User Controls
lets talk about victorian baby farming guys
-
2024-12-22 at 1:44 PM UTCthe good ole days guys the good ole days.
https://www.hgs-familyhistory.com/2013/01/baby-farming/
“ Baby farming was a horrific Victorian practice which took advantage of mothers unable to care for their children and desperate to give them a better life.
Unmarried mothers had no support
The practice occurred in an era when contraception was limited, abortion was illegal, and illegitimate children were looked down on. The 1834 Poor Laws regarded poverty and illegitimacy as moral issues. The law was designed to restore female morality and stimulate thrifty, industrious workers. They contained a Bastardy clause that absolved the reputed father of responsibility for his child, which left many unmarried mothers socially and economically victimised and unable to provide for their children.
Unwanted children
Murdering of unwanted children by their mothers typically resulted in the death penalty. Most of the reported cases took place in London but there were no doubt incidents in every large city, including Southampton and Portsmouth, where a transient population and appalling living conditions were evident.
Some mothers probably sold their babies to childless couples. Others were fostered or adopted for a few pounds. Unmarried mothers were often so desperate that they answered newspaper adverts placed by seemingly reputable people….the so called baby farmers who in return for payment would find new families for unwanted babies.
Murder by baby farmers
Sadly, a few baby farmers found killing the babies less arduous than caring and finding adoptive families for them. Murder gave a quick profit, without the need to provide childcare at their own expense. Many of these babies died of malnutrition, neglect and abuse. In an age of high infant mortality, deaths of babies and small children were quite common and attracted little attention. Where a baby’s body was found, it was usually impossible to trace the mother.
Legislation
By the end of the 19th Century, legislation was being brought in to protect against baby farming. The Infant Life Protection Act of 1897 and the Children’s Act of 1908 gave local authorities more powers to investigate baby farmers. These were later followed by legislation to regulate adoption and fostering.” -
2024-12-22 at 1:53 PM UTCHoe about we discuss the methods of your suicide?
-
2024-12-22 at 3:54 PM UTCdo you think being a baby farmer was a food job back then?
-
2024-12-22 at 3:56 PM UTChttp://cas.loyno.edu/sites/chn.loyno.edu/files/Bastardy%20and%20Baby%20Farming%20in%20Victorian%20England.pdf
being a bastard back then was like being bradley today it seems. -
2024-12-22 at 3:58 PM UTC‘Unloved and undisciplined’: Nineteenth-Century Baby-Farming and the Demonisation of Working-Class Mothers Across the Ages
https://livingwithdying.leeds.ac.uk/2022/11/01/unloved-and-undisciplined-nineteenth-century-baby-farming-and-the-demonisation-of-working-class-mothers-across-the-ages/The late nineteenth century saw an apparent ‘epidemic’ of child infanticide sweeping the nation and causing anxiety over how working-class women treated mothering responsibilities. The term ‘baby-farming’ first came into use in the late 1860s and was used to describe how a woman would be paid to care for children who were not her own, with the aim of finding them a permanent family. Women were forced into giving up their children due to the constant scrutiny their bodies faced in the nineteenth century, with the idea of an unmarried woman ‘bearing a bastard’ far worse than abandoning the baby. Mothers wilfully handed over their infants to these baby farmers with the hope of finding the child a better life, though this was unfortunately not always the case. In reality, the money paid by the mother was used to care for the child and to support the carer until it ran out, after which the child was often neglected, malnourished or succumbed to an illness due to poor living conditions.
This hardship was the context in which Margaret Waters, an infamous baby farmer, lived and worked in the late nineteenth century. Following the death of her husband and multiple failed attempts at other avenues for employment, including a failed business startup and a career as a landlady, Waters concluded that caring for children and passing them on to other families was the best way to make a steady income. However, she quickly became overwhelmed with children and many died from illness and neglect.
Newspapers in this period treated the issue of baby-farming and working-class motherhood with differing degrees of sympathy towards the individual. The Illustrated Police News on 16th June 1870 wrote of her trial, describing her crimes and using detailed language to fundamentally destroy her reputation and to criticise forms of working-class motherhood. This paper did not leave out any explicit details of Waters’ conduct and described the state of the children with the intent to socially condemn her and any other woman partaking in baby-farming:
‘the infant, which Mr Cohen identified “appeared like nothing but skin and bones.” It was in filthy condition and was wrapped in dirty clothes.’
