Madam, - It was with shock and anger that I read Mary Robinson's assertion that women who forgo paid employment to become full time mothers are "copping out".
This sentiment is profoundly insulting to those women who, often at great personal and economic cost, stay at home because they believe it to be in the best interests of their families. These women do so in order to have maximum influence on their children's upbringing and development into well-rounded, caring citizens.
Should it be compulsory for all educated women to wake their children at dawn and consign them to creches for countless hours, enjoying only passing encounters with their offspring, in order to perform the only work deemed worthwhile - that involving dollars and cents? Is full-time motherhood a menial role to be reserved for those seen as incapable of meaningful contribution to the real world? If this is to become the accepted wisdom then we truly will have evolved from a society into an economy.
Fortunately, tens of thousands of Irish women disagree and find ample employment for their skills and education in the myriad tasks and challenges confronting the full-time homemaker. It is utterly unworthy of a supposed champion of Mná na hÉireann to denigrate their role in this way. - Yours, etc,
PATRICIA DUNNE, Orlynn Park, Lusk, Co Dublin.
Madam, - As the holder of a Yale PhD who has chosen to be at home with my child, I found Mary Robinson's remarks on American women "copping out" highly insulting (The Irish Times, November 19th). Would it not be more productive to work to build a society where women's professional and personal commitments are valued, rather than criticising decisions that women make? Why shouldn't a woman be able to stay home with her children while they were young and later return to meaningful employment?
Such an approach would honour a woman's contribution to society, the economy, and to her family, rather than valuing her professional accomplishments alone. Surely this presents a more rounded picture of a woman's, or indeed anyone's, potential. - Yours, etc,
MARY NOLL VENABLES, Bachelor's Quay, Cork.
Madam, - Former president Mary Robinson suggests that bright, educated women who abandon the workforce to raise their children are "copping out". Doubtless she is right to the extent that the loss of such talented women to medicine, law or commerce or means that their work must now be carried out by, on average, less competent women or men.
If all women were to drop out of the workforce, the talent quotient would effectively be halved - assuming, as seems reasonable on the evidence, that average ability is roughly equal in the two sexes.
That said, it is hard to avoid the implication in her words that the loss to the workforce is a loss to society at large. To put it another way, it is a loss to the totality of human wellbeing. This is hardly the case.
There is a vast and compelling body of psychological research evidence to the effect that a great deal of human happiness and wellbeing is a product of adequate parenting. Those children who have benefited from more adequate parenting skills reap lifelong dividends, as in turn does society at large. Parenting is a highly demanding and complex task to which human talent is at least as applicable as it is to medicine, law, commerce or any other remunerated branch of human endeavour.
The energies and talent which the women in question are withdrawing from the workplace they are investing in the parenting process.
Mrs Robinson's logic betrays a deeply erroneous, if common, assumption: that child-rearing activities can just as adequately be carried out by lesser mortals, that parenting is essentially a low-skill job. The implication is that society is best served when more capable individuals do not waste their talents by devoting them to caring for their children.
Mrs. Robinson did make the valid point that capable women should seek to have society adjust to their needs rather than just accept that to have a family they need to drop out of the workforce. Seeking such societal change does not, however, preclude the option to leave the workforce temporarily to raise a family. From their actions it is clear that many women want to do exactly that.
It is wrong to condemn them as "copping-out" as if they are being selfish and showing disregard for the needs of society at large.Putting family before work should be encouraged and not frowned upon by influential figures such as Mary Robinson. - Yours, etc,
MARTIN O'GRADY, Farranwilliam, Ardfert, Co Kerry.
Madam, - I am appalled by Mary Robinson's simplistic comments regarding the retention of highly educated women in the workforce. While her comments refer to the US, she also hints at their relevance to Ireland. Mary Robinson fought the good fight for women's rights in the 1970s and 1980s but she fails to appreciate one of the key rights that women actually won during that period - choice.
Women are no longer obliged to leave the workforce on marriage and motherhood, but they can do so if they wish or can afford to. And, yes, this holds true even for women with higher degrees. This is not a cop-out. It is merely a choice, and given today's economy and society, often a rational one.
There are some women who see fulfilling their potential as a lifetime goal, a marathon rather than a sprint. This may require continued adjustment and re-adjustment of roles throughout life and career, even when they have, as Mary Robinson so obliquely puts it, a partner who is willing to share the home situation. Mary Robinson's comments are unhelpful and do not contribute to any