Talk:Magdalene Laundries in Ireland

Untitled
Ok, I've fixed the lead. Early sectionss need copy-edit.zzz (talk) 08:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant child abuse section
The section Magdalene_laundries_in_Ireland concerns a completely different set of scandals involving minors at other types of institutions. I think we can probably drop this whole section and locate any laundry-relevant text elsewhere. Thoughts? jxm (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that that section is not germane to the article, because 1) it discusses unfortunate events in places other than the Magdalene Laundries and 2)there is already an extensive page covering the topic of the report at Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. If a group of editors, here, agree that the topic should be mentioned in this article, I do not think that it should be any more than a sentence with a link to the page covering the report. As much fun as they are to research, the article does not need to follow rabbit trails in directions unrelated to the specific topic. Providing links so the reader can study further if he or she wants is all that is needed, IMHO.Taram (talk) 21:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes: I've no idea what it's doing there. zzz (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess it was for context. Added a sentence at end of "catolic reactioi" that about covers it I think. zzz (talk) 23:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So, now it would seem appropriate to remove the section Magdalene_laundries_in_Ireland, eh? Taram (talk) 04:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I think, ultimately, there should be a section comprehensively chronicling the very slow emergence of the scandal, covering the 20 years from 1993 (mass grave) to 2013 (compensation). This would include the Ryan report, since it involves (at least) one of the 4 religious orders. I would find this illuminating. But the "Child abuse" section does not do this. It confuses the article. It should be deleted. And I doubt any of it needs to be moved elsewhere in the article, either.


 * As I've always said, the slow death by slavery & protracted torture of 1000s of innocent citizens, in the 20th century in Western Europe, is uniquely interesting. But I don't think the article should, as a whole, be focused solely on the criminality of the religious orders. It should attempt to describe, in neutral non-judgemental terms - ie, neither critical nor apologetic - the institutions themselves, eg, what they were like originally, (funding, conditions, etc etc); and what went wrong, and when and why exactly. And how the changing historical social context influenced things. The article presently contains very little of this. The main article also contains little or no description of the institutions. Clearly, anyone reading both articles would end up knowing essentially nothing about them, except what little the newspapers have reported. I know they were/are secretive, but this is not much use to anyone. Are there no historical sources available? Maybe not, I guess, on account of the secrecy. And maybe no one found them interesting enough before (or after) the scandal. Failing this, a brief history of the Irish orders themselves, eg their other activities, their relationship with the state & Catholic hierarchy, when they realised things had gone bad, why they did nothing to rectify the situation, might be interesting in so much as it managed to be relevant - if in fact there is anything interesting to say about them - again, avoiding being pro- or anti-. Basically, I'd hope the article can be more than just a case of shooting fish in a barrel. Any positive developments would be welcomezzz (talk) 02:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Another approach might be to assemble a separate article that provides a coordinated timeline presentation of the various institutional abuse controversies in Ireland that have emerged over time. That is, the sequence of events that finally led to publicizing the scandals at industrial schools and reformatories, Magdalene laundries, and mother&baby homes. Our coverage in WP of these is very uneven and contradictory, not to mention each one of them continuously getting mixed up with the others. jxm (talk)


 * I very much agree it would make the article more helpful if there was a summary about the actual way the asylums were run. For example, right now I'm still unclear whether such an asylum was entered voluntarily or by a judge's verdict, and how difficult it was to get out again. --Syzygy (talk) 07:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Media Representations
I'm surprised by the deletion by of the complete Media Representations section, without prior checking on the Talk page. In its current state, it's unclear to me how a WP reader of this page would discover that the The Magdalene Sisters film had its own entry, or that the topic appears in Joni Mitchell's album Turbulent Indigo. It seems like at least some of this material is pretty pertinent to the topic, although I agree that not necessarily all items are specific to the Irish situation. Also, the removal is commented Article is about the concept itself, not how it's used in fiction; however, on the contrary, several of the entries concern non-fictional writing, documentaries, and factual reports. If there are no objections, I"ll revise and reinstate this text. jxm (talk) 12:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree with reinstatement; should not have been removed without consensus. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Turning a profit, etc
A lot of the account of the laundries given in much of the article, based on the work of one or two quoted sources, directly contradicts the findings of the inquiry. For example, the inquiry found that none of the laundries investigated ever covered their own costs, let alone turned a profit, so all the speculation about them being deliberately stuffed with extra free workers is not only unsupported but contradicted. Since this forms the backbone of a lot of the accusations in much of the article, this suggests the need to seriously rework it.