‘witness then went into the front kitchen and found five other infants, from about three weeks to a month old. They were huddled together, and covered over with clothing, all of them dirty and emaciated, and two of them apparently dying.’
Her house was clearly unclean and the children were in a bad state. But how much of this was journalistic hyperbole and how much was the reality of the poor, working-class home? Newspapers often used details of cleanliness as language devices to frame the working class as uncaring and cruel towards children. Ruth Homrighaus suggests that motherhood and household management in the nineteenth century were intrinsically linked, with a clean house associated with a loving and caring attitude towards domestic responsibilities. As a detail in this article, it successfully but unjustly establishes Waters’ image as a malevolent, unmotherly figure, when an unkempt household was an unfortunate factor of a poor, unmarried woman’s life, unsupported by a husband and unqualified for skilled work.
The Cheltenham Chronicle took a slightly different angle when reporting on Waters’ confession and execution on 11thOctober 1870, appearing more sympathetic to the issue of child infanticide and Waters’ unfortunate circumstances:
‘at this time she alleges that she treated the children as well as her circumstances allowed.’
‘from what he could judge, she had no intention of murdering any of the children; but they died off, as they might have been expected to die off, from diarrhoea, thrush, and convulsions, and when they died she callously got rid of their bodies as best she could when she became poor.’
Whilst this paper doesn’t suggest she was innocent of her crimes, it does allow for her social situation and personal hardship to be considered. It acknowledges the realities of child mortality in this period, with 149 infant deaths per 1,000 live births. However, this is after her execution, so the more lenient language suggests the feelings of an extinguished threat, with the death of a woman like Waters restoring safety and calming public anxiety.
However, with these papers being primarily aimed at middle-class audiences they are still not short of criticism for the working-class woman. Increasing news of infanticide and baby-farming scandals increased public anxiety over infant safety and brought forward the question of adequate childcare. The overall feeling was that the ideal of motherhood had been disrupted by working-class women who brought motherhood out from the private home into the public sphere, economising it with paid nurses and baby farmers. Rather than pitying women like Waters who were drawn to baby-farming as a last resort, which was only made possible by the unfortunate circumstances of other mothers, these papers demonised these women and conducted character assassinations to promote the domestic ideal of constant childcare for working-class mothers.
Classist and unfeeling attitudes towards working-class mothers persist today. In a collection of essays from 2006, Boris Johnson made assertions that children of working-class mothers were ‘unloved and undisciplined.’ Reflecting anxieties over nineteenth-century women entering the workplace and neglecting their children, leading to high infanticide rates and the growing business of baby-farming, Johnson’s comments parallel Victorian middle-class attitudes towards ideal motherhood. He suggested that:
“in families on lower incomes the women have absolutely no choice but to work, often with adverse consequences for family life and society as a whole – in that unloved and undisciplined children are more likely to become hoodies, Neets [not in education, employment or training] and mug you on the street corner.”
Clearly, concern over a woman’s place in the home and as a primary caregiver was not confined to the Victorian period and persist as critical factors in confining mothers to the home. Whilst adoption procedures are certainly stricter than in 1870 and child infanticide is significantly more uncommon, the marginalisation and stigmatisation of the working-class mother remains a concern of the high-profile middle-class rather than supporting social policy to ease pressures on living. -
2024-12-22 at 4 PM UTChttps://www.londonmuseum.org.uk/collections/v/object-718109/confession-execution-of-m-waters-the-baby-farmer-at-horsemonger-lane-gaol-on-tuesday-october-11th/
I believe the term was letting th go guys the baby fsrmer women would the mothers for like five pounds i can let them go for you. -
2024-12-22 at 4:44 PM UTC
-
2024-12-22 at 4:57 PM UTC
Originally posted by Warlord the good ole days guys the good ole days.
https://www.hgs-familyhistory.com/2013/01/baby-farming/
“ Baby farming was a horrific Victorian practice which took advantage of mothers unable to care for their children and desperate to give them a better life.
Unmarried mothers had no support
The practice occurred in an era when contraception was limited, abortion was illegal, and illegitimate children were looked down on. The 1834 Poor Laws regarded poverty and illegitimacy as moral issues. The law was designed to restore female morality and stimulate thrifty, industrious workers. They contained a Bastardy clause that absolved the reputed father of responsibility for his child, which left many unmarried mothers socially and economically victimised and unable to provide for their children.
