Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Too poor to buy sanitary towels

Options
1…1314151719

Comments

  • Options
    #482
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,585 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    It wouldn't surprise me if that was very often the case. But her parents spending money on other things doesn't mean that the girl herself can't be in the position of not being able to afford them.

    Either way, if we change the words to 'doesn't have access to' sanitary products, the question over an immediate solution for a menstruating girl remains the same.

    My attitude would be - 'first things first, lets get you some sanitary products. After that need has been met, we'll look at why you are in that situation.'

    It baffles me that infogiver or any other poster would have anything other than the same attitude.


  • Options
    #483
    Widdershins
    Registered Users Posts: 10,633 ✭✭✭✭Widdershins


    infogiver wrote: »
    I don't think it's the posters "image" of people with low income, it's their experience.
    I've the same experience.
    You can't say what your experience is so we're at an impass.

    I have only read the last few pages, maybe half the thread. I don't know what your experience is other than that you mentioned you work voluntarily with poor people. So have I, as well as personal experience. I already said this in a response to your earlier question.

    It's his and your experience *of those you worked with* and doesn't apply to everyone else. You formed your views based on those people and some studies showing poor literacy levels. Which isn't surprising.


  • Options
    #484
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #485
    infogiver
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,505 ✭✭✭infogiver


    osarusan wrote: »
    It wouldn't surprise me if that was very often the case. But her parents spending money on other things doesn't mean that the girl herself can't be in the position of not being able to afford them.

    Either way, if we change the words to 'doesn't have access to' sanitary products, the question over an immediate solution for a menstruating girl remains the same.

    My attitude would be - 'first things first, lets get you some sanitary products. After that need has been met, we'll look at why you are in that situation.'

    It baffles me that infogiver or any other poster would have anything other than the same attitude.

    It's a given that the girl be given sanitary protection immediately and clean underwear and painkiller.
    These things are available in the secretary's office in every girls school in Ireland.
    To me, a girl disclosing to a teacher that she left the house without these things because the family couldn't afford them should provoke the same reaction from the school as if she had said she was being beaten.
    It's inexcusable neglect and can't be fixed with more cash being handed over or hand holding either .


  • Options
    #486
    JupiterKid
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 12,659 Mod ✭✭✭✭JupiterKid


    Wow, I never imagined that this thread that I started would be so...popular.

    Whilst I do think that there are many, many people on low incomes who struggle, there is simply no excuse for neglecting your daughters basic sanitary needs. I'd wager that girls in the position of not being given access to sanitary towels are coming from homes where addiction, violence and chaos are rife.

    I believe that all schools should have a free supply of sanitary ware for girls.

    Periods? Too much hassle. Thank God I'm a male!!:P


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #487
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #488
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    infogiver wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    What is wrong with addressing the childs needs, and also helping the parents with money management, if necessary?

    I don't believe children should be removed from their family home unless it's absolutely necessary.
    infogiver wrote: »
    So in other words, ignore the fact that the parents are totally failing in their most basic duty, give them more money (which they will not spend on basics) and hope for the best until the next time.

    No. You could always bulk buy sanitary ware, and provide vouchers so the girls could pick them up at their local chemist, or shop.
    Permabear wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    See above.


  • Options
    #489
    hungry hypno toad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 646 ✭✭✭hungry hypno toad


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    What is wrong with addressing the childs needs, and also helping the parents with money management, if necessary?

    I don't believe children should be removed from their family home unless it's absolutely necessary.



    No. You could always bulk buy sanitary ware, and provide vouchers so the girls could pick them up at their local chemist, or shop.



    See above.

    Or have the parents use the children's allowance payment they receive...


  • Options
    #490
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    hungry hypno toad wrote: »
    Or have the parents use the children's allowance payment they receive...

    This is becoming incredibly irritating.

    You clearly have no sympathy, or empathy for these girls - so I'm not going to waste any further time replying to your posts.

    I've given my opinion.
    You clearly don't agree. That's your choice.
    I would make a different choice.


  • Options
    #491
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users Posts: 17,849 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    In the vast bulk of cases, I expect the parents could afford them if they wanted to, but they spend the money at the bookies, pub, or takeaway instead. A poster earlier in the thread noted that even though she didn't have sanitary products, the family was feeding 4 cats and dogs, and her mother was drinking and smoking.

    Currently, you can buy two boxes of 36 Tampax on Amazon.co.uk for less than the price of one pack of 20 cigarettes, so it's clear what the spending priorities were.

    This whole "can't afford" is a red herring.

    totally agree! Have you every noticed, how many of those on low incomes or welfare, are ****e with money? I know a few people like it, give them more and they will just spend more and not necessarily on the necessities...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #492
    hungry hypno toad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 646 ✭✭✭hungry hypno toad


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    This is becoming incredibly irritating.

    You clearly have no sympathy, or empathy for these girls - so I'm not going to waste any further time replying to your posts.

    I've given my opinion.
    You clearly don't agree. That's your choice.
    I would make a different choice.

    You were obsessed with off topic discussions about single father families for half the thread so difficult to see where you stand.


