Anyone watch the first part of this last night? Pretty depressing and sad stuff. Shameful really what our State in the Republic has done to half of it's population and the reasoning behind it. Another potent example of the total betrayal of the brave men and women of 1916-1922 and their ideals. If we heard of this kind of stuff happening in a muslim country we'd be outraged yet this was happening up to the 90's here. And on some levels it still is happening here.
Didn't see if but will catch up, but I made a point on another thread that was about Ireland rejecting the Catholic Church or a Post Catholic Ireland. I made the point that it's 1916 and all that followed that is now being unpicked, it's much bigger than a rejection of the RCC.
Have it recorded alright, haven't watched it yet
The men of 1916 established a democracy, where women had the same vote as men. If that is what people wanted then that is a fair outcome of 1916.
The men of 1916 didn't establish anything.
The executions of their leaders radicalised Nationalist Ireland for a few years.
A link for those abroad will be appreciated.
Quote from: armaghniac on June 20, 2018, 11:05:12 PM
The men of 1916 established a democracy, where women had the same vote as men. If that is what people wanted then that is a fair outcome of 1916.
What about the women of 1916? The rest of your post displays similar ignorance....I'd advise you have a watch if you can access the documentary. The treatment of women by the Republic of Ireland government since 1922 has been totally scandalous and vastly at odds with the ideals of those brave people who fought in 1916.
The ideals of 1916 were not reflected in the values of the society at the time. The economy was based on owning land and that is not very pro women.
From Irish times comments
AnChiarogEile
@Honey The ferocious puritanism of Irish Catholicism in the 19th and 20th centuries probably stems as much from the experience of the Famine as from the Church's own dogma. People had seen in the starkest form imaginable where early marriage and big families tended to lead in an entirely rural country, so post-1850 they went in for rigorous population control by the only means available at the time: not having sex until you could afford to maintain a family; which for many people like Michael Collins's father meant their late sixties, and for many more people meant "never". A moral constabulary was needed to police this social order: and the Church gladly stepped into that role. The only trouble was that in Ireland the regime thus imposed lasted well into the age of efficient birth control, long after it had disappeared even in countries like Spain. But the urge to dictate is still there in ghostly form: a bit like a dog turning round several times before it lies down to sleep, flattening the undergrowth of the forests where its ancestors lived.
Quote from: seafoid on June 21, 2018, 02:28:47 PM
The ideals of 1916 were not reflected in the values of the society at the time. The economy was based on owning land and that is not very pro women.
From Irish times comments
AnChiarogEile
@Honey The ferocious puritanism of Irish Catholicism in the 19th and 20th centuries probably stems as much from the experience of the Famine as from the Church's own dogma. People had seen in the starkest form imaginable where early marriage and big families tended to lead in an entirely rural country, so post-1850 they went in for rigorous population control by the only means available at the time: not having sex until you could afford to maintain a family; which for many people like Michael Collins's father meant their late sixties, and for many more people meant "never". A moral constabulary was needed to police this social order: and the Church gladly stepped into that role. The only trouble was that in Ireland the regime thus imposed lasted well into the age of efficient birth control, long after it had disappeared even in countries like Spain. But the urge to dictate is still there in ghostly form: a bit like a dog turning round several times before it lies down to sleep, flattening the undergrowth of the forests where its ancestors lived.
A look at the 1901 and 1911 census tells the above story. Oldest Sons waited for younger siblings to clear off! Men were in their 40's before Marriage marrying women up to 20 years younger than them. These women in turn could be widows for up 30 years.
The documentary is on YouTube
Quote from: seafoid on June 21, 2018, 02:28:47 PM
The ideals of 1916 were not reflected in the values of the society at the time. The economy was based on owning land and that is not very pro women.
