nobody is cheated. And being cheated is the point about where women have an unfair advantage over men. Women have the best control and most choices over contraception. Men don't have coils or pills etc. They basically only have a condom or surgery to choose from. For a woman it is infinitely less risky that things will not go her way. She can choose to have her baby and make him pay for it. She can cheat him- even if he and her agreed explicitly beforehand to have no babies. He has no right to adopt away his legal obligations to pay her vaginamony. She however has the right to put the baby up for adoption , to leave the country for an abortion or - the really simple choice to take her contraceptive pill like she agreed to with him.
There are a lot of fathers walking around who did not choose that position in life. Thats why it is unfair.
Now as for the money she receives, I dont think it is enough. And I know the country cant afford to give her any more. It saddens me that her children will not have enough compared to a family which had taken reasonable precautions to plan pregnancy until career or education goals had been met. Now if someone thinks its as simple as keeping it in your pants or your knickers on I think they are wrong. Thats totalitarian nonsense in the style of Charles McQuaid. There are hundreds of contraceptive options. And women control most of them. I long for the day when a reliable and safe male pill arrives.

The fathers have some choice in the matter. They choose to have sex. We the taxpayers, the ones you seem to think should pick up the tab, have none. I have my own children to support, let these men look after theirs.

iguana

Rightwing wrote: »

She's right about 1 thing:

Currently unemployed, Grace is furious at the local authority, especially after she identified a council house to live in Fairview Crescent, Garryowen, near her mother, which has now been boarded up.
“I don’t think the housing office should be there. If they can’t help people, I don’t know why it is open at all.”

Why are the council boarding up houses and moving undesirables out to other areas? Is this what we are paying tax for ?

Who says the council own the house? A huge amount of houses in Garryowen are privately owned as there was enormous uptake of the tenant purchase scheme there. Even if the council does own it, it could be earmarked for another family, higher up the housing list, following renovation. Just because she wants to live there doesn't mean the council can just give it to her.

masculinist

eviltwin wrote: »

The fathers have some choice in the matter. They choose to have sex. We the taxpayers, the ones you seem to think should pick up the tab, have none. I have my own children to support, let these men look after theirs.

you are missing the point. you cant tell people not to have sex. you can however tell them to use contraceptives. And I never said anything about taxpayers paying anything. I just dont see a way out of avoiding a duty to ensure the welfare of the kids.
In one sense it was the states own fault until maybe 15 years ago - make condoms , contraceptives and abortion illegal until recent times and then turn around and judge people for having an unlimited number of kids. state enforced celibacy, how does that work when even priests, the moral guardians or any section of society has proven itself unable to keep its own pants up ? Who is leading from the front ?

eviltwin

masculinist wrote: »

you are missing the point. you cant tell people not to have sex. you can however tell them to use contraceptives. And I never said anything about taxpayers paying anything. I just dont see a way out of avoiding a duty to ensure the welfare of the kids.

If the dad's don't pay it falls to the taxpayers. Why should our income suffer when the people responsible for these offspring pay nothing?

masculinist

eviltwin wrote: »

If the dad's don't pay it falls to the taxpayers. Why should our income suffer when the people responsible for these offspring pay nothing?

A change of culture is required. If a man doesnt agree to father a child then the woman must know 100% that she is on her own if she spermjacks him. She must be given all possible options to prevent pregnancy. I actually believe there should be legal contracts for parenthood. An unwilling father is as much a victim as the state.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Accidents happen, and just because its the woman who has to act like an incubator for 9 months doesn't mean a man has the right to be like "my bad babes, you're solo for this, I don't want kids".

Frank O. Pinion

Stheno wrote: »

You have to wonder why a woman ends up alone and with five kids, and no support from the father, and I'm posting that as a woman who had to pay her ex husband maintenance for years;

Is it lack of education?
Is it the welfare state?
Is it a culture of living off the welfare state that breeds a generation who feel they are entitled?

