gormdubhgorm wrote: » In fairness there are a few things the settled community could learn from the traveller community. 1) The family unit comes first - and is it is even stronger bond as it is not 'manufactured' 2) The large family unit looks after its own - through thick and thin3) The older people in the traveller community are treated with respect. All old values which I feel are slowly dying for the sake of 'modern Ireland' and so called 'progress'. People seem to forget the positive points in the rest of the noise.
blanch152 wrote: » They were not positive aspects of traveller culture. The traveller notion of family is based around a purely heterosexual model, in many ways nearly an identikit replica of the Catholic family morality. Such a model is no longer considered by any decent society to be positive.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » In fairness there are a few things the settled community could learn from the traveller community. 1) The family unit comes first - and is it is even stronger bond as it is not 'manufactured'
2) The large family unit looks after its own - through thick and thin
3) The older people in the traveller community are treated with respect.
All old values which I feel are slowly dying for the sake of 'modern Ireland' and so called 'progress'.
PlaneSpeeking wrote: » And that makes up for what they do to the rest of the aged population ??????
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Two parents working to pay for someone else (a creche) to bring up thier kids. Then mostly only get 'quality time' at weekends. They are 'part-time parents' with full time jobs.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Firstly, I know the criminal element of the traveller community is higher then the non-traveller population. You are implying there that 100% of travellers engage/enraged in crime.At least 85% do not so that is unfair on the law abiding travellers. This is where I see it as wrong that all travellers are seen as one great big crime gang by non-travellers. What I do see as wrong though is that traveller representatives rarely admonish other travellers for illegal behavior.
Rex Tasteless Gutter wrote: » Why are family bonds in Traveller culture any stronger or less "manufactured" than family bonds among settled people? You seem to be proposing that Traveller family bonds are somehow more authentic than settled people's family bonds. Why? Any evidence for this? That tradition of extended family solidarity extends to a tradition of violent feuding with rival families as well as a history of consanguineous marriage that creates a host of health problems. Like Bernard McGliney, a 63-year-old grandfather gunned down by his own nephew at a family wedding? Nice pair of rose-tinted glasses you've got there. But seriously ... it takes some contortion of reality to represent Travellers as the preservers of the "old values" that are being lost in modern Ireland. Do the "old values" include disregard for education, organized crime, tax evasion, wrecking pubs and hotels, violent feuding, bare-knuckle brawling, marrying off 16-year-old girls to their cousins so they can give birth to a 7-a-side football team by their mid-20s, pulling publicity stunts in the media in pursuit of a free "foreva home," and then rejecting said foreva home if it isn't close to one's mother's grave or doesn't have a stable for one's horses? How about living in 100,000-euro camper vans while claiming social welfare, or beating the crap out of amateur football referees? These are the kinds of "values" that people see on show from the Travelling community. They are nothing to wax lyrical about.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Firstly, I know the criminal element of the traveller community is higher then the non-traveller population. You are implying there that 100% of travellers engage/enraged in crime.At least 85% do not so that is unfair on the law abiding travellers. What I do see as wrong though is that traveller representatives rarely admonish other travellers for illegal behavior.
lawred2 wrote: » is that true?
gormdubhgorm wrote: » I think you know exactly what I mean, the non-traveller community are more inclined to have 2.5 kids. Two parents working to pay for someone else (a creche) to bring up thier kids. Then mostly only get 'quality time' at weekends. They are 'part-time parents' with full time jobs. But that is the way society at large in Ireland has gone now and it is viewed as the norm.
Rex Tasteless Gutter wrote: » Now you are attacking working parents for having "manufactured" relationships with their children, and being "part-time parents," all while praising Travellers for maintaining the "old values." Who do you think pays for the Traveller lifestyle? Where do you think Margaret Cash's €50,000 a year in welfare comes from? Who will be providing her with her "foreva home" in an area of her choosing? It all comes out of the pockets of the same working taxpayers you're scorning here.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » There is crime in all communities
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Working taxpayers they may be. And I know well thier taxes pay for the likes of Cash. But those working parents are in reality 'part time parents'. Which cannot be accused of Cash for all her other obvious faults.
Rex Tasteless Gutter wrote: » The likes of Cash should be happy that these parents are getting up in the morning, kissing their kids goodbye, and heading off to their jobs. Otherwise there would be no €50,000 a year for her and no free foreva home. Honestly, what do you think the country would be like if everyone tried to live like Margaret Cash?
gormdubhgorm wrote: » You see that is your agenda your viewpoint. I do not consider myself a Catholic but you are just refusing to see positive aspects of the religion. Which in fairness to them are rarely highlighted it is much easier to stick with the narrative that they are backward etc etc. It is more then a bit blinkered.
SusieBlue wrote: » Having 7/8/9+ kids you cannot afford and cannot look after is something NO ONE should aspire. It isn't in the best interests of the children who are born into those situations and it isn't in the best interest of society, who have to pay for it. Its actually extremely disappointing to see someone criticise and demean the average working person in this country, I'm sure the vast majority of them would prefer to work fewer hours and see more of their children but u
blanch152 wrote: » Those are the "positive" family values of Traveller culture. Well, excuse me if I don't agree.
For Kay, the beatings came three weeks into her marriage. She and her partner, both from Irish Travelling families, met on the road as teenagers before becoming pen pals. It wasn't until they settled down on a caravan site in Yorkshire that he threw his first punch. "He'd just flip out, slapping me, kicking me," says Kay (not her real name). "He wanted me to jump when he said, to sit when I was told." Despite the violence in their relationship, the couple had three children together and Kay says she felt powerless to leave. "I just accepted it as normal. In my culture the woman is the heart of the family, the man is the head – what he says goes."
gormdubhgorm wrote: » It is true ideally people should not have 7/8/9 kids if they cannot afford it. But the majority of non-travellers try to juggle both parenting and working. They then work thier @rses off for someone else to raise thier kids. I find it a strange contradiction. Ideally I think there should be full-time parenting rather then the pretense of parenting which has now become accepted It has become the strange social norm. If non-traveller parents have to get two jobs and pay for someone else to look after thier kids for thier formative years should they be really having them? It is the worst of both worlds work your @rses off so someone else does the parenting for you? But that is just my personal opinion I find it odd when you really think about it. In contrast, the likes of Maragaret Cash sees herself as a mother first.
Trigger Happy wrote: » You are saying the Ms Cash is a better parent then working law abiding people ? You’re off your head!
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.
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.