What the inquiry did find is that the Irish government and society used the laundries as dumping grounds for any women or girls that nobody else wanted to care for or deal with, as the laundries didn't turn women away (as, for example, the industrial schools did). 90.201.32.245 (talk) 06:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The inquiry also talks about the very strong prejudice against women sent to the laundries, largely as a result of the view that the laundries were homes for fallen women, as being a reasonable explanation for the heavy secrecy and protection of records. Women who left these laundries, as most did, could rely on their attendance there being kept secret from their new families and friends and employers, etc. The prejudice was very strong: a woman who had spent even one night in a laundry, to have a bed to sleep in, would be refused entrance to many other homes and institutions, for example. 90.201.32.245 (talk) 06:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you reading the same article? There's a few lines about the finances of the laundries (and their interference with private laundries), but certainly not a "backbone of a lot of the accusations."  By all means expand the article with referenced material. (You might also want to register an account - it's free and easy).  Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * There are a lot of little (referenced) comments in the article about the laundries being part of a business which expanded to take more women so that it would have more workers in the laundries (in contrast to the inquiry, which found they expanded to take up the shortfall as the Irish government cut other forms of support, and the various laundries were partly funded by charities and church groups), and even a comment suggesting that they only stopped because washing machines outcompeted them. The reference appears to be a book written some years ago. The claims do not fit the findings of the inquiry. Given how pervasive these comments are throughout the article, and that they are referenced, I am reluctant to wade in. 90.201.32.245 (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The books in question are well respected. I am aware that the McAleese inquiry is regarded as a whitewash by many survivors (it used only a fraction of the testimony it received, for example, and was criticised by the UN amongst others), but it can certainly be cited if you want to add a counterpoint. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Slavery?
Does the fact that the inmates were forced to work for indefinite periods, without compensation or regard for normal labour rights (such as working 7 days a week), fit the definition of slave labour? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Unwed mothers and their children
I've read that most of them (either having no clue what sex causes or victims of rapes, etc.) were forced to give their babies up for adoption regardless they wanted or not. There was any chance for them before 70s to keep the babies (I know that certainly in 70s all of that started to change and unwed mother could keep her baby but I don't know how it was before)? All I know is that in UK, Australia and Spain there was at least slight chance but I don't know how about Ireland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.238.107.181 (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Magdalene Laundries in Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080723204639/http://www.prefectpress.com/ to http://www.prefectpress.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Magdalene Laundries in Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170828022351/http://www.childabusecommission.com/rpt/ to http://www.childabusecommission.com/rpt/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090724061728/http://www.childabusecommission.com/rpt/03-07.php to http://www.childabusecommission.com/rpt/03-07.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131103231909/http://www.tasteproductions.co.uk/productions/magdalen.htm to http://www.tasteproductions.co.uk/productions/magdalen.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

GULAGs of Irealnd ?
By the way Gulags also helped the fallen comrades ... But where have been the court orders ? Because it was impossible to send anybody to a Gulag without a court decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.179.174 (talk) 12:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Too much reliance on sources using Marxist-feminist dialectic, no perspective of history
I appreciate that the author of the content couched "as the motivations started to range from a need to maintain social and moral order within the bounds of patriarchal structure, to a desire to continue profiting from a free workforce, Magdalen laundries became a part of a large structure of suppression" with "According to Finnegan,..." but there is really no counterpoint.

Many of the sources seem to be phrasing this discussion according to a Marxist framework of repressors and victims, according to current feminist notions of "patriarchy" which fail to present anything more than a caricature of the social context of these institutions.

I was particularly displeased in the statement "By 1920, according to Smith, Magdalen laundries had almost entirely abandoned claims of rehabilitation and instead, were "seamlessly incorporated into the state's architecture of containment" At that point, Ireland was in its war of independence which should have figured prominently in the application of repressive techniques by the English forces.  I'm sure many female participants, and relatives of participants, in the Irish rebellion were consigned to these institutions.

Nor is there any discussion of whether the laundries absorbed women abandoned or widowed by the horrific carnage of WWI, which is particularly important given that for decades, the British military was essentially the only means of social advancement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schemaczar (talk • contribs) 00:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

"supposed objective"
I have some reservations regarding the articles reliance overmuch on either Finnegan or Raftery, (both of whose works were penned very early in the controversy at the height of public outrage) -at least to the extent that they seem to attribute the establishment of Magdalen Asylums to an effort to eliminate or significantly reduce prostitution. It is not clear on what facts this assumption is based. This would also seem to attribute to the founders an astronomical naivete -hardly likely in the case of individuals such as Dingley, Hanway, Fielding, White, Wharton and others.

On the other hand, Professor Maria Luddy says these "rescue homes" "...were originally established to ‘rescue’ women and girls in danger of becoming prostitutes, and to rehabilitate those who had already ‘fallen’ into prostitution”.(Magdalen Asylums in Ireland 1765-1922). St Mary’s Refuge, High Park, was established by Cardinal Cullen, for girls and women “who did not have the protection of family and friends”. Our Lady of Charity, Lower Sean McDermott Street was founded by Mrs Brigid Burke) for ‘troubled and homeless’ women; the home in Galway by a Miss Lynch; that in Donnybrook was founded in 1796 by a Mr Quarterman and Mrs Brigid Burke. In a number of instances, it would appear that these shelters were establish by women for women, and by individuals who would have had no illusions that there efforts would have any appreciable effect on male customers.

