Margaret Cash steals €300 worth of clothes from Penneys and aftermath/etc!

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

SusieBlue wrote: »

This has to be a wind up.
Your comments are extremely insulting to any parent who has to put their child into childcare so they can work to put food on the table and a roof over their heads.

If there was full time parenting for all, who would pay your precious Margaret her 50k a year to be "a mother first"???

Oh there would be two people working, but not having kids so they could support the likes of Mother of the year Margaret be a “mother first”. Cause that’s what he’s saying. Working women shouldn’t have kids.

lawred2

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I am saying that she sees her primary role as a mother.
She is not a career obsessed women who decides to tick the boxes when she hits 30 then has 2.5 kids. Ticks the boxes and back to work, kids to childminder.
Cash sees her role as a full time mother first and foremost.
That used to be the way of society but those values are lost.

In a way as the taxpayer carries the can for the likes of Cash who does not have a working man to provide for her.
The childminders (mostly paid and lowly paid) carry the can for the working part-time parents.

it's clear that you have an axe to grind with these women getting all uppity and having the temerity to have jobs and such.. imagine them actually leaving the house

there can be no other reason for finding valor in the lifestyle of Ms Cash over those women working and rearing similarly minded children

they should be at home popping them out annually and running them all down to mass at the weekend... right?

KrustyUCC

F*****g c**t hope he never works another day in his life

https://gyazo.com/c7943ba3efea113d521ec836bdb8e1dahttps://gyazo.com/c7943ba3efea113d521ec836bdb8e1da

Kind funny coming from Margaret who has never worked a day in her life

gormdubhgorm

SusieBlue wrote: »

This has to be a wind up.
Your comments are extremely insulting to any parent who has to put their child into childcare so they can work to put food on the table and a roof over their heads.

If there was full time parenting for all, who would pay your precious Margaret her 50k a year to be "a mother first"???

But the fact is those parents who put thier kids into childcare are 'part-time' / weekend 'quality time' parents.
Those working parents could also chose to live on welfare like Cash, but they want a nicer lifestyle so they do not.
Alternatively those working parents could chose not to have kids at all.

blanch152

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I am saying that she sees her primary role as a mother.
She is not a career obsessed women who decides to tick the boxes when she hits 30 then has 2.5 kids. Ticks the boxes and back to work, kids to childminder.
Cash sees her role as a full time mother first and foremost.
That used to be the way of society but those values are lost.

In a way as the taxpayer carries the can for the likes of Cash who does not have a working man to provide for her.
The childminders (mostly paid and lowly paid) carry the can for the working part-time parents.

Ah here, that is just so misleading a picture that it is nearly something to laugh at.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

But the fact is those parents who put thier kids into childcare are 'part-time' / weekend 'quality time' parents.
Those working parents could also chose to live on welfare like Cash, but they want a nicer lifestyle so they do not.
Alternatively those working parents could chose not to have kids at all.

When the work force fell, and people who didn’t suffer from sticky mattress syndrome found themselves out of a job in a deep recession, the dole was cut for “mother’s first”, the Christmas bonus was done away, rent allowance was done away with, free houses were no longer built, single mothers couldn’t claim lone parents until their kids grew beards, they were expected to work after the child turned 7. So when you say working parents could afford to do what cash does, you’re wrong.

SusieBlue

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

But the fact is those parents who put thier kids into childcare are 'part-time' / weekend 'quality time' parents.
Those working parents could also chose to live on welfare like Cash, but they want a nicer lifestyle so they do not.
Alternatively those working parents could chose not to have kids at all.

So your real axe to grind is with women who choose to or have to go back to work after having a baby.
And you feel the woeful, disgraceful job Margaret is doing of raising her brood is preferable to a woman leaving her child with a qualified professional while she earns money to pay her taxes and put food on the table.
Right.

ohnonotgmail

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

But the fact is those parents who put thier kids into childcare are 'part-time' / weekend 'quality time' parents.
Those working parents could also chose to live on welfare like Cash, but they want a nicer lifestyle so they do not.

or perhaps they want to instill in their children the self-respect that comes from being able to support yourself without having to rely on the state.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Alternatively those working parents could chose not to have kids at all.

alternatively people like Cash could just to have no kids as they can't afford them. You seem happy for the most indigent in society to have as many kids as they want and the state to pay for them but put down those working people who only have the kids they can afford.

gormdubhgorm

lawred2 wrote: »

it's clear that you have an axe to grind with these women getting all uppity and having the temerity to have jobs and such..

there can be no other reason for finding valour in the lifestyle of Ms Cash over those women working and rearing similarly minded children

they should be at home popping them out annually and running them all down to mass at the weekend... right?