From Irish times comments
AnChiarogEile
@Honey The ferocious puritanism of Irish Catholicism in the 19th and 20th centuries probably stems as much from the experience of the Famine as from the Church's own dogma. People had seen in the starkest form imaginable where early marriage and big families tended to lead in an entirely rural country, so post-1850 they went in for rigorous population control by the only means available at the time: not having sex until you could afford to maintain a family; which for many people like Michael Collins's father meant their late sixties, and for many more people meant "never". A moral constabulary was needed to police this social order: and the Church gladly stepped into that role. The only trouble was that in Ireland the regime thus imposed lasted well into the age of efficient birth control, long after it had disappeared even in countries like Spain. But the urge to dictate is still there in ghostly form: a bit like a dog turning round several times before it lies down to sleep, flattening the undergrowth of the forests where its ancestors lived.
The RCC de facto was running the country
They got legislation passed to control women, legitimacy of children born out of marriage and the rights to have a fair hearing in front of a jury of peers
The RCC was also given control over the vast majority of schools, hospitals, care homes, social services and even psychiatric care
Quote from: From the Bunker on June 21, 2018, 11:58:18 PM
Quote from: seafoid on June 21, 2018, 02:28:47 PM
The ideals of 1916 were not reflected in the values of the society at the time. The economy was based on owning land and that is not very pro women.
From Irish times comments
AnChiarogEile
@Honey The ferocious puritanism of Irish Catholicism in the 19th and 20th centuries probably stems as much from the experience of the Famine as from the Church's own dogma. People had seen in the starkest form imaginable where early marriage and big families tended to lead in an entirely rural country, so post-1850 they went in for rigorous population control by the only means available at the time: not having sex until you could afford to maintain a family; which for many people like Michael Collins's father meant their late sixties, and for many more people meant "never". A moral constabulary was needed to police this social order: and the Church gladly stepped into that role. The only trouble was that in Ireland the regime thus imposed lasted well into the age of efficient birth control, long after it had disappeared even in countries like Spain. But the urge to dictate is still there in ghostly form: a bit like a dog turning round several times before it lies down to sleep, flattening the undergrowth of the forests where its ancestors lived.
A look at the 1901 and 1911 census tells the above story. Oldest Sons waited for younger siblings to clear off! Men were in their 40's before Marriage marrying women up to 20 years younger than them. These women in turn could be widows for up 30 years.
I remember back in the late 80s at home a family with schoolkids like us , a mother like ours who was maybe mid 30s and a father who was at least 75, so more like my grandfather. He was a farm labourer and had to wait until he was in his 60s to have the cash to "get a wife".
It was a brutal system.
Quote from: From the Bunker on June 21, 2018, 11:58:18 PM
Quote from: seafoid on June 21, 2018, 02:28:47 PM
The ideals of 1916 were not reflected in the values of the society at the time. The economy was based on owning land and that is not very pro women.
From Irish times comments
AnChiarogEile
@Honey The ferocious puritanism of Irish Catholicism in the 19th and 20th centuries probably stems as much from the experience of the Famine as from the Church's own dogma. People had seen in the starkest form imaginable where early marriage and big families tended to lead in an entirely rural country, so post-1850 they went in for rigorous population control by the only means available at the time: not having sex until you could afford to maintain a family; which for many people like Michael Collins's father meant their late sixties, and for many more people meant "never". A moral constabulary was needed to police this social order: and the Church gladly stepped into that role. The only trouble was that in Ireland the regime thus imposed lasted well into the age of efficient birth control, long after it had disappeared even in countries like Spain. But the urge to dictate is still there in ghostly form: a bit like a dog turning round several times before it lies down to sleep, flattening the undergrowth of the forests where its ancestors lived.
A look at the 1901 and 1911 census tells the above story. Oldest Sons waited for younger siblings to clear off! Men were in their 40's before Marriage marrying women up to 20 years younger than them. These women in turn could be widows for up 30 years.
Happened in my family too.
The infrastructure inherited from the Brits in 1921 was very poor and so was the State. (They did manage to build a lot of social housing, however)
Hospitals and homes for the elderly were often built out of workhouses as in Roscommon. So were *solutions* for unmarried mothers as in Tuam. Religious orders built a lot of schools. And there was a lottery called the hospitals sweepstakes to fund hospitals which were given religious names and then run by religious orders eg St Vincents and the Mater in Dublin , Our Lady of Lourdes in Drogheda, the Calvary in Galway. A lot of social policy was contracted out to the religious sector.
