Madam, - Firstly, I want to say that I totally disagree with Kevin Myers's repeated use of a gratuitously insulting word, especially in relation to children.
However, he is to be thanked for raising one of the great sacred cows of modern Irish life. We are experiencing a sea change in the family structure of this country, yet comment, and especially criticism of this is noticeable only by its absence. Last year close to one third of children born here were born to unmarried mothers. This is undoubtedly going to affect our society profoundly.
I have spent the past 15 years working in "disadvantaged" communities. I have seen - and heard - more than enough evidence to convince me that single motherhood is indeed the chosen option of many young girls in these areas. Alas, what is attractive to the mid-teens only reveals itself for the poverty trap that it is a few years later. I would also like to mention the first cousin of this phenomenon, namely early school leaving and long-term unemployment for the males, and often, absentee fatherhood.
I believe that the appropriate term for this rapidly growing sub-strata of our society is "disincentivised". I also believe that the truly "disadvantaged" in our society are those who work for low to middle incomes, especially if they are married, own a house and have children. Such people, who should be the backbone of a normal, healthy society find themselves financially crucified every which way they turn.
Enough of the pieties, and the abuse. It's time for a vigorous, respectful debate on this whole issue. - Yours, etc.,
GERARD KELLY, Orwell Gardens, Rathgar, Dublin 6.
Madam, - As a respected organisation with 33 years' experience in the areas of one-parent families and crisis pregnancy we appreciate the opportunity for debate and dialogue on issues affecting our clients and members. We also appreciate the recent apologies from the Irishman's Diary and The Irish Times for the use of profane language directed at children.
However we regret that in his column of apology in Thursday's edition, Kevin Myers did not retract, but repeated, factual inaccuracies contained in his column last Tuesday.
It is very regrettable that the tens of thousands of one-parent families in Ireland who come in all shapes, sizes, ages and even income-brackets with a wide variety of experiences and needs were portrayed in such a consistently vicious, negative and inferior manner.
The generalisations that were drawn from US research and policy are completely inapplicable to an Irish situation due to significant policy, legal and cultural differences. These intellectually lazy inferences are unworthy of serious journalism and efforts at serious debate.
We are aware of extensive Irish and UK research which notes that what is important to children's well-being is the substance and relationships within families rather than their structure. This was completely ignored. This research consistently finds no significant differences in children's outcomes across family types.
As the EU Survey on Income and Living Conditions recently noted, one-parent families are the poorest family type and if you live in a one-parent family you are 3.5 times more likely to live in consistent poverty. This clearly displays that there are difficulties with our current social welfare system but those difficulties are certainly not concerned with the encouraging of young women to become solo parents. The Department of Social and Family Affairs will be conducting a review in this area later in the year and it welcomes submissions.
We are glad that Mr Myers, along with so many other people in Irish society, cares passionately about solo parents and their social welfare challenges. However rather than relying on anecdotal and prejudiced arguments we invite him to confer with the experts in this area such as the subjects themselves - one-parent families.
One Family was established as Cherish in 1972 by a courageous group of women and men to ensure that all children in our nation would be cherished equally. We now have an opportunity with the upcoming review of the Constitution to ensure that all children and all families in Ireland are treated equally.
We are inviting the many thousands of people who are tired of the blaming of one-parent families and who want to make sure that derogatory language is never again directed at children in our society to join us in a campaign that will be launched next Tuesday.
Finally, we respectfully request that the next time a columnist in The Irish Times decides to poke fun at our staff, he or she should at least get the name of our organisation correct. - Yours, etc.,
KAREN KIERNAN, Director, One Family, Lower Pembroke Street, Dublin 2.
Madam, - Those who read Kevin Myers are mostly his fans, none of whom would be children and not many would be unmarried mothers. Therefore, his remarks did not cause widespread hurt. Knowing the remarks to be hurtful RTÉ decided to broadcast them to the nation, so that virtually every child, mother, grandparent etc. heard them, and the hurt was multiplied several times. Since when has the repeating and broadcasting of an offending comment become a virtue? - Yours, etc.,
PAT HUGHES, Bird Avenue, Dublin 14.
Madam, - Kevin Myers has raised a serious issue of social policy. Are well-meaning efforts to support single parents promoting a culture of single parenthood? And what about the evidence of negative consequences for the individuals and for society?
It is a pity that on this occasion his language obscured the issue. But his language is the essence of his style. The fact remains that his courageous and unpopular stances sell this newspaper and serve the common good. - Yours, etc.,
LIAM FLANAGAN, Monkstown, Co Dublin.
Madam, - Kevin Myers has apologised (though to me it appears a well-hedged apology). The Irish Times has not. Your expression of regret is pusillanimous and, in the circumstances, insufficient.
As a journalist, and one who has in the past worked for The Irish Times, I have to question your editorial judgment in allowing Mr Myers's Diary piece through your system and onto the page. It should have been spiked. The editor has final responsibility for every word published and I think that, by publishing this piece in the language in which it was written, you failed to exercise your professional responsibility.
Given that you thus share responsibility with Mr Myers for the offensiveness of the piece, it seems to me that an apology, rather than regrets, from the editor herself, and an assurance against any repeat of such discriminatory, hate-inciting language in the paper are needed to set matters right (insofar as they can be). - Yours, etc.,
BASIL MILLER, Greystones, Co Wicklow.