  • Options
    #493
    infogiver
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,505 ✭✭✭infogiver


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    What is wrong with addressing the childs needs, and also helping the parents with money management, if necessary?

    I don't believe children should be removed from their family home unless it's absolutely necessary.



    No. You could always bulk buy sanitary ware, and provide vouchers so the girls could pick them up at their local chemist, or shop.



    See above.

    The parents get children's allowance to buy things like sanitary protection for their daughters. That's what childrens Allowance is for.
    So why would they also need to be given free sanitary protection items?
    What other essentials that they have already been given money for should they also be given for free?
    Where do you draw the line?
    Also what do you mean by help with money management or do you just mean give them more money?


  • Options
    #494
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #495
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,585 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    That slope can go both ways - if the desire to avoid handouts (because they perpetuate the poor financial decisions of parents) is taken to the extreme that girls do not get the sanitary products they need right now.

    Happily, it doesn't seem like anybody on this thread wants to go to that extreme.


  • Options
    #496
    snowflaker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭snowflaker


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Why should the child be punished?


  • Options
    #497
    hungry hypno toad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 646 ✭✭✭hungry hypno toad


    snowflaker wrote: »
    Why should the child be punished?

    Check with the parents who are punishing them on that one. Because the state is certainly not punishing them.


  • Options
    #498
    hungry hypno toad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 646 ✭✭✭hungry hypno toad


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Don't worry, there's more where that came from.


  • Options
    #499
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #500
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,585 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    As I've already said on this thread ( it's impossible you've missed it), I'm all in favour of taking action so that never happens again, or never happens at all. The voucher system could be one such action, sure.

    If a girl who from a family who have received vouchers or had other steps taken to prevent this from happening is still repeatedly looking for them, it should be flagged as a problem.

    But, regardless of what other steps are being taken, and what the parents are doing, and where that voucher went to...if a girl needs sanitary products right now but can't get them...the question is does she get them or not. Or if there is any scenario in which a girl is refused them by a school.


  • Options
    #501
    snowflaker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭snowflaker


    hungry hypno toad wrote: »
    Check with the parents who are punishing them on that one. Because the state is certainly not punishing them.

    So it's ok for society to look away, no duty of care to its most vulnerable citizens


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #502
    Widdershins
    Registered Users Posts: 10,633 ✭✭✭✭Widdershins


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    And some Dutch Mold and a new string vest, I suppose.


  • Options
    #503
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    infogiver wrote: »
    The parents get children's allowance to buy things like sanitary protection for their daughters. That's what childrens Allowance is for.
    So why would they also need to be given free sanitary protection items?
    What other essentials that they have already been given money for should they also be given for free?
    Where do you draw the line?
    Also what do you mean by help with money management or do you just mean give them more money?

    I mean exactly what I said. Help with money management. As opposed to going to extremes, and putting children in care...


  • Options
    #504
    SEPT 23 1989
    Registered Users Posts: 43,028 ✭✭✭✭SEPT 23 1989


    Have the poor got so lazy nowadays they can't even be bothered shoplifting for the essentials?


  • Options
    #505
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    snowflaker wrote: »
    So it's ok for society to look away, no duty of care to its most vulnerable citizens

    We have care facilities and foster homes for children that have been abused by their parents.


  • Options
    #506
    infogiver
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,505 ✭✭✭infogiver


    snowflaker wrote: »
    So it's ok for society to look away, no duty of care to its most vulnerable citizens

    Who is looking away? Looking away actually is saying "Of course you couldn't be expected to pay for the tampax and paracetamol out of the children's allowance that was given to you for that very purpose. So here's more money and we'll just ignore your lack of parenting skills and the ensuing neglect until the next crisis erupts ".


  • Options
    #507
    infogiver
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,505 ✭✭✭infogiver


    snowflaker wrote: »
    Why should the child be punished?

    But who is punishing anyone? Everyone agrees that the immediate crisis at hand should be dealt with promptly, but some of us feel that that crisis is indicative of serious neglect on behalf of the child's parents.


  • Options
    #508
    infogiver
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,505 ✭✭✭infogiver


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    I mean exactly what I said. Help with money management. As opposed to going to extremes, and putting children in care...

    What kind of help though? Mostly they don't acknowledge that there is a problem with money management, other than the concept that the government doesn't give them enough money, as the TDs are all driving around in gold Mercedes and keep all the money for themselves. So, as others have said, for the most part any attempts to persuade them to change their approach to bills and other commitments fall on deaf ears.
    I think that for the most chaotic families who have proved themselves to be totally unresponsive, that a voucher system leaving very little actual cash would very quickly focus minds.


  • Options
    #509
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #510
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Some serious hate dude. Have you thought about examining its source?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #511
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    hungry hypno toad wrote: »
    Check with the parents who are punishing them on that one. Because the state is certainly not punishing them.

    An extreme case of child neglect is a result of the parents. In this case it's the job of the state to step in. By your reasoning the state shouldn't because it's the parent responsible. Those who believe that the state shouldn't because the parents are responsible are the ones that need the help.

    Can anyone think of a recently discovered historical case where children were punished for the behaviour of their parents?


Advertisement