The religious orders ended up controlling a lot of land.
Quote from: seafoid on June 22, 2018, 09:23:11 AM
The infrastructure inherited from the Brits in 1921 was very poor and so was the State. (They did manage to build a lot of social housing, however)
Hospitals and homes for the elderly were often built out of workhouses as in Roscommon. So were *solutions* for unmarried mothers as in Tuam. Religious orders built a lot of schools. And there was a lottery called the hospitals sweepstakes to fund hospitals which were given religious names and then run by religious orders eg St Vincents and the Mater in Dublin , Our Lady of Lourdes in Drogheda, the Calvary in Galway. A lot of social policy was contracted out to the religious sector.
The religious orders ended up controlling a lot of land.
They still do and even though it must be acknowledged that they did some good work, the horrific crimes, a lot of it systematic, they oversaw means an awful lot of people are owed an awful lot of redress. This wealth should pay for a lot of that. There's no need for a charitable organisation to be so wealthy.....absolutely counterintuitive and directly contradicts their own teaching.
Saw the documentary, it was a really great piece of work, I think.
I loved the approach of using Lavinia Kerwick, not as a narrator or as a guide, but more of a witness to the horrors she and others endured.
Well worth watching the next instalments.
Quote from: easytiger95 on June 22, 2018, 10:06:53 AM
Saw the documentary, it was a really great piece of work, I think.
I loved the approach of using Lavinia Kerwick, not as a narrator or as a guide, but more of a witness to the horrors she and others endured.
Well worth watching the next instalments.
Glad to see her looking and appearing to be well after all she was put through.
Quote from: magpie seanie on June 21, 2018, 01:12:02 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 20, 2018, 11:05:12 PM
The men of 1916 established a democracy, where women had the same vote as men. If that is what people wanted then that is a fair outcome of 1916.
What about the women of 1916? The rest of your post displays similar ignorance....I'd advise you have a watch if you can access the documentary. The treatment of women by the Republic of Ireland government since 1922 has been totally scandalous and vastly at odds with the ideals of those brave people who fought in 1916.
I didn't know that the men of '16 were woke as well as everything else. Most of them were shot before women got the vote, so the news that a patriarchal, Church-dominated state would have been a horror to them comes as news to me.
Can you point me to where I can read up on Padraig Pearse's attitude towards the patriarchy, or Thomas Clarke's opinion on LGBTQ issues? Where can I learn about what Eamon Ceannt believed with regard to intersectional feminism, or find out JM Plunkett's views on toxic masculinity? I want to learn.
Quote from: IolarCoisCuain on June 22, 2018, 08:49:49 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on June 21, 2018, 01:12:02 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 20, 2018, 11:05:12 PM
The men of 1916 established a democracy, where women had the same vote as men. If that is what people wanted then that is a fair outcome of 1916.
What about the women of 1916? The rest of your post displays similar ignorance....I'd advise you have a watch if you can access the documentary. The treatment of women by the Republic of Ireland government since 1922 has been totally scandalous and vastly at odds with the ideals of those brave people who fought in 1916.
I didn't know that the men of '16 were woke as well as everything else. Most of them were shot before women got the vote, so the news that a patriarchal, Church-dominated state would have been a horror to them comes as news to me.
Can you point me to where I can read up on Padraig Pearse's attitude towards the patriarchy, or Thomas Clarke's opinion on LGBTQ issues? Where can I learn about what Eamon Ceannt believed with regard to intersectional feminism, or find out JM Plunkett's views on toxic masculinity? I want to learn.
Just look at the proclamation or read Hyde or Yeats about the change they were expecting and compare to what actually happened. Many of the elites who drove independence were progressive. The people were not . You cannot change groupthink overnight.
Quote from: IolarCoisCuain on June 22, 2018, 08:49:49 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on June 21, 2018, 01:12:02 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 20, 2018, 11:05:12 PM
The men of 1916 established a democracy, where women had the same vote as men. If that is what people wanted then that is a fair outcome of 1916.