Yet having proposed a inaccurate purpose for the establishment of these institutions, the article then states "Raftery wrote that the institutions were failing to achieve their supposed objective; "the institutions had little impact on prostitution over the period", and yet they were continuing to multiply, expand and, most importantly, profit from the free labour." If indeed, they were founded to somehow reduce the incidence of the "world's oldest profession", of course, they failed, but that was not in fact their purpose, which appears to have been to provide some alternative to women -and despite later developments, they did at least initially achieve that. The inference that they were operated for profit was rebutted by the 2013 government report. This article could do with a little less reliance on unfounded supposition and more adherence to established studies by recognized authorities. Mannanan51 (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Ironic you'd write the above on the commemoration day for victims and survivors of the Laundries. Is any store still set by McAleese's 2013 report? Certainly the survivors and research groups have dismissed it as a whitewash. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well clearly not enough time has yet passed for people to acquire an objective perspective; that's alright, there will be other studies. This article could deal with some iinfo re the life and/or life expectancy of prostitutes in 19th century Ireland. Mannanan51 (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And also the life/life expectancy of girls deemed "too pretty", or "at risk" because their mother had died, and who were thus condemned to a life of silence and unpaid servitude. Which the orders are still refusing to pay compensation for. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Interpretation and analysis like this has to come from a secondary source; we cannot rely on the McAleese report, a primary source, to directly make arguments like these. --Aquillion (talk) 09:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Interrogating the term 'fallen women'
As of 2021, we have reached a point where we have thousands of pages of research into Magdalene Laundries and indeed mother and baby homes. In this vast body of work, the term 'fallen woman' is not used. This work shows that this term is not how women in these institutions were termed. It is something of an anomaly that the article makes such a use of this term, early on as a point of emphasis. It is misleading given that we now know that the association of laundries and premarital sex is ahistorical, and that rather these places were populated with a mix of women from young girls from industrial homes, or orphans to those referred from the criminal justice system like the famous case of Sinead O'Connor or women placed in these places due to mental disability. The term 'fallen women' is linked to judgmental attitudes society had for women in need in these laundries and the sisters who supported them than historical fact. We now know that pregnant women were formerly banned in nearly all laundries, which is in hindsight unsurprising given the heavy labour involved in laundries. So I make this point to start a conversation about this term and I really feel it is problematic in this article. Aerchasúr (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing the term everywhere, from academic papers to newspaper articles dating back to the '90s, etc, etc. If this term is judgmental, then these women were judged then, and to abjure the use of the term now smacks of revisionism. Given there's a whole paragraph dedicated to explaining the term in context here, I'd posit that this is critical to understanding the article, and the historic use of the term and how its meaning shifted - A l is o n  ❤ 07:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, agreed, . There's a lot of attempted revisionism going on - even in 's opening paragraph. The "famous case of Sinéad O'Connor", indeed! It's not too long since the state was denying any involvement in the Magdalene Laundries, let alone admitting sending women and girls to such institutions or having the Gardaí return them when they escaped. Given this, and the synthesis Aerchasúr has being attempting to add to a related article, Sex in a Cold Climate, I'd have to question their bona fides - there is an agenda being pursued here which breaches our neutrality pillar and has a strong whiff of righting great wrongs. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Can you show me examples of the term being used in these institutions or contemporary to these institutions? The term is judgmental and it seems to reflect how society perceived these women, not how they were termed in the laundries or amongst themselves. The term rapidly declined across literature from the beginning of the 20th century and I so far have only been able to find two examples of this term in the aforementioned thresholds and both data from well into the 19th cen. Finding truth does often require revisionism. Fundamentally the article must reflect that the laundries had little connection to women who had premarital sex.

Bastún, the Irish State legal defence to avoid compensation claims has no connection here. It was always known by historians that many women in laundries were referred there by the courts. BTW is the statement you made even true? In 2009 Mr O’Keeffe responded by letter to a group saying that “the Magdalen laundries were privately-owned and operated establishments which did not come within the responsibility of the State, that is as far as they went with that but I don't know statements where the State denied all involvement. Can you share your sources thanks? Aerchasúr (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok no thoughts so. Aerchasúr (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)


 * You made a confused set of statements, I'm not sure what point it is you're arguing? So didn't waste time on it. Sources for what? The article is well sourced. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Bibliography and Jacinta Prunty's study
I suggest the article should include among its sources Dr. Jacinta Prunty's book The Monasteries, Magdalen Asylums and Reformatory Schools of Our Lady of Charity in Ireland 1853-1973 (2017). Dr. Jacinta Prunty is the head of the Department of history at the National University of Ireland, at Maynooth; she has made a large research on the Magdalene Laundries dedicating up to 600 pages on the subject and providing a well-balanced reconstruction of their history. I say this because on at least one section the article relies on just a single source (France Finnegan's 2001 book) and Prunty's study could be helpful to update the Bibliography employed in the article. I will wait for any response.--Potatín5 (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * While I have not read Prunty's book, I would hazard a guess that a book written by a nun who was permitted access to the records of the orders involved - when independent researchers and journalists were refused such access - might well fall foul of our neutrality policies. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep calmed; she does neither justify nor deny the abuses commited at the laundries, you only have to see the book and you will be able to verify it. Her work is scholarly and does not go against the neutrality policy. Just check it, and then you decide if it ought to be employed in the article. Thanks for responding.--Potatín5 (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!. Have you already decided it? I'm still waiting for your response.--Potatín5 (talk) 10:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)