My point is they are trying to have the best of both worlds, but in reality someone else is doing the parenting.
It baffles me how it has become the social norm.
Look at what that parent is missing out on (it does not have to be mother by the way - it could be house husband).
A childminder gets to see the kid growing up instead of the parent.

You try telling a traveller that someone else is going to rare your kids and both (for the most part) because that is the way we do it in society...
Just because it is the way we do things now in modern Ireland?

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I am saying that she sees her primary role as a mother.

Most working parents I know would say the same thing. I've never heard a working woman say "I'm an accountant/doctor/teacher first and a mother second."

She is not a career obsessed women who decides to tick the boxes when she hits 30 then has 2.5 kids.

Anyone with a job now is "career-obsessed," it would seem.

Maybe she has delayed having children to age 30 because she was busy getting an education, attaining security in her career, and saving for a mortgage? Maybe she has 2-3 children because that's all she can afford to raise and educate? Instead of getting pregnant at 16, popping out seven kids and counting by 28, and demanding a free house from the state.

ohnonotgmail

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

My point is they are trying to have the best of both worlds, but in reality someone else is doing the parenting.
It baffles me how it has become the social norm.
Look at what that parent is missing out on (it does not have to be mother by the way - it could be house husband).
A childminder gets to see the kid growing up instead of the parent.

You try telling a traveller that someone else is going to rare your kids and both (for the most part) because that is the way we do it in society...
Just because it is the way we do things now in modern Ireland?

i can only assume you are trolling at this stage. If you want to complain about women having to work to be able to afford kids you should not be holding up the likes of Cash as a positive counter example.

cloudy90210

Margaret Cash be poppin out dem kidz like my gurl Cardi B be poppin them hoes

KrustyUCC

Would love to see how well she gets on rareing her kids if society didn't entirely support her lifestyle

Gravelly

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Those working parents could also chose to live on welfare like Cash, but they want a nicer lifestyle so they do not.

Or they want to educate their children and give them a chance to achieve something with their lives.

We can't all teach our children to be thieves and scammers, somebody's children have to grow up to be the lawyers that defend them, the social workers to stop them starving their children, the Gardaí to stop them beating their wives to death, the prison officers to look after them "inside", the council workers to clean up after them, the builders to build their free houses, and the taxpayers to support them.

gormdubhgorm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

alternatively people like Cash could just to have no kids as they can't afford them. You seem happy for the most indigent in society to have as many kids as they want and the state to pay for them but put down those working people who only have the kids they can afford.

That is an alternative yes, but at least she is around to see her children growing up. That is clearly the things that are most precious to her.
She has made her choices that is the situation she is in.

By the way I am in no way saying that she is a nice individual by any means.
But she seems to love her kids and her role as mother.

blanch152

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

But the fact is those parents who put thier kids into childcare are 'part-time' / weekend 'quality time' parents.
Those working parents could also chose to live on welfare like Cash, but they want a nicer lifestyle so they do not.
Alternatively those working parents could chose not to have kids at all.

This is becoming absolutely disgusting.

Both my spouse and I have spend time working from home, or working in the home, or working part-time hours, but we have also both worked full-time as well with children in creches and child-minders. Decisions were always made to balance out the needs of the whole family, including our children, but also ourselves. We have secured a steady future for them, a happy, safe and warm upbringing, full of love and they are well-adjusted members of society. Margaret Cash will never be able to say that about her children, mostly because of the poor choices she has made in life or were forced upon her by the insidious pressures of traveller culture.

Neither of us as parents got ourselves evicted. Neither were either of us imprisoned or convicted of any crime. How any person who has been convicted over 30 times could be considered a good mother is disgusting. Every single time she committed a crime, she ran the serious risk of being imprisoned and her children being left alone.

How anyone can portray Margaret Cash as anything other than a bad example of parenting is beyond me.

ohnonotgmail

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

That is an alternative yes, but at least she is around to see her children growing up. That is clearly the things that are most precious to her.
She has made her choices that is the situation she is in.

By the way I am in no way saying that she is a nice individual by any means.
But she seems to love her kids and her role as mother.

and is raising them to be exactly like her. Do you think she is doing a good job of raising them?

blanch152

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

That is an alternative yes, but at least she is around to see her children growing up. That is clearly the things that are most precious to her.
She has made her choices that is the situation she is in.

By the way I am in no way saying that she is a nice individual by any means.
But she seems to love her kids and her role as mother.

She is only around to see her kids growing up thanks to benevolent judges who could have jailed her on a number of occasions.