Unwanted children
Murdering of unwanted children by their mothers typically resulted in the death penalty. Most of the reported cases took place in London but there were no doubt incidents in every large city, including Southampton and Portsmouth, where a transient population and appalling living conditions were evident.
Some mothers probably sold their babies to childless couples. Others were fostered or adopted for a few pounds. Unmarried mothers were often so desperate that they answered newspaper adverts placed by seemingly reputable people….the so called baby farmers who in return for payment would find new families for unwanted babies.
Murder by baby farmers
Sadly, a few baby farmers found killing the babies less arduous than caring and finding adoptive families for them. Murder gave a quick profit, without the need to provide childcare at their own expense. Many of these babies died of malnutrition, neglect and abuse. In an age of high infant mortality, deaths of babies and small children were quite common and attracted little attention. Where a baby’s body was found, it was usually impossible to trace the mother.
Legislation
By the end of the 19th Century, legislation was being brought in to protect against baby farming. The Infant Life Protection Act of 1897 and the Children’s Act of 1908 gave local authorities more powers to investigate baby farmers. These were later followed by legislation to regulate adoption and fostering.”
and this is exactly why there are pedophiles.
pedophilia is the result of our species' collective action taken to ensure its own survival by safeguarding its youngs.
the mechanism with which Nature have built in into men to deal with the rampant and abundance of child neglect and abandonment due to the artificial way of life in the society that these men have created.
without pedophiles all these abandoned kids in victorian england would have been non-sexually abused, worked to their death or being simply killed and disposed off. pedophiles took care of these beautiful kids, clothed them, bathed them, feed them and protected them until these kids are capable of reproducing themselves, and thus, the survival of the human race is assured.
a world without pedophiles would be akin to a world without bees.
EXTINCTION. -
2024-12-22 at 5:04 PM UTC
Originally posted by Warlord https://www.londonmuseum.org.uk/collections/v/object-718109/confession-execution-of-m-waters-the-baby-farmer-at-horsemonger-lane-gaol-on-tuesday-october-11th/
I believe the term was letting th go guys the baby fsrmer women would the mothers for like five pounds i can let them go for you.At the bottom has been handwritten 'Because this woman killed a child or children, she was hanged. Scoundrel kings murder thousands; and are praised! Where is the morality'. 'Baby farmers' acted as foster carers, for an up-front fee from Mothers unable to look after their children. Although many acted in good faith the practice was often exploitative. It was not always in the baby farmer's financial interest for children left in their care to survive. Margaret Waters and her sister Sarah Ellis were arrested as the result of an investigation by Sergeant Richard Relf into the death of 18 infants found in Brixton. When police went to the home where the sisters lodged they found nine babies, five of them dying from malnutrition and opium poison. Although Waters was hanged, Ellis escaped with a sentence of 18 months hard labour. As a result of the case the government passed the Infant Life Protection Act that required baby farmers to register with local authorities. The act did not, however, prevent the future abuse and murder of infants by baby farmers.
where is the morality guys? -
2024-12-22 at 5:15 PM UTCimagine having a body count of 400 babies under your name:
https://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/police-forces/thames-valley-police/areas/au/about-us/thames-valley-police-museum/the-baby-farmer/In the summer of 1896, 57-year-old Amelia Dyer was executed for the murder of a baby girl.
It was a sample charge. The bodies of six more babies had been found, and further evidence pointed to at least 12 murders. It is believed that Dyer killed many more babies, some experts have even attributed to her as many 400. Some extraordinary documents, images and artefacts from the case survive, and are now housed in Thames Valley Police’s archives.
A mixture of social and legal factors had made it possible for Dyer to murder infants for financial gain and escape detection for years. She might have gone on to kill many more but for a skilful forensic and undercover operation by detectives of Reading Borough Police.
Baby Farming
In Victorian Britain, the circumstances for most unmarried mothers were bleak. They faced a life of struggle caring for their children whilst earning enough to survive, in a society where single parenthood and illegitimacy were frowned upon.
