Joan Burton’s ‘War Against Working-Class Women’

at

Screen Shot 2015-06-12 at 12.50.59

SPARK (Single Parents Acting for the Rights of Kids) held a protest outside Leinster House on Wednesday.

Micheál Martin heckled at 1.57.

SPARK writes:

“This is in response to the most gendered cuts ever in the history of the state (98% of those on One Parent Famil Payment are women). 40, 000 lone parents are due to lose their entitlement to One Parent Family Payment this year once their youngest child is over 7. There have already been 11,000 families who have already lost this payment.”

Video by Paula Geraghty

32 thoughts on “Joan Burton’s ‘War Against Working-Class Women’

  1. Anomanomanom

    Oh do the I “honestly” don’t know who da is brigade are moaning. It’s such a massive % of women because they don’t put the name on the birth cert. Also why the hell should anybody be paid monthly installments for having kids.

          1. Anomanomanom

            It’s a point of view and very true one. The vast majority are women for the reason the get the allowance and courts always favour women over men

          2. scottser

            as regards your crass generalisations regarding the motivations of single parents, anomanomanom your mouth may be better used munching on the popcorn you were offered.

          3. Anomanomanom

            Expect it’s not a generalisations. You can have pretend annoyance at my point but you know it’s true. And i have to admit I know loads doing it. It’s not a new trend. Of the 98%(who are wonen) easily 50% lie. Unless they were all raped (which of course is an awful thing) or were so drunk they don’t know who they had sex with, loads must be lying.

    1. Seriously

      “why the hell should anybody be paid monthly installments for having kids”

      I agree in the case of Child Benefit, why should someone be automatically entitled to money just for having kids? but in this case the One Parent Family Payment was actually means tested, so these parents weren’t automatically entitled to the money, they had to be in need of it, which to me seems like the right route to go.

      1. Anomanomanom

        Look people know most women know the father. They can all say I’m just talking shit or that its bollox but the vast majority just lie. Excluding rape and such cases the only way you can’t know the father is you were so drunk you can’t remember or they had sec with so many people before getting pregnant that it’s one of hundreds.

      2. Owen

        Yes, this seems like an intelligent approach, making it means tested. Then how can they support / justify it’s removal and why the lucky number 7?

        No sarcasm in that, genuine curiosity. How can a government actually remove this without at least an argument to do so? Was there one? Anyone? The video is not very educational.

  2. donkey_kong

    hat tip to those 2 women (ruth cullen and pal ) around (1:00 – 1:20) who stated with unashamed sexism they are survivors of domestic abuse, rape and that they left bad relationships to better their kids lives….because all lone parents are victims and the men who they split with are all infused with hitlers blood :P …christ on a bike.

    1. Anomanomanom

      If that’s the true case of course help should be given. But we all know the vast vast majority know the father and just say they don’t.

      1. donkey_kong

        yeah for sure. i don’t doubt some ex partners are awful fellas but that’s not what they said.

      2. Drogg

        I have been reading your crap all afternoon, you know little of what you talk about and your self righteous generalisations are disgusting. Many mothers most likely don’t put the fathers name on the birth cert because the father has abandoned them before the birth or have been abusive and it is a way to stop coming back after a ten year absence and suddenly making a custody claim.
        Also if you put a fathers name on the cert and he deny’s it, it will mean you will have to go through paternity blood tests and plenty of accusations on their lifestyle, also plenty of single mothers work and support their children but many still need help with childcare especially if they have no family support so making a small social welfare payment to these people to secure a child has a decent upbringing and will grow to become an intelligent tax paying member of society that contributes back is a better investment then leaving all these people to starve .
        So maybe you should shut the fupp up about it.

        1. Ppads

          A man abandoning a pregnant woman is not a reason to exclude them from the birth cert, quite the opposite. Unless you believe women are subservient, he should pay for that child’s care. Yes some will deny where they stuck it but one day that child will look an old man in the eye and ask why.

          And if in the mean time the social services go after him then let’s hope they nail that quacker.

          1. Drogg

            It’s very easy saying that PPads, don’t get me wrong yes they should pay but often they don’t bother and often they can come back and claim custody which can really hurt a single parent and Childs wellbeing. What if you where the one looking at that biological parent after say 18 years and you ask them why? and they have no response. Maybe then you would understand that instead of cutting from the most needy in our society we should be helping them even more so and setting up a future nation of well educated well brought up young people that will drive our economy in the future and not hold on to the dregs of old Ireland.

  3. Paul Wally

    Where are the Iona crowd and John Waters now? Aren’t they concerned about the poor innocent children?

    1. donkey_kong

      in case you didn’t watch the video the people before profit commandeered that group , I’d say Iona would be as dose of the clap. A lot of haters there.

      dislike Iona all you want (and i do) they are polite and don’t tar men as rapists and the rest like that rabble did,

      sorry to burst your bubble but Iona have been very vocal on keeping mothers in the home . They would be very much against this cut .
      You probably know that but were over eager to stick your beak in.

      1. donkey_kong

        ** I’d say Iona would be as welcome dose of the clap**

        sorry a word was deleted in error

  4. Mr. T.

    Payments are for the benefit of the children and hence, the greater benefit to society as a whole.

    To marginalise a section of society only causes these families greater stress and worry which develops into anxiety, social and metal problems for the children. That in turn has an affect on society with increased crime, dependency on services, etc.

    Join the dots.

  5. Clampers Outside!

    There wouldn’t be so many women only parents there, if the fathers were known and made responsible for children. It’s an overarching system failure. Not a sexist ruling.

    That’s not a defence of the cuts. It’s an observation of the facts.

    1. dereviled

      + Mr T
      article 41

      2 1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

  6. Just sayin'

    I do think 7 is too young. 12 perhaps is a more appropriate time when a kid is older and a single mother should consider rejoining the workforce if she can. Of course, you can’t just cut payments and expect it to magically happen – it should be accompanied by proper advice, training and support structures.

  7. Fluter bad

    Any idea how many of that 98% stop thier kids seeing thier fathers, asked the fly in the ointment?

Comments are closed.