Sir, – Una Mullally (Opinion & Analysis, April 21st), chooses yet again to write about gender issues and again, predictably, from a slanted point of view: how difficult it is for women to “make it”.
She refers to (successful) women “colluding in their own oppression”. Apart from the loaded language, this is a completely wrong interpretation of what many successful women in politics, business and the media have said on this matter.
To take two recent examples: Geraldine Kennedy, a former editor of The Irish Times , told a women's conference that she was uncomfortable with gender quotas, and even more uncomfortable with arguments that being a TD or a journalist was particularly difficult for women. "It is neither woman- nor family-friendly but it isn't man- or father-friendly either," she said.
In a radio interview, Mary O’Rourke said she was fed up with hearing about glass ceilings and that women should simply get down to work. These are people with vastly more experience than Ms Mullally. Why does she simply ignore their views and continue with the worn-out script?
One possibility is that certain groups have a vested interest in promoting such views about disadvantage, inequalities and the like. In the universities there are at least four women’s studies centres which have been the focus as much or more for political activism as for the advance of scholarship and contributions to learning. Gender as a social construct is a major preoccupation of such courses. Why no spotlight on their activities?
The National Women’s Council has been state-funded for decades and is itself a good example of inequality, since there is no comparable body for men. Like any entrenched bureaucracy it will seek to find reasons for its continued existence. Why has it never come under scrutiny, or had its activities examined?
There are good grounds, even apart from the equality argument, for questioning why the State should continue to fund it. Yours, etc,
DAVID WALSH,
Rockfield,
Maynooth,
Co Kildare