Possibly a mix of all three, among others, like the lack of abortion in Ireland. I would imagine all women in these situations aren't there because of one problem.

eviltwin

masculinist wrote: »

A change of culture is required. If a man doesnt agree to father a child then the woman must know 100% that she is on her own if she spermjacks him. She must be given all possible options to prevent pregnancy. I actually believe there should be legal contracts for parenthood. An unwilling father is as much a victim as the state.

Never going to happen. People make mistakes, no woman should be trapped in welfare because she got pregnant. It would be better to have systems in place to provide childcare so women like this could go to college and get a job so she can support her own children. Not all single mothers started out that way, a lot were in relationships that broke down. Marriages breakdown all the time. Telling men they can walk away and not have to be responsible for their children sends out a terrible message.

masculinist

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Accidents happen, and just because its the woman who has to act like an incubator for 9 months doesn't mean a man has the right to be like "my bad babes, you're solo for this, I don't want kids".

The only thing which saves your argument just a tiny bit is the lack of legal abortion in this country. However, there is always the possibility of adoption or she can go it alone with the man waiving his rights and obligations towards the child. He can adopt them away. Why should a woman get to choose to offer her baby up for adoption but a man have no choice about it ? There are so many options in contraception that the number of 'accidents' should be negligible. There are also morning after pills and various pills which can be used for a long time after conception.
There have been cases where women have poked holes in condoms , recovered and emptied used condoms, in fact done everything possible to get pregnant. There have been cases where older women have raped younger underage boys, gotten pregnant and then turned around and sued the boys for child support once they became adults. To blame the man in these cases is actually victim blaming. Why victim blame the man and ruin his life by forcing him to have a child with someone he does not love ? So that he will not be able to afford a child with someone he does love.

Ave Sodalis

Stheno wrote: »

You have to wonder why a woman ends up alone and with five kids, and no support from the father, and I'm posting that as a woman who had to pay her ex husband maintenance for years;

Is it lack of education?
Is it the welfare state?
Is it a culture of living off the welfare state that breeds a generation who feel they are entitled?

Series of bad mistakes?
Controlling partner?
Failed contraception?
All from the same father who left/died?

Plenty of reasons, none of them have to be about the mother being a scrounger.

masculinist

eviltwin wrote: »

Never going to happen. People make mistakes, no woman should be trapped in welfare because she got pregnant..

I am speaking about a situation where an agreement was made in advance not to or never to have kids, yet the woman goes ahead and does it anyway. She cheats him and he is forever after victim blamed by the system. Nobody just ''gets pregnant'' miraculously in this day and age.

eviltwin

masculinist wrote: »

The only thing which saves your argument just a tiny bit is the lack of legal abortion in this country. However, there is always the possibility of adoption or she can go it alone with the man waiving his rights and obligations towards the child. He can adopt them away. Why should a woman get to choose to offer her baby up for adoption but a man have no choice about it ? There are so many options in contraception that the number of 'accidents' should be negligible. There are also morning after pills and various pills which can be used for a long time after conception.
There have been cases where women have poked holes in condoms , recovered and emptied used condoms, in fact done everything possible to get pregnant. There have been cases where older women have raped younger underage boys, gotten pregnant and then turned around and sued the boys for child support once they became adults. To blame the man in these cases is actually victim blaming. Why victim blame the man and ruin his life by forcing him to have a child with someone he does not love ? So that he will not be able to afford a child with someone he does love.

A father can contest an adoption if he wishes. You make it sound like an unplanned pregnancy is just a minor inconvenience. Whatever option a woman goes with she will probably be dealing with the emotional fallout for years to come. Just ask any woman who chose adoption or abortion. It's not as easy for a woman to emotionally detach herself.

eviltwin

masculinist wrote: »

I am speaking about a situation where an agreement was made in advance not to or never to have kids, yet the woman goes ahead and does it anyway. She cheats him and he is forever after victim blamed by the system. Nobody just ''gets pregnant'' miraculously in this day and age.

