Sir, – Justine McCarthy needs to get out more (“Vote Yes to lose the patronising pat on the head to women”, Opinion & Analysis, January 19th). Contrary to her assertions, it is not “mansplainers” who are leading the charge for a No vote in the upcoming referendum on amending Article 41.2 of the Constitution. Leaving aside the opinions of representatives of NGO groups, whose impartiality cannot be depended upon as they are the recipients of Government funding, several prominent women have spoken up against the proposed amendment, including the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, Catherine Connelly TD.
Last year, the Government set up a scheme – the “Basic Income for the Arts” scheme – whereby workers in that sector receive a basic income paid from the public purse. Micheál Martin said at its launch that “We need to invest in that which sustains us”. I am baffled as to why women’s groups – and women journalists – are not calling on the Government to make good the Constitution’s declaration that women who choose to work in the home give to the State “a support without which the common good cannot be achieved” and demand that the Government pay women in the home a similar basic income. – Yours, etc,
ANNE HARBISON,
Aughrim,
Co Wicklow.
Sir, – Justine McCarthy makes some good points in her article. However, the article reads as if she assumes that the definition of “woman” is adult human female, the sex with the potential to bear children. The website of the National Women’s Council of Ireland (NWCI) states: “by ‘woman’ we refer to any person who identifies as a woman”. HSE cervical screening literature refers to “women and people with a cervix”. That neither the NWCI or the HSE have a sex-based definition of the word “woman” is due to the Gender Recognition Act of 2015. It seems convenient to want to remove the words “woman” and “mother” from the Constitution at this point on the basis that Article 41 is “sexist”. – Yours, etc,
ANDREA FAY,
Dublin 6W.
Sir, – The difficulty in deciding whether to vote Yes or No in the upcoming referendums seems to me to be that any proposed new wording is likely to be problematical.
Article 41.2 is merely a pious platitude and comprises only wishful thinking which has never changed anyone’s life for the better and is unlikely to do so in future.
Can we not have a third option and delete it altogether? – Yours, etc,
MARION WALSH,
Dublin 4.