Pregnancy out of wedlock and perception of disgrace.

Daisy78

newmember? wrote: »

The opposing argument would say her baby was not so lucky.

Why is that? The mother, a highly qualified professional not if that matters, brought up her daughter to be a very accomplished young woman. She didn’t lack for anything, materially or for love/affection. Being born to a single parent is no indication of future deprivation, certainly not in this case.

Donald Trump

notsoyoungwan wrote: »

Eh? How on earth did you get to your 20s without knowing more about your parents relationship? Like, I know when, where and how my parents met, I know when they got engaged and when they got married.

You know the sanitized version.


Not the version that involved two people falling out of the disco pissed and getting it on spontaneously round the back of the chipper van :P

Hotblack Desiato

walshb wrote: »

Define power here?

Controlling 90% of the primary schools and 60% of the secondary schools and paying not a cent towards running them, that's power. :mad:

Hotblack Desiato

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Dont worry the RCC will be replaced by 2033. Be very careful what you wish for, the same type of characters will re-appear in different garbs. The old religious based charities will be replaced by NGOs. The old saints will be journalists and social influencers. The old martyrs will be replaced with new martyrs. What is the new boss like? Same as the old boss. Nuns have been replaced by perpetually single teachers and spinster social workers.

For me it is the end of western civilisation and bears many of the similarities of the fall of the Roman empire. It is not just the religion or culture. (barely scratching the surface) The devaluation of Money and inflation of education, infanticide/abortion, obsession of sex and staying young. extending old age beyond reasonable means, young men refusing to do military service, extended wars, inequal application of the law, shameless drug use.... the list goes on.

Me? I can see this coming from far off. While you decry religion, you were warned in the Bible about centralised government (Tower of Babel), when and not if, Western Culture falls it will be spectacular, Islam will fall shortly afterwards and will be less so.

Bat-shít is the only printable comment I can make.
Military service and endless wars? Which continent are you living on again?

And I always laugh heartily when some bible basher tells atheists that so-and-so is written down therefore... :rolleyes: it's simply stupid beyond comprehension.

Donald Trump

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Controlling 90% of the primary schools and 60% of the secondary schools and paying not a cent towards running them, that's power. :mad:

But that's not true is it?


Even now, it is the local parish that organises the fundraising for the local national school in my area. When it wanted to expand to another classroom, the parish purchased some land from the fella who owned the field beside it.


You try setting up a competing organisation there if you want that will set up a school and be a patron of it. See how long it lasts when there is nothing really backing it other than the parents that happen to have children there at that point in time.

Hotblack Desiato

Parents should not have to fundraise for schools, but they do.

The catholic church in Ireland has loads of money, why don't they contribute towards the schools they control?

I'd expect the parish put pressure on that guy to get the land for nothing or a knockdown price. Even if they paid full whack, it's an asset they own along with anything built on it, but the taxpayer will pay to build and run it.

Educate Together schools are very successful and oversubscribed (massive shortage of places)- there are nowhere near enough of them.

You can't set up a new school in an area unless the Dept of Education agrees there is a need for a new school. Getting the patronage of an existing school changed is more or less impossible.

Donald Trump

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Parents should not have to fundraise for schools, but they do.

The catholic church in Ireland has loads of money, why don't they contribute towards the schools they control?

Educate Together schools are very successful and oversubscribed, but there are nowhere near enough of them.

You can't set up a new school in an area unless the Dept of Education agrees there is a need for a new school. Getting the patronage of an existing school changed is more or less impossible.

Live and let live. No need to be always bitter against other people or any other church or group of people.

There are plenty of new schools being set up and plenty of people who want to go to non-denominational schools. There are just not enough people willing to set them up or run them!



Always easy to look over the hedge at what the neighbour has and try to justify seizing their already up-and-running school

jaxxx

2021 and society is still rampant with people who can't keep their noses out of other peoples affairs.

Hotblack Desiato

walshb wrote: »

I do not get this venomous want to break the church

And I came from a family that never went to mass, and had little time for religion...

There were many good and caring and decent people in the church then, and now....

There is absolutely a place in society for churches....

As an institution, the catholic church is absolutely irredeemable.

What is it they'd have to do, are the things we know about already not more than enough?

Mules wrote: »

That is against employment law, it wouldn't be allowed now

Wrong.

Schools and other bodies with "religious patronage" are exempt.

jaxxx

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

As an institution, the catholic church is absolutely irredeemable.

What is it they'd have to do, are the things we know about already not more than enough?




Wrong.

Schools and other bodies with "religious patronage" are exempt.

The Catholic Church, if not most or even all religions are a cancer. Nothing more.

Donald Trump

jaxxx wrote: »

The Catholic Church, if not most or even all religions are a cancer. Nothing more.

What do you want to bulldoze first? The Catholic Churches or the Synagogues?

Hotblack Desiato

Donald Trump wrote: »

Live and let live. No need to be always bitter against other people or any other church or group of people.

Live and let live? If only churches would do that, instead of abusing taxpayer funded schools and hospitals to take advantage of vulnerable people.

There are plenty of new schools being set up and plenty of people who want to go to non-denominational schools.

Yes indeed but the massive overhang of historically religious patronage schools is the problem.

There are just not enough people willing to set them up or run them!

That's complete bullshít.

Always easy to look over the hedge at what the neighbour has and try to justify seizing their already up-and-running school

What if the neighbour gets to own it, but made me and everyone else pay for it?

Donald Trump

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Live and let live? If only churches would do that, instead of abusing taxpayer funded schools and hospitals to take advantage of vulnerable people.