Fostering and adoption services were rarely controlled by modern standards. One result was the profitable practice in which 'baby farmers' acted as adoption or fostering agents for an up-front fee from the babies’ mothers. Although many baby farmers acted in good faith the practice was often misused, making it difficult to trace what had happened to the children involved. Worse still, it was often in a baby farmer’s financial interest for the children left in their care not to survive.
In a climate like this, these newspaper advertisements placed by Amelia Dyer may have seemed a better outlook than many:
Amelia Dyer
At the time of her arrest, Amelia Dyer was a heavily built middle-aged woman with greying mid-brown hair, a lock of which survives in Thames Valley Police’s archives. Her letters and the reports of her clients portray her as expressive, persuasive and believable. Amelia Dyer moved to Caversham from South Wales in 1895, accompanied by her associate Jane Smith, Mary and Arthur Palmer, and her daughter and son-in-law. She then moved again to Kensington Road, Reading, later that year.
Dyer’s preferred practice was to advertise to adopt or nurse a baby in return for an up-front fee and suitable clothing for the child. In her advertisements and meetings with clients, she assured them that she was respectable, married (Dyer and her husband had actually separated), and would provide a safe and loving home for the child.
In reality Dyer pocketed the money and killed many of the babies within days - she later admitted killing one the same day it was placed in her care. Dyer strangled the infants, always with white tape, wrapped their bodies in paper packages and bags, and dumped them in rivers.
Escaping Detection
Despite her many changes of name and address, rumours about Dyer’s activities were spreading in Bristol, her former home town. Dyer was branded insane there on two occasions, though at her trial the prosecution argued successfully that this had been a ploy to avoid suspicion. Both episodes were said to have coincided with times when Dyer’s activities threatened to catch up with her.
It is unclear how long Dyer’s career as a murderer lasted, but it may have been as many as 20 years. Her family and associates testified at her trial that they had also been growing suspicious and uneasy about her activities, and it emerged that Dyer had narrowly escaped discovery on several occasions.
From a modern view, it seems incredible that Dyer’s clients and those close to her did not realise the truth, and astonishing that she escaped detection for so long. However, in the Victorian era the trade in babies was rarely regulated, and the childhood death rate was relatively high. Dyer’s claims that children had died of natural causes, moved to other homes or been returned to their mothers could well have seemed believable. In addition, Dyer’s many changes of alias and address made it very difficult for mothers concerned at the fate of their babies to trace her.
Forensic Detail
Vital evidence linking a body to Dyer through one of these aliases and addresses was finally to prove her undoing. On 30 March 1896, a package was found in the Thames by a bargeman and found it contained the body of a baby girl, later identified as Helena Fry. Reading Borough Police Chief Constable George Tewsley immediately set his small detective force to work. Detective Constable Anderson, making a microscopic analysis of the wrapping paper that had surrounded the body, discovered and deciphered a faintly-written name and address. This evidence eventually led the detective to the Reading home of Amelia Dyer.
Mrs Dyer's Arrest and Confession
Evidence gathered from witnesses and information telegraphed by Bristol police painted a deeply sinister picture of Dyer’s activities. Detective Constable Anderson and Sergeant James of Reading Borough Police placed her house under surveillance. Their intelligence indicated that Dyer would flee immediately if she became suspicious, so the officers sent a young woman as a decoy to enquire about Dyer’s services and arrange a meeting. Perhaps this helped the detectives by firmly linking Dyer to her business activities, or by giving them a firm time and location to arrange her arrest.
If this was the case, the plan worked. Dyer, expecting her new client, opened her door to find Anderson and James waiting for her. She was arrested and charged with murder, and her son-in-law Arthur Palmer was charged as an accessory. Recent letters found in Dyer's house suggested it should have been full of babies. None were found.
During April, the Thames was searched and six more bodies were discovered. However, enquiries from mothers, witnesses and evidence found in Dyer’s homes, including letters and mountains of baby clothes, showed that she must have murdered many more.
At the inquest into the deaths in Reading in early May, no evidence was found that Mary or Arthur Palmer had acted as Dyer’s accomplices. Arthur Palmer was discharged as the result of a confession written by Amelia Dyer in Reading prison a few days earlier (her brief imprisonment there may have coincided with that of Oscar Wilde). This stated that neither her daughter nor her son-in-law were involved in the killings. This letter survives, along with a letter Dyer wrote to Arthur Palmer the same day.
