Madam, - Your paper, rightly, affords Kevin Myers editorial latitude and a platform for social and political commentary. The value of this has been shown recently in his analysis of the peace process and the despicable nature of Sinn Féin/IRA. He has courageously added much needed balance to this debate and has done your paper and its readership a great service in doing so.
However, the issue of unmarried mothers is a good deal more complex than Sinn Féin's moral perversions or the Garda's inability to mount checkpoints near pubs, and demands a more thoughtful approach. Through his odious use of the word "bastard" in his Irishman's Diary of February 8th, Mr Myers has ensured that any attempt at reasoned debate on this issue will be met with the same response as attempts for reasoned debate on multiculturalism or immigration.
Yesterday you dedicated your Letters page and most of your Opinion section to apologies and damage limitation in an attempt to deal with the hurt caused by the use of the word "bastard", rather than discussing the issue Mr Myers had in his sights.
What you should apologise for is that you have lost the ability to debate this issue and that one of your best commentators has squandered his credibility through a thoughtless, crass comment which should have been edited out.
This is ironic, when one of his points was the lack of discipline some parents can have for their children. - Yours, etc.,
MARK McGRAIL,
Verschoyle Avenue,
Dublin 24.
Madam, - In 1964, as a staff writer with The Irish Times who specialised then in social inquiry, I wrote "No Birthright: a study of the Irish unmarried mother and her child", a series which took most of two months to research and occupied six half-pages of the newspaper.
Reprinted as a booklet, it became a text for sociology students in UCD, at a time when that science in Ireland had rarely stirred beyond a syllabus set by papal encyclicals. The series served as something of a catalyst in shaping new social supports and attitudes.
Times change, and journalism with them. Such exceptional investment of time and editorial space (on other inquiries, too: alcoholism, old age, young offenders, etc.) seemed appropriate to its era.
In a more clamorous age, shriller tactics may blunder. But The Irish Times will continue to lead, I feel sure, as a forum for constructive social debate. - Yours, etc,
MICHAEL VINEY,
Carrowniskey,
Co Mayo.
Madam, - How dare Kevin Myers stigmatise my beautiful child by calling anyone born out of wedlock a bastard? I started reading The Irish Times Letters and Opinion pages when I was about 12; how many 12-year-olds will have stumbled across Mr Myers's vile outpouring of hatred on Tuesday and now have a completely warped view of their value to society? He may have done more damage than he could possibly imagine.
Thank you, though, Madam, for publishing Kitty Holland's beautifully written article on growing up with parents who were not married. It is possibly the finest piece she has written. - Yours, etc.,
PÁDRAIG COLLINS,
Balgowlah,
New South Wales,
Australia.
Madam, - While one must be grateful for Kevin Myers's apology for offence caused by last Tuesday's Irishman's Diary, I'm sure many readers will have found the "unconditional apology" somewhat disingenuous.
Mr Myers claims that he does not perceive the word "bastard" to have any stigma attached to it. He also suggests that it was not his intention to abuse or insult anyone. Yet in the very piece that caused such offence he follows his first use of the term "bastard" with these words: "Ah. You didn't like the term bastard? No, I didn't think you would." In asking this question of the reader (and answering it too) Mr Myers is clearly acknowledging that the term is contentious and shocking, and that there is a great deal of stigma attached to it.
Mr Myers also admits that he is fully aware that certain readers would not "like the term bastard", so how then can he claim that any insult caused was unintentional? Much as I applaud the apology, I just don't buy the feigned innocence. - Yours, etc.,
JOHN GEORGE BYRNE,
O'Curry Place,
Limerick.
Madam, - The sentiments expressed by your columnist Kevin Myers have been resoundingly and eloquently refuted by many of your readers, political figures and other journalists over the last two days.
As someone who looks forward to the weekly articles from another of your contributors, Shalini Sinha, I am struck by the stark contrast in how these two contributors use language. Ms Sinha urges us to value ourselves as unique beings, to cherish our potential for creativity and to explore the routes for its expression throughout our lives. She uses the language of love to elevate us in our own eyes, thereby increasing our love for ourselves and for others. It follows that we could grow into a more tolerant and inclusive society as a result.
Mr Myers too often uses language as his chosen weapon of hatred. He's good at it of course - but talent as a wordsmith give no one the right to hurl such abuse. He seeks to divide by emphasising the differences (real or perceived) between people, sowing seeds of resentment and anger. I am sometimes left with the impression that his sole agenda is to express hatred, repeatedly targeting some old favourites and missing no opportunity to have a swipe at as many as possible. Surely this is just tabloid journalism, penned by a more able hand?
At least he has apologised for the hurt he has caused last Tuesday, but does he really believe that the radical welfare reforms proposed in the United States are going to work in the interest of mother-only families? The question we need to be asking is why motherhood at a young age appears to be one of the few options some young women see themselves as having. The answers are surely much more complex than any Mr. Myers has come up with to date. -
Yours, etc.,
HELEN McCORMACK,
Philipsburgh Avenue,
Dublin 3.
