Originally Posted by potholedogger

The DeValera Dream speech

The ideal Ireland that we would have, the Ireland that we dreamed of, would be the home of a people who valued material wealth only as a basis for right living, of a people who, satisfied with frugal comfort, devoted their leisure to the things of the spirit – a land whose countryside would be bright with cosy homesteads, whose fields and villages would be joyous with the sounds of industry, with the romping of sturdy children, the contest of athletic youths and the laughter of happy maidens, whose firesides would be forums for the wisdom of serene old age. The home, in short, of a people living the life that God desires that men should live. With the tidings that make such an Ireland possible, St. Patrick came to our ancestors fifteen hundred years ago promising happiness here no less than happiness hereafter. It was the pursuit of such an Ireland that later made our country worthy to be called the island of saints and scholars. It was the idea of such an Ireland - happy, vigorous, spiritual - that fired the imagination of our poets; that made successive generations of patriotic men give their lives to win religious and political liberty; and that will urge men in our own and future generations to die, if need be, so that these liberties may be preserved.

Mind you, I am not as sneery about Dev's speech as most people. At least the guy had a vision for the country and attempted to articulate it, take it or leave it...

But because I lived in that environmentally friendly Ireland of "frugal comforts" (boy, were they frugal!) where my mother brought water from the well to wash the clothes, and where there were no supermarkets or consumerism as we know it, and where the roads and boreens leading to the village were lined with women in headscarves cycling, and men with donkeys and carts....well, I don't want to return to it or anything resembling it...

It was a bummer. And terribly tough on women, who had to keep house and rear kids without running water, electricity, cars, fridges, cleaning products, washers, dryers, central heating, Dunnes or Penneys...

"The life that God desires that man should live" was generally a lot easier to live if you were a man. So Dev got that bit right...

Originally Posted by gatsbygirl20

Mind you, I am not as sneery about Dev's speech as most people. At least the guy had a vision for the country and attempted to articulate it, take it or leave it...

But because I lived in that environmentally friendly Ireland of "frugal comforts" (boy, were they frugal!) where my mother brought water from the well to wash the clothes, and where there were no supermarkets or consumerism as we know it, and where the roads and boreens leading to the village were lined with women in headscarves cycling, and men with donkeys and carts....well, I don't want to return to it or anything resembling it...

It was a bummer. And terribly tough on women, who had to keep house and rear kids without running water, electricity, cars, fridges, cleaning products, washers, dryers, central heating, Dunnes or Penneys...

"The life that God desires that man should live" was generally a lot easier to live if you were a man. So Dev got that bit right...

Did God have a personal conversation with DeValera to fill him in on " the life men (and women) should live"? Dev had particular ideas on how Women should live!

Originally Posted by gatsbygirl20

It was a bummer. And terribly tough on women, who had to keep house and rear kids without running water, electricity, cars, fridges, cleaning products, washers, dryers, central heating, Dunnes or Penneys...

"The life that God desires that man should live" was generally a lot easier to live if you were a man. So Dev got that bit right...

There was more manual work for both at the time but it’s very easy to say it was easier for one sex when you were not in their shoes. I doubt your mum would want to trade places with a man that was digging ditches all day.

Originally Posted by Potatoeman

There was more manual work for both at the time but it’s very easy to say it was easier for one sex when you were not in their shoes. I doubt your mum would want to trade places with a man that was digging ditches all day.

Believe me, Potatoeman, the guys had it better, if only marginally.

I attempt to quote Germaine Greer: "Throughout history, woman has done the work, and man the directing---even if the only thing being directed was a donkey"

My father was a kind, intelligent, hard-working man, don't get me wrong....but...

My mother had to do all the inside work. No man lifted a finger domestically in those days. But she also had to help save the hay, milk the cows, carry water, wash creamery cans and sluice out from the animals, save turf, and clean the farmyard as well as make the children's clothes, and clean house.

My father and brothers always seemed to be gone somewhere---seeing someone about gates, or about getting a plough fixed, or buying a horse. They would get to meet people, chat, call into the pub for a drink....while my sisters and I stayed at home starching their shirts and polishing rows of shoes for Sunday Mass....feeding calves, washing buckets for milk..

Men had the freedom to meet friends in the pub--a totally masculine zone in country villages. My mother was confined to the house with a large brood (Catholic Church strict rules, meant large families) and rarely got out, and no respectable woman went to a pub. That all changed with the "lounge bars" in the 70s

I know it was different in the cities, and for the middle class. But that was the life of the rural poor in De Valera's dream country...