Gravelly

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

My point is they are trying to have the best of both worlds, but in reality someone else is doing the parenting.
It baffles me how it has become the social norm.
Look at what that parent is missing out on (it does not have to be mother by the way - it could be house husband).
A childminder gets to see the kid growing up instead of the parent.

You try telling a traveller that someone else is going to rare your kids and both (for the most part) because that is the way we do it in society...
Just because it is the way we do things now in modern Ireland?

Wasn't Margaret herself reared by someone else other than her parents?

KrustyUCC

Ah sure that's just "The large family unit looks after its own - through thick and thin"

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

That is an alternative yes, but at least she is around to see her children growing up. That is clearly the things that are most precious to her.
She has made her choices that is the situation she is in.

By the way I am in no way saying that she is a nice individual by any means.
But she seems to love her kids and her role as mother.

Didn’t the judge threaten her with prison if she didn’t keep her nose clean? So the next conviction is #40, and she’s only 28. So she has a good 60 years left to not rack up anymore convictions, given the fact she couldn’t even get to 30 without 39 convictions, I don’t have much hope.

So, in all likelihood the possibility of her doing her parenting from the dochas center is quite high. So I wouldn’t put too much money on her being around to see her kids grow up.

ohnonotgmail

Gravelly wrote: »

Wasn't Margaret herself reared by someone else other than her parents?

raised by her grandmother. So much for traveller values.

cloudy90210

Gravelly wrote: »

Wasn't Margaret herself reared by someone else other than her parents?

her mother is her sister and her father is her father's son

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

That is an alternative yes, but at least she is around to see her children growing up.

For now, she is. Lets just hope she keeps getting suspended sentences from our lenient judges, or those kids might not be seeing their model Mammy for a while.

cloudy90210

Rex Tasteless Gutter wrote: »

For now, she is. Lets just hope she keeps getting suspended sentences from our lenient judges, or those kids might not be seeing their model Mammy for a while.

Gives her more time to make extra babies too. Good judge letting her off

Gravelly

cloudy90210 wrote: »

Gives her more time to make extra babies too. Good judge letting her off

Can't be putting away a good legal industry earner like Margaret - that's be killing the golden goose. Imagine the future earnings from her, her kids, their kids etc.

gormdubhgorm

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

That is an alternative yes, but at least she is around to see her children growing up. That is clearly the things that are most precious to her.
She has made her choices that is the situation she is in.

By the way I am in no way saying that she is a nice individual by any means.
But she seems to love her kids and her role as mother.

Ah yeah, she’s such a great mummy that she puts those kids in the possible position of being taken into care because she keeps committing crimes.

And she’s really is the poster woman for stay at home mums. Having the dinner ready for a husband whose been hard at work all day assaulting elderly women.

You have seriously lost the plot! I hope this isn’t all a ploy to get this thread shut down.

cloudy90210

Gravelly wrote: »

Can't be putting away a good legal industry earner like Margaret - that's be killing the golden goose. Imagine the future earnings from her, her kids, their kids etc.

so many kidz, so many dollas.

SusieBlue

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

That is an alternative yes, but at least she is around to see her children growing up. That is clearly the things that are most precious to her.
She has made her choices that is the situation she is in.

By the way I am in no way saying that she is a nice individual by any means.
But she seems to love her kids and her role as mother.

You can be a "settled" woman and have a career and have children and be a good mother and give your children a happy, stable childhood too.

You seem to be obsessed with working mother = bad and non-working mother = good when that is completely wrong and not the case, as Margaret has proven.
She is a full time mother but is doing an absolutely appalling job at it.

You are also not so subtly saying that working women don't care about their children (bolded) but I won't take the bait.

gormdubhgorm

retro:electro wrote: »

And do you think these “career obsessed women” are slaving away with 40+ hours a week under their belt for the fun of it? Most people work in order to provide stability for their future. It also sets a good example to their children

My answer to this is simple those working parents chose to have children.
If they find it that difficult long commutes, long hours, barely seeing thier kids etc.
Why bother becoming a parent?
You are only fooling yourself in that scenario.
It is just part-time parenting, full time work.
Rinse and repeat then.
Surely the parenting has to suffer when it is not the main focus.

As I said earlier I think that is a positive aspect of traveller culture the full time mothers and the sense of community.
Granted thier are obvious unsavory aspects as well.
But the main principle is sound.
If mothers in the settled community only had children if they could afford with a stay at home / stay at home house husband.
That would mean less stress, no part time parenting and a parent who sees thier child grow up.
Anything else seems to be trying to burn the candle at both ends and one or other aspect suffering.

But society at large has made thier choices this is the norm for others to bring up kids for working part-time parents.
I still find it odd, but that is just my opinion.