Sir, – In “Bosses, babies and body hair” (Weekend Review, September 1st), women speak, among other things, about men. At least two of them display what seems to be a typical attitude towards men in society today, which, reduced to its basic meaning, says “male bad, female good”.
Speaking about what they consider to be positive aspects of the male, they say “men with more female characteristics . . . should be valued more” and also admire “a man who’s in touch with his female side”.
Why is it that the good in men is so often attributed to their “female side”?
Why can’t women accept that men are a package of good and not-so-good characteristics, without trying to claim the admirable bits for the female of the species? – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Elizabeth Ahern-Flynn (September 4th) was struck by the theme running through Kathy Sheridan’s feature that “women clearly wanted to work and succeed in the workplace, but also felt a duty to be the primary caregiver for their family”.
It is little wonder that this tension still exists in a land where our Constitution – our statement of who we are and want to be as a nation – declares that “the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.”
I entirely agree with Ms Ahern-Flynn’s call for expanded parental leave, which can of course be achieved by ordinary legislation. It would, however, be an important symbolic step if we were to remove the reference to the place of woman in the home from Article 41 of our basic law.
To those who would object that symbolic change means nothing, consider the monumental step that was the removal of the reference to the “special position” of the Catholic Church by the fifth amendment of Bunreacht na hÉireann in the winter of 1972. – Yours, etc,