Sir, – I agree with the reservations expressed by readers about the upcoming referendums on March 8th (Letters, January 11 and 12th).
A point that has not been raised is the cost of these referenda. An Irish Times article (November 19th, 2016) stated that the cost of referendums from 2000 to 2016 was almost €135 million. Saving maybe €15 million to €20 million by not holding these referendums would not exactly solve the housing crisis or trolley waiting times but taxpayers’ money could certainly be better spent.
Readers might like to suggest how this money could be used to actually help families, whether based on marriage or on “durable relationships”.
And the Government might like to tell us what they are doing to facilitate families who need extra childcare on referendum day as their children’s schools are being used as polling stations. – Yours, etc,
ENID O’DOWD,
Ranelagh,
Dublin 6.
Sir, – Could Article 41.2 of the Constitution be replaced by Article 25.2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance”? – Yours, etc,
Dr JOHN DOHERTY,
Gaoth Dobhair,
Co Dhún na nGall.
Sir, – I finished third-level education in the early 1990s, one of the first generations of young women in Ireland who expected to combine a career with motherhood.
Around a decade later, when I started my family, like most of my peers, I found there was no roadmap for how to combine work and motherhood. We all had to individually start negotiating with employers, and figuring it out as we went along. Many gave up working outside the home, many kept going full time, due to choice or necessity. I was lucky enough to be able to work part time.
Countless articles were written about whether children were harmed by too much time in childcare, and what sort of childcare was best – remember those? Working mothers were pitted against stay at home mothers, while we all were smothered in guilt about never being good enough, either as a mother or as an employee.
If you asked me back in the 1990s about Article 41.2, I would have told you that I found the implication that a mother going out to work was neglecting her duties highly sexist. “What about the fathers?”, I would have asked. But I had no issue with the rest.
Today, with two children approaching adulthood, I feel even more strongly about how important this article is.
I think we forget that anything that allows a parent, usually the mother, to spend more time in the home when children are young is for the benefit of the children, not the parent.
This referendum is as much about the value we place on our children as it is about the value we place on the role of the mother: the two go hand in hand.
For this reason, I will be voting No. – Yours, etc,
E BOLGER,
Dublin 9.
Sir, – The Constitution shorn of its aspirational and religion-inspired waffle is an elegant and legally effective document. Authoritative international indices which rate nations’ relative enjoyment of liberal rights and the rule of law, and which rate this country among the freest on the planet, bear testimony to the effectiveness of Bunreacht na hÉireann as a legal charter for a modern and liberal democracy.
Instead of a referendum to replace religion-inspired waffle with the waffle of contemporary (and probably temporary) fashion, perhaps we could have a referendum on removing all the waffle, and leave the “fashionable” stuff to the elected representatives in the Oireachtas. – Yours, etc,
PETER MURRAY,
Carrigaline,
Co Cork.
Sir, – Surely we should be able to produce a more inclusive definition beyond what is outlined in the Constitution as the marital family other than to encompass a catch-all phrase “other durable, committed relationships”, which concept may rightly reside in the hearts and minds of individuals as they see fit. The proposed amendment is not on a very durable footing on which to ask the people to vote Yes, and for that reason I am out. – Yours, etc,
AIDAN RODDY,
Cabinteely,
Dublin 18.
Sir, – Michael McDowell in “If it’s not broke, don’t fix it: voting No is wisest option in upcoming blindman’s buff referendums” (Opinion & Analysis, January 10th) writes rather assuredly that: “The Constitution does not confine women’s choices in any way, therefore no amendments are needed.”
However, as demonstrated widely in sociological and historical research, this is not the case. Article 41.2 states: “In particular, woman by her life within the home gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.” There are three problems with this wording. 1) The term “woman” means all women and this was the intention in 1937. And why is the term “her life” rather than “her work” used? As women, our contribution within the home is crucial to the very functioning of economy and society whether engaged in paid labour or not. However, if the wording alternatively stated “women by their work within the home” as opposed to “woman by her life within the home”, Michael McDowell’s arguments might have more credence. Participation by women in the Irish workforce was 61 per cent in second quarter of 2023 (compared to 70.6 per cent for men). The statement that all women by their “life in the home” support the “common good” excludes this large cohort of women who in contemporary societies define their “life” as working both inside and outside the home at the same time and are likewise contributing to the common good through paid employment. 2) The wording is gender specific. Men are not mentioned at all. Why is it only all women’s “life” that is constitutionally defined as “in the home” in a modern society? Is it only the case that women should not be compelled to work “to the neglect of their duties in the home”? What about the possibility of men neglecting their “duties” in the home by choice or design? Men should also be given more choice to engage in home duties full-time or as part-time workers? 3) The sweeping and rather simplistic statement “many mothers still feel compelled by economic necessity rather than freely choose to work outside the home” is not supported in reliable research. Better State-supported and affordable childcare, flexible work patterns and other equal opportunities interventions to remove barriers in the workplace and help balance caring and home responsibilities are instead considered essential. Caring duties experienced by women who do not have children are not captured either in the discussion. Article 41.2 is outdated and too narrow for the numerous and diverse roles women and men now play in the public and private spheres. At the very least, the original wording should be deleted with more practical supports and better social policies to support all carers (most of whom are women) in all circumstances introduced and fully funded, in the next budget, regardless of any change that may or may not follow in the Constitution. – Yours, etc,
Prof LINDA CONNOLLY,
Director,
Maynooth University
Social Sciences Institute,
Maynooth University.
Sir, – Our National Women’s Council of Ireland and our “feminist” politicians continue to receive the media spotlight to opine on womanhood and motherhood. They ask us to believe, in 2024, that it is progress for women and mothers to remove all mention of ourselves from our Constitution, so that we can remain open, inclusive and kind to everyone. Be kind to everyone, but ourselves, it would seem. This brand of feminism asks us to believe that feminism is not for women at all. It is for everyone. I disagree entirely with this stance, which I see as a weaponising of our kindness, and which sends an unhealthy message to women, who are already struggling to manage the many unequal burdens of womanhood and motherhood.
Women are kind. This kindness and empathy are attributes that women and mothers have in abundance, because it is literally hardwired into us by evolution, to ensure the survival of babies and hence the survival of our species.
The Government and the NWCI weaponise this kindness, when they ask us to be kind and to remove the words “woman” and “mother” from our Constitution, so that all carers can be included instead.
They signal to us women and mothers that we must care for all carers, but not care for ourselves, that we must cater to everyone else’s needs, but not our needs, and that we must define everyone else’s requirements, but we do not have the right to define our own needs. I will vote No to erasing the words woman and mother from our Constitution. – Is mise,
PATRICIA GREY AMANTE,
Delgany,
Co Wicklow.