What about the women of 1916? The rest of your post displays similar ignorance....I'd advise you have a watch if you can access the documentary. The treatment of women by the Republic of Ireland government since 1922 has been totally scandalous and vastly at odds with the ideals of those brave people who fought in 1916.
I didn't know that the men of '16 were woke as well as everything else. Most of them were shot before women got the vote, so the news that a patriarchal, Church-dominated state would have been a horror to them comes as news to me.
Can you point me to where I can read up on Padraig Pearse's attitude towards the patriarchy, or Thomas Clarke's opinion on LGBTQ issues? Where can I learn about what Eamon Ceannt believed with regard to intersectional feminism, or find out JM Plunkett's views on toxic masculinity? I want to learn.
This is a very weird post filled with a dismissive tone that is at total odds with the seriousness of the topics being talked about. It reads like a screed that wouldn't be out of place on an alt-right subreddit or in the comments of Breitbart News. For your sake I hope you just mangled what you actually meant.
Quote from: IolarCoisCuain on June 22, 2018, 08:49:49 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on June 21, 2018, 01:12:02 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 20, 2018, 11:05:12 PM
The men of 1916 established a democracy, where women had the same vote as men. If that is what people wanted then that is a fair outcome of 1916.
What about the women of 1916? The rest of your post displays similar ignorance....I'd advise you have a watch if you can access the documentary. The treatment of women by the Republic of Ireland government since 1922 has been totally scandalous and vastly at odds with the ideals of those brave people who fought in 1916.
I didn't know that the men of '16 were woke as well as everything else. Most of them were shot before women got the vote, so the news that a patriarchal, Church-dominated state would have been a horror to them comes as news to me.
Can you point me to where I can read up on Padraig Pearse's attitude towards the patriarchy, or Thomas Clarke's opinion on LGBTQ issues? Where can I learn about what Eamon Ceannt believed with regard to intersectional feminism, or find out JM Plunkett's views on toxic masculinity? I want to learn.
Read the proclamation. I read it often. It's how we were supposed to live in the Irish Republic.
I find your post quite disappointing. Really ridiculing my points with no facts at all to back up your reasoning.
Quote from: Farrandeelin on June 22, 2018, 08:49:59 AM
Quote from: From the Bunker on June 21, 2018, 11:58:18 PM
Quote from: seafoid on June 21, 2018, 02:28:47 PM
The ideals of 1916 were not reflected in the values of the society at the time. The economy was based on owning land and that is not very pro women.
From Irish times comments
AnChiarogEile
@Honey The ferocious puritanism of Irish Catholicism in the 19th and 20th centuries probably stems as much from the experience of the Famine as from the Church's own dogma. People had seen in the starkest form imaginable where early marriage and big families tended to lead in an entirely rural country, so post-1850 they went in for rigorous population control by the only means available at the time: not having sex until you could afford to maintain a family; which for many people like Michael Collins's father meant their late sixties, and for many more people meant "never". A moral constabulary was needed to police this social order: and the Church gladly stepped into that role. The only trouble was that in Ireland the regime thus imposed lasted well into the age of efficient birth control, long after it had disappeared even in countries like Spain. But the urge to dictate is still there in ghostly form: a bit like a dog turning round several times before it lies down to sleep, flattening the undergrowth of the forests where its ancestors lived.
A look at the 1901 and 1911 census tells the above story. Oldest Sons waited for younger siblings to clear off! Men were in their 40's before Marriage marrying women up to 20 years younger than them. These women in turn could be widows for up 30 years.
Happened in my family too.
Very interesting - just thinking about this today.
I was at Cemetery Sunday this morning, and have noticed in the past, and today the other gravestones where, in proximity to our family grave, on every gravestone, the wife outlived the husband; and most by 20 years or so.
I never knew about this policy and generally thought that the men's health round our area through job conditions, lifestyle was the main reason. But this explains it in a nutshell. Thanks for the post.