Originally Posted by gatsbygirl20

My father and brothers always seemed to be gone somewhere---seeing someone about gates, or about getting a plough fixed, or buying a horse.

Living the high life.

I’m always dubious of claims that people under different pressures had it harder. I think both had it hard and wouldn’t undermine either genders troubles. Men would be under pressure to support their family and were considered disposable (conscription).

Originally Posted by gatsbygirl20

My father and brothers always seemed to be gone somewhere---seeing someone about gates, or about getting a plough fixed, or buying a horse.

Living the high life.

I’m always dubious of claims that people under different pressures had it harder. I think both had it hard and wouldn’t undermine either genders troubles. Men would be under pressure to support their family and were considered disposable (conscription).

Originally Posted by poolfan81

Politicians celebrate every brand new opening of tesco,dunnes etc because it creates some "new" jobs

This may have more consequences - closure of smaller shops, suppliers etc

The larger multiples will source the cheapest products they can find and will not source, which is not necessarily Irish products

No, politicians attend openings of envolops and such like because it gets them seen. They couldn't give a rats ass about Michale getting a job stacking shelves. The only reason they have an interest in people getting jobs is so they can make an announcement. Politicians are at their core only interested in themselves and what they can get out of anything.

Its time politicians were restricted in the openings they can attend. They keep telling us how hard they work. Its rubbish. Turning up to openings and funerals is not work.

Originally Posted by Potatoeman

Living the high life.

I’m always dubious of claims that people under different pressures had it harder. I think both had it hard and wouldn’t undermine either genders troubles. Men would be under pressure to support their family and were considered disposable (conscription).

In general, that is true. Men have carried, and still carry, heavy burdens of their own.
The middle class woman would certainly have had a better life in the 50s than the labouring man. But the "slave of the slave"--the poor wife of the poor man, had it tough.

What made womens' burden harder to bear in those days was the lack of any choice or autonomy in their lives--hedged in by the strict rules of a patriarchal society and the awful, implacable strictures of the Catholic Church

When I see groups of young women today--off on "girly" weekends while their husbands mind the kids, driving their own cars, managing their own careers, travelling alone....I reflect on how far we have come..

I think I am far off topic and will be accused of derailing, but thank you for those interesting posts.

Originally Posted by gatsbygirl20

Believe me, Potatoeman, the guys had it better, if only marginally.

I attempt to quote Germaine Greer: "Throughout history, woman has done the work, and man the directing---even if the only thing being directed was a donkey"

My father was a kind, intelligent, hard-working man, don't get me wrong....but...

My mother had to do all the inside work. No man lifted a finger domestically in those days. But she also had to help save the hay, milk the cows, carry water, wash creamery cans and sluice out from the animals, save turf, and clean the farmyard as well as make the children's clothes, and clean house.

My father and brothers always seemed to be gone somewhere---seeing someone about gates, or about getting a plough fixed, or buying a horse. They would get to meet people, chat, call into the pub for a drink....while my sisters and I stayed at home starching their shirts and polishing rows of shoes for Sunday Mass....feeding calves, washing buckets for milk..

Men had the freedom to meet friends in the pub--a totally masculine zone in country villages. My mother was confined to the house with a large brood (Catholic Church strict rules, meant large families) and rarely got out, and no respectable woman went to a pub. That all changed with the "lounge bars" in the 70s

I know it was different in the cities, and for the middle class. But that was the life of the rural poor in De Valera's dream country...

Good post. The bit about the men always gone somewhere is spot on.

Originally Posted by gatsbygirl20

<…> also had to help save the hay, milk the cows, carry water, wash creamery cans and sluice out from the animals, save turf, and clean the farmyard <..> that was the life of the rural poor in De Valera's dream country...

But not just the poor – and, in fairness, weren’t the poor really those without land. In Limerick at least, there’s a reason stated for how farm families ended up doing so much menial work.

http://www.limerickcity.ie/media/agr...20labourer.pdf

The Limerick Rural Survey of 1958-1964 is almost like a postscript to the story of the labourer. The author of the survey, Patrick McNabb, says that by that time the fulltime farm workers were an exception. Of those who emigrated from the county in the period 1941 to 1951, 2% were farmers, 17% were farmers' sons and 33% farm workers. The Limerick farm had become dependent on his family for labour by 'the revolt of the farm labourer.' But the labourer did not strike for higher wages, or issue a manifesto, or declaration: he simply turned his back on the farmer and emigrated. McNabb puts it another way; the farmer 'more or less successfully resisted the attacks of the workers but only at the price of losing them altogether'.

Was this typical of the rest of the country? I’ve simply no idea – it might not even be an accurate depiction of Limerick.