(request)Kevin Myers Irishman's diary

mycroft

Redleslie2 wrote:

Is that recent? I haven't seen it.

It's one of several articles in this week's village which by far and away was the best issue so far. It's criticism was measured and intelligent and reminded us of a few far worse Myers clangers from over the years, including his allegation of a Gardai cell working for the IRA in Dundalk which turned out to be utter horsecrap.

uberwolf

it was a legitimate term to use in so far as it is technically correct. It was also offensive due to the inherited stigma the word so clearly retains from days of yore. All of those who have been deeply wounded by its use in the correct context would of course never have allowed it escape their lips out of context, as a mere profanity - because that would be a more offensive use of the (or any) word.

Any one confusing single mothers with his intended target is missing the point. Widows, divorcees etc are far removed from the proportion of teenage girls who use pregnancy as a means of escaping lives they are unhappy with for whatever reason. The shortsightedness of such a decision goes without saying of course but I believe Myers intention was to draw attention to the actions of these girls becoming women for the wrong reasons and the fact that they are automatically drawn in to a unbreakable cycle of state dependency.

If anything Myers should apologise for his misjudgement in using the word only because he or his editor should have realised that its use detracted from his argument, because it distracted, providing those opposed to his opinion an easy means of attacking it without debating it.

and the SFers can take a spoon, F'ing hypocrites

mycroft

Actually the outrage about the terminalogy is taking away from the offensives of the sentiment of the article, Myers is like a solid proportion of the IT ten years behind the attitude and policys of the British tories, blaming the ills and expensive and problems of society on the most vunerable, visions of single mums in laps of luxury reaping the benefits of the system they were milking.

While anyway who has opened the irish times or any other paper in this country during the past ten years has learnt week in week out politicans, city planners, and the wealthy have defrauded the tax payer out of many thousands of single mothers (the majority being widows) through unpaid taxes and financial loopholes. Myers is doing the same tactic as the tory govt of thatcher and Major attacking the weakest and most vunerable of society using dubious statistics, while the people they rub shoulders with deprive the exchequer of the funds we the ordinart tax payer pay.

Memnoch

I think people are more offended over the fact that the term "bastard" is being used at all.

Are we still living in the dark ages where its considered bad for a woman who hasn't yet married to have a child? Its an archaic expression for archaic times and one would hope that we were now PAST such things.

Using the word "bastard" isn't so much so an insult as it is an implication. An implication that the women have commited some kind of crime by having a kid out of wedlock, and not conforming to chruch doctrine. Its an implication that someone is sitting on their high horse and passing judgement, and displaying self declared moral superiority.

Its obvious he used the term in order to offend people. Yes its "only" name calling, but I think its really a case of him displaying his own ignorance by using the word in the first place.

Ajnag

Myre's may be a wanker, but that still dosnt exuse the no. of young women/girls on our streets using pushchairs as battering rams.

Temporary sterilisation(if its possible without side effects) till 18 should be mandatory.
Oh but then our appointed moral guardians would bitch about the excess of underage sex :rolleyes:
As if it didnt already exist....

pickarooney

Ajnag wrote:

Myre's may be a wanker, but that still dosnt exuse the no. of young women/girls on our streets using pushchairs as battering rams.

Temporary sterilisation(if its possible without side effects) till 18 should be mandatory.
Oh but then our appointed moral guardians would bitch about the excess of underage sex :rolleyes:
As if it didnt already exist....

Man, you come up with a way to do that and watch Durex and Wyeth Pharm. bang on your door with bundles of cash to shut you up

TomF

My younger daughter heard this conversation on a Cork bus several years ago. Two teenagers, probably 14 or 15 were talking to another teenager, who seemed to be returning from classes at university. "Girl, you're 18 and you don't have a child yet? If you have a child, you get a house and everything."