Yes indeed but the massive overhang of historically religious patronage schools is the problem.



That's complete bullshít.



What if the neighbour gets to own it, but made me and everyone else pay for it?

Typical response from people who want to cling onto a victim complex so that they just sit back and wait for others to do stuff for them. Either do it or stop moaning about it.



Sorry to hear that you had to pay for your local school premises personally. You must be fairly old given that it has probably been in their ownership for decades.



I suppose maybe you just shouldn't have been putting so much into the collection basket at mass if you felt that way!

Hotblack Desiato

Braindead response but not unexpected. Try engaging with actual issues instead of taking a postion first, then altering the "facts" in your worldview to suit.

volchitsa

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

I'm not justifying it.
I am explaining the reasoning behind what was done.
That's why they did this and convinced themselves they were doing God's work.

How they justified it to themselves isn't important, and is well-known to anyone over about 30 anyway.

So I'm wondering why you feel the need to be the mouthpiece of those who caused so much harm? It does seem like you want to defend them for some reason.

saabsaab

No doubt about it. Having a child outside marriage was seen as a great shame for the woman up I'd say until the mid nineties. If you or your family were wealthy, well traveled or educated and wealthy then the consequences were usually not so severe.

mariaalice

Listing to the various voice of some of the women all week, the amount of incest, abuse, rape seems to be staggering right up to the 80s and 90s along with family who was not in a position to provide support because of their own issue. What sort of society did we have it's hard to comprehend.

It would be interesting to hear from social workers from the 70s and 80s about all this.

freshpopcorn

I believe everything about the past.
I even know of women(Generally) now who'd be in their 50's/60's.
They'd be great and going to mass and would look after people, etc.
However if they hear a woman is having a baby outside of marriage they sort of turn her nose up and ask when's the wedding.
If somebody is having a civil ceremony they'll have their ''Oh that's nice but can you really be married if it's not in a church''.
Same If somebody if gay. They'll never say any homophonic words but they'll have the attitude that's a pity, he's a bit special, etc.

saabsaab

mariaalice wrote: »

Listing to the various voice of some of the women all week, the amount of incest, abuse, rape seems to be staggering right up to the 80s and 90s along with family who was not in a position to provide support because of their own issue. What sort of society did we have it's hard to comprehend.

It would be interesting to hear from social workers from the 70s and 80s about all this.

I don't think there were Social Workers back then. The Churches would take care of those issues normally.

mariaalice

saabsaab wrote: »

I don't think there were Social Workers back then. The Churches would take care of those issues normally.

Of course, there were social workers Frances Fitzgerald was a social worker and she was born in 1950.

saabsaab

mariaalice wrote: »

Of course, there were social workers Frances Fitzgerald was a social worker and she was born in 1950.

Fair enough but I'd never heard of it. Was there many or any outside cities?

pinkyeye

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

It's because generally sexual activity is consensual? Women consent to having sex. Men can be handsome and physically fit dress well good providers confident and charming etc but it's women who consent. Men can't make women have sex with them. If some women didn't have sex with married men or one night stands with single men they just met etc there wouldn't be unwanted crisis pregnancies by definition. Women have more power than men do in the sexual market place. Very few men are ever approached by women. Most men have to compete with multiple other men for the attention of attractive women. Most men are rudely told where to go or simply ignored as invisible. Hence the term "get lucky" referring to a one night stand with a woman at the weekend.
A typical night out with a group of guys ends with them all going home frustrated.
In the Bible if a woman was raped in the countryside she was blameless because other people were not around. However if she was raped in a city or town she was put to death because she didn't cry out for help and was therefore blamed.
This is why traditionally women get the blame for an unwanted pregnancy and were treated accordingly in Irish society as a slut.
It's why negative attitudes to women persist.
A man who has sex with multiple women is seen as a hero because to do so is feat requiring trojan efforts due to massive number of rejections behind every conquest.
For a woman to have sex with multiple men is considered low because all a woman has to do is ask and the reality most men are so desperate for sex they would sleep with any women who is available.
Married men will pay for sex with a woman but consider all prostitutes beneath contempt while playing happy families with their adoring wife and children.

Bang of incel off this post.

Former Former Former

saabsaab wrote: »

No doubt about it. Having a child outside marriage was seen as a great shame for the woman up I'd say until the mid nineties. If you or your family were wealthy, well traveled or educated and wealthy then the consequences were usually not so severe.

I dunno, with wealth comes social standing, and a bastard pregnancy would not have been looked upon kindly at the golf club.

My godmother got pregnant out of wedlock in the mid 70s. Her father was a doctor in Galway and refused to even see her or the baby for months after the birth. When he eventually relented and let them visit, she had to basically smuggle the baby into the house under cover of darkness, lest the neighbours see it.

What sort of people would not want to see their own fncking grandchild, just because of what the local sewing circle might say? Absolutely inhuman.

laoisgem

saabsaab wrote: »

No doubt about it. Having a child outside marriage was seen as a great shame for the woman up I'd say until the mid nineties. If you or your family were wealthy, well traveled or educated and wealthy then the consequences were usually not so severe.

I got pregnant aged 15, had my daughter when I was 16 in 1999. The general consensus was still the same even then. My father didn't speak to me until she was nearly a year old :rolleyes:

saabsaab

laoisgem wrote: »

I got pregnant aged 15, had my daughter when I was 16 in 1999. The general consensus was still the same even then. My father didn't speak to me until she was nearly a year old :rolleyes:

I guess it's still there to some extent for some families and in certain more traditional places?