How do you prove such an agreement exists?

Chucken

masculinist wrote: »

I am speaking about a situation where an agreement was made in advance not to or never to have kids, yet the woman goes ahead and does it anyway. She cheats him and he is forever after victim blamed by the system. Nobody just ''gets pregnant'' miraculously in this day and age.

This has your mantra since you started posting in this thread.
Maybe start a different thread about the hard done by men?

This is about a woman and her children being told to go live in a hostel......in this day and age.

masculinist

eviltwin wrote: »

A father can contest an adoption if he wishes. You make it sound like an unplanned pregnancy is just a minor inconvenience. Whatever option a woman goes with she will probably be dealing with the emotional fallout for years to come. Just ask any woman who chose adoption or abortion. It's not as easy for a woman to emotionally detach herself.

and you think it is easy for a man to emotionally detach himself when he is spermjacked and cheated out of his future ? it is nonsense to claim women are emotional wrecks from taking a contraceptive pill or a morning after pill.

Women are cold as ice when they choose to be. they will have their abortions , use their contraception etc when they want to and a man has to sit back and suffer the emotional consequences if he doesnt want this to happen. If they know they cant control a mans life legally it might make them more responsible. And I am not talking about removing their freedom to choose. I am referring to their unfair power to use their choice to control a mans life, the life of a man who they cheated by breaking an agreement with not to have kids. This is victim blaming at the end of the day. Men and women should be free to go their own way but they dont need to control each other. She can have her baby, control her own life so long as she does not control his life.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Chucken wrote: »

This has your mantra since you started posting in this thread.
Maybe start a different thread about the hard done by men?

This is about a woman and her children being told to go live in a hostel......in this day and age.

Well then it's up to her to provide a home for her children , just like most parents do for their kids

OwaynOTT

Gatling wrote: »

And most of her kids are of school going age leaving plenty of scope for part time employment.

Okay, I'm not offering any comments on the article in question but I do want to consider single mothers and working part-time.
All single mothers, not just that the media representation that lady in the article represents - undeserving poor, lazy and living off benefits and just popping out kids with the father in the background but not officially there so they can claim more benefits.

Get your child ready for school and get them to school whether driving or walking (public transport not walkways an option).
Do their homework with them.
Collect them from school.
Look after them after school.
Having them full time on weekends and holidays.

Some people can get help with friends and family. Some can afford to use some sort of child care. Some can't get any help.

Part time work that can fit around the demands of raising a child on your own is hard to get. Part time work is difficult to get at the best of times even without these added difficulties.
A lot of part time work requires major flexibility on your part - covering for illness and holidays, which is difficult when you have a kid dependant on you.
You can't really work nights.

You really only have between 10-4 while the child is in school or even less available hours to work. What if the child gets sick? Kids get sick, it's what they do.

A lot of threads on boards that deal with single mothers and those that rely on some sort of state aid, blindly throw out 'she should be working'.
In a lot of cases it's difficult to this and when it can be worked out surely the child will be affected negatively and the mother will be under a lot of pressure.

I really wish people would consider how hard life can be for single mothers.

eviltwin

masculinist wrote: »

and you think it is easy for a man to emotionally detach himself when he is spermjacked and cheated out of his future ?

Women are cold as ice when they choose to be. they will have their abortions , use their contraception etc when they want to and a man has to sit back and suffer the emotional consequences if he doesnt want this to happen. If they know they cant control a mans life legally it might make them more responsible. And I am not talking about removing their freedom to choose. I am referring to their unfair power to use their choice to control a mans life, the life of a man who they cheated by breaking an agreement.

If he is making the choice to walk away without any financial aid to his offspring then yes, it must not be that big a deal. You seem to have a real problem with women. You should get help for that.

wexie

sup_dude wrote: »

Series of bad mistakes?
Controlling partner?
Failed contraception?
All from the same father who left/died?