Sparks

That indicates a deficiency in the educational system rather than a defect in the social welfare system TomF, unless you regularly see 14 and 15-year-olds cited as expert witnesses on social welfare...

mycroft

TomF wrote:

My younger daughter heard this conversation on a Cork bus several years ago. Two teenagers, probably 14 or 15 were talking to another teenager, who seemed to be returning from classes at university. "Girl, you're 18 and you don't have a child yet? If you have a child, you get a house and everything."

But props for posting on a thread without mentioned Dubya,

I shan't bother going into the details about how a conversation your daughter alledgedly heard on a bus isn't really valid evidence to support Myers.

Incidently todays Irishman's diary is getting the boot in on Miller, and supports the house of unamerican activities "rooting out of communism"

Nice the body is barely cold.......

uberwolf

Sparks wrote:

That indicates a deficiency in the educational system rather than a defect in the social welfare system TomF, unless you regularly see 14 and 15-year-olds cited as expert witnesses on social welfare...

IMO you've clean missed the point. The point of Myers article - the attitude that exists amongst some people that motherhood is the golden ticket. It's those very 14 and 15 year olds that perceive the social welfare system and a baby as their route. He alleges.

spanner

jman0 wrote:

Unfortunately i think Kevin Myers actually is making a fair point. It's just that he happens to be about the worst messenger to make it.

I personally know a girl from a solidly middle class family that is a lone parent on the dole, and while her parents buy her things like a car, washing machine, etc; and offer to look after the child so she can go back to college she refuses. She seems contented enough to eek out a living on the dole with no ambition toward getting a job or anything.

know of a similar case, my sister baby sits for the woman across the road who lives with her boyfriend, wont get married or get a job because it will cost her too much, they have to brand new cars and every mod con you can think of, while my parnets have one 92 car and struggle under the paye system, this isnt just a once of situation, its happening quite alot.

i am not saying that their is not single mothers who got themselves into the situation by accident and are now struggling but there is widespread abuse of the system

mycroft

spanner wrote:

know of a similar case, my sister baby sits for the woman across the road who lives with her boyfriend, wont get married or get a job because it will cost her too much, they have to brand new cars and every mod con you can think of, while my parnets have one 92 car and struggle under the paye system, this isnt just a once of situation, its happening quite alot.

i am not saying that their is not single mothers who got themselves into the situation by accident and are now struggling but there is widespread abuse of the system

Pauses............

SHE LIVES WITH HER BOYFRIEND

How is she a single mum?????

By the sounds of it all she needs is a reduction in the tax bracket for low income wage earners.

I don't know the situation but by the sounds of it, you've clearly not paid attention to one word on this thread or to the bones of the myer's article

galactus

uberwolf wrote:

IMO you've clean missed the point. The point of Myers article - the attitude that exists amongst some people that motherhood is the golden ticket. It's those very 14 and 15 year olds that perceive the social welfare system and a baby as their route. He alleges.

Its a point Myers could have made without mentioning the B word.

Is it OK now to call Myers an asshole? Personally I feel there's no stgma attached to calling Irish Times columnists assholes.

uberwolf

mycroft wrote:

How is she a single mum?????

in the eyes of the state she is. Or at least that her tax status is as such. And Myers amongst his barage was trying to suggest that this shouldn't be encouraged

mycroft

uberwolf wrote:

in the eyes of the state she is. Or at least that her tax status is as such. And Myers amongst his barage was trying to suggest that this shouldn't be encouraged

Hmmmmm I'm not sure, aren't we changing the law to give couples who live together similar rights to parents, and if she's living with the childs father, but out of wedlock?

galactus

pickarooney wrote:

Whatever happened to just not agreeing with an article and turning the page?

By that rationale you'd simply turn the page if there was an article advocating, say, paedophilia or enforced euthanasia for the over 70s?

pickarooney

galactus wrote:

By that rationale you'd simply turn the page if there was an article advocating, say, paedophilia or enforced euthanasia for the over 70s?

Well, yeah, why waste your time reading articles that have no useful information?

Sleepy

mycroft wrote:

Sleepy sometimes I swear you're FTA, in disguise, trolling.........