Madam, - Kevin Myers was right; his language wasn't. However, choice of words is not the real issue here; indeed, arguing about the use of unfortunate terminology offers an opportunity to avoid dealing with the problem.
The increase in the number of children being born into single-parent families and the pernicious consequences of this trend are legitimate subject matter for debate. The cost and size of welfare payments alone would make it so.
Although the column in question could have done with more editing, Myers was substantially correct. The excessive generosity of the welfare state acts to discourage the virtues of self-reliance while rewarding poor choices; much of the rise in anti-social behaviour can be traced to the breakdown of the family; and discussion of these problems is greatly hindered by the fulminations of the NGO outrage industry.
If a tenth of the time spent complaining about insensitive language was spent addressing the problem itself we'd all be a good deal better off. - Yours, etc.,
RICHARD WAGHORNE,
Rathfarnham,
Dublin 14.
Madam, - I was born a bastard, and could care not a whit about the term. But in writing as he chose to on Tuesday, Kevin Myers has achieved only one thing: diverting public attention from a valuable debate on real social issues to a slagging match over mere semantics.
Shame on your diarist for trivialising an important issue. - Yours, etc.,
PATRICIA REILLY,
Aughaloughan,
Co Cavan.
Madam, - What a pity that your excellent supplement on trees was overshadowed by the verbal pollution of Kevin Myers. - Yours, etc.,
KEVIN J. HUTCHINSON,
Ballyroan Road,
Abbeyleix,
Co Laois.
Madam, - Kevin Myers is provocatively honest. The Joe Duffy programme on Wednesday had a predictable range of people who claimed to be offended by Myers's article but could not offer a cogent explanation of why they felt that way.
Mr Myers's article was about the social foolhardiness of encouraging the career of unmarried mothering, and about the blind dishonesty of the rest of us in society who tolerate the disingenuous nature of the support given by the State. I believethat his use of the word "bastard" was intentionally provocative - to bring attention to his article, and for no other reason. He made too many allusions to the term, and so distracted from his argument. The offended callers to the radio were trying to rally opposition to Mr Myers by giving the impression that he was targeting children - a powerful and dishonest ploy by them. He was not, in my view, targeting children: he was in fact arguing for a better family life than most children of young single mothers are likely to experience no matter how genuinely loved they may be.
I believe that Myers is positing a view that this society is creating a social problem for the future by providing financial attractions to young women to become professional single mothers. The children of these mothers have a right that a more responsible approach be taken to their procreation - by having a father figure as well a mother figure. Mr Myers is a champion of these children's rights. He did not criticise parents who are single through circumstance. He was not moralising.
Mr Myers criticises all kinds of dishonest groups - the IRA, crooked politicians, low journalists, lazy police, and so on. We need people such as him.. Without his type of comment the smug and the selfish find comfort.
Myers deserves support; I declare mine for him and his editor. - Yours, etc.,
JOHN LARKIN,
Sandymount,
Dublin 4.
A chara, - I have read The Irish Times for more years than I care to remember but in the space of one week your newspaper has reached new lows in my eyes.
Your columnist Kevin Myers wrote an article on February 1st in which he referred to Mary Lou McDonald MEP as having "increased in size". He then continued to refer to her as "Big Mac" throughout his column and, indeed, has used the term since. It was a personal attack and bore absolutely no relevance to the topic in question. It was an appalling example of journalism totally inappropriate to a reputable newspaper.
As if that was not a sufficient low for the week, Myers managed to reach even lower depths on February 8th. His disgusting references to "mothers of bastards" throughout his piece are grossly insulting to single mothers and their children throughout Ireland. Indeed, it is grossly insulting to any fair minded person. The terminology used was, once again, totally inappropriate to your newspaper.
While I appreciate that some journalists will always wish to portray themselves as the print equivalent of those horrific "shock jocks" to be found on some American radio stations, I would respectfully suggest that The Irish Times should not create a platform for their rantings. - Is mise,
E.F. FANNING,
Churchtown,
Dublin 14.
Madam, - Oh the irony of it. "Saying sorry is not apologising," writes Kevin Myers (Weekend Review, February 5th). "I am very, very sorry," says Kevin Myers (An Irishman's Diary, February 10th). We now have the words; what of the deeds? An appropriately painful donation to a relevant charity - or better still "community service" with a group working with single parents, perhaps? - Yours, etc.,
PETER O'CALLAGHAN,
St John's Avenue,
Belfast 7.
Madam, - Well done to Kevin Myers on his apology. I hope it will undo some of the hurt caused. Although I'm what Mr Myers might call a limp-wristed liberal, I think it would be unfair to pursue him any further on this issue.
All functioning democracies need unfettered debate, albeit in non-offensive language; so I hope we can avoid a witch-hunt and return to a civilised conversation on some of the right-wing stances we lefty whiners love to get excited about, such as social Darwinism, freewheeling capitalism and reckless unilateralism, - Yours, etc.,
ENDA KILROY,
Whitehall,
Dublin 9.