Plenty of reasons, none of them have to be about the mother being a scrounger.

yeah, but in this particular case, if any of those were true you can be damn sure it would have been mentioned in the article cause they'd make for good sobbing....

so if she needs to spend a few months in a hostel to teach her a few hard realities well then that's just fine and dandy with me

LoganRice

Good luck to herself and the fam =]

masculinist

eviltwin wrote: »

If he is making the choice to walk away without any financial aid to his offspring then yes, it must not be that big a deal. You seem to have a real problem with women. You should get help for that.

I was waiting for you to start with the personal attacks. You know nothing about me. You however had plenty of cases explained to you about how psychotic women stole a mans sperm from a used condom or blowjob and made themselves pregnant deliberately often older women raping minors to get pregnant and then sue for child support yet you have no feelings of empathy for those men. I call that a problem.

ceadaoin.

masculinist wrote: »

and you think it is easy for a man to emotionally detach himself when he is spermjacked and cheated out of his future ? it is nonsense to claim women are emotional wrecks from taking a contraceptive pill or a morning after pill.

Women are cold as ice when they choose to be. they will have their abortions , use their contraception etc when they want to and a man has to sit back and suffer the emotional consequences if he doesnt want this to happen. If they know they cant control a mans life legally it might make them more responsible. And I am not talking about removing their freedom to choose. I am referring to their unfair power to use their choice to control a mans life, the life of a man who they cheated by breaking an agreement.

No contraception is 100% effective, even the morning after pill isn't. What about when contraception is used and fails through no fault of either party? I don't know what world you live in but I would imagine the cases of devious women trapping men into fathering children are few and far between.

If a man wants to be 100% sure he doesn't father a child then don't have sex. Simple.

eviltwin

masculinist wrote: »

I was waiting for you to start with the personal attacks. You know nothing about me.

And you know nothing about the single parents out there. Go figure.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

masculinist wrote: »

I am speaking about a situation where an agreement was made in advance not to or never to have kids, yet the woman goes ahead and does it anyway. She cheats him and he is forever after victim blamed by the system. Nobody just ''gets pregnant'' miraculously in this day and age.

I know of a situation where the woman did actually get pregnant despite them using condoms (correctly) and she wasn't planning it, and was devastated when it happened. You saying it doesn't happen is bullsh1t.

And I personally don't want kids, but if I found out in the morning that I was pregnant, despaired as I might be, I personally wouldn't have an abortion because I couldn't live with knowing I had taken someone's life. And bringing a child into the world would be the lesser of two evils.

masculinist

eviltwin wrote: »

And you know nothing about the single parents out there. Go figure.

Thats a lie.

Ave Sodalis

masculinist wrote: »

I was waiting for you to start with the personal attacks. You know nothing about me. You however had plenty of cases explained to you about how psychotic women stole a mans sperm from a used condom or blowjob and made themselves pregnant deliberately often older women raping minors to get pregnant and then sue for child support yet you have no feelings of empathy for those men. I call that a problem.

Because that happens all the time and isn't a very rare occurance. Fact.

Chucken

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Well then it's up to her to provide a home for her children , just like most parents do for their kids

... has been told to vacate her rented property at Lissanalta Close in Dooradoyle on several occasions after a receiver was appointed when the owner got into financial difficulties.

Seems to me like she was providing a home for her children.

masculinist

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I know of a situation where the woman did actually get pregnant despite them using condoms (correctly) and she wasn't planning it, and was devastated when it happened. You saying it doesn't happen is bullsh1t.

And I personally don't want kids, but if I found out in the morning that I was pregnant, despaired as I might be, I personally wouldn't have an abortion because I couldn't live with knowing I had taken someone's life. And bringing a child into the world would be the lesser of two evils.

Abortion is illegal in this country. I was using it as an example of how women have more choices than men.

However in case 1 above, there are the possibility of pills you can take as emergency contraception. This all boils down to the type of agreement a man and woman make with each other. If she agrees to avoid pregnancy under all circumstances then I would find her getting pregnant to be cheating the man.