I assure you I'm not

You've managed to swing this into SF bashing thread. Much to their delight. If any of the SFers on the site had the wit to buy the vilage this week (a week I think it found its voice btw) they'd see Myers has commited far greater transgressions than this in the past.

Not trying to sway the thread that way at all. I just hate hypocrisy. Like I said, I find An Poblacht repulsive, but I respect their right to publish it.

For starts the times prides itself on being the paper of record it's supposed to hold itself to a higher standard than the others, out of some self appointed, in light of myers article, and the continued publication of stern, it's just as rancid and bigoted as the rest of them.

Unless you expect the paper to have no columnists and just dry news, I don't know how else you expect the paper to be. The Irish Times, while the paper of record is also a commercial entity and, as such, needs to sell papers and to do that, it needs to have opinion columns.

mycroft

Sleepy wrote:

I assure you I'm not

Dude I was joking

Not trying to sway the thread that way at all. I just hate hypocrisy. Like I said, I find An Poblacht repulsive, but I respect their right to publish it.

Exactly and if you'll read my issues with this article it's myers misrepresenting of the facts and the moral outrage over the language of article takes away from the viliness of the attitude of the article, and the shoddiness of Myers research.

Unless you expect the paper to have no columnists and just dry news, I don't know how else you expect the paper to be. The Irish Times, while the paper of record is also a commercial entity and, as such, needs to sell papers and to do that, it needs to have opinion columns.

Uh huh it's just the Times claims to hold itself to a higher ethical and journalist standard to other papers, when publishing columists like Steyrn and myers proves otherwise

Zombrex

spanner wrote:

know of a similar case, my sister baby sits for the woman across the road who lives with her boyfriend, wont get married or get a job because it will cost her too much, they have to brand new cars and every mod con you can think of, while my parnets have one 92 car and struggle under the paye system, this isnt just a once of situation, its happening quite alot.

A) as has been pointed out she isn't a single mum, she lives with her boyfriend.

How exactly does she afford a brand new car and all mod cons on social welfare. Are you sure the boyfriend doesn't support her? Do you even know if she gets social welfare?

Zombrex

uberwolf wrote:

in the eyes of the state she is. Or at least that her tax status is as such. And Myers amongst his barage was trying to suggest that this shouldn't be encouraged

AFAIK you are means tested by the total income of the household, i.e. everyone who lives there. If the boyfriend is making a load of money so they can afford a new brand new car and all mod cons, (what ever that means), then I doubt this woman is able to claim more than the minimum child welfare allowance.

But this is all second hand from the posters kid sister. We have no idea what her income is, what his income is, or what she claims from the government.

TomF

I'd say if a girl is shacked-up with a boy-man and they have a child, it is only the girl's income (zero) that gets reported to any assistance investigator. I further would say that the boy-man vanishes whenever an investigator comes calling.

mycroft

TomF wrote:

I'd say if a girl is shacked-up with a boy-man and they have a child, it is only the girl's income (zero) that gets reported to any assistance investigator. I further would say that the boy-man vanishes whenever an investigator comes calling.

Uh huh and the rent/mortgage on the house, deeds and leases needs to be presented, plus there are visitations by social welfare to turn up and examine your living situation and arrangements.

Tom F if she's got a car a nice house and mod cons social welfares spideysense would start tingling....

Sleepy

Do you honestly believe that the social welfare office is really able to keep tabs on everyone claiming benefits? I'd imagine they're quite an easy office to rip off tbh.

mycroft

Sleepy wrote:

Do you honestly believe that the social welfare office is really able to keep tabs on everyone claiming benefits? I'd imagine they're quite an easy office to rip off tbh.

Actually no, I was made redundant before christmas and was unemployed in January, so I signed on;

I had to provide bank statements, a copy of my lease, have a home visit, and several formers from my former employers before I could claim unemployment benefits.........

I'm not saying benefit fraud isn't possible, I'm saying just straigh out assuming she's doing it because she's a single mum and therefore the most diaboical and evil force in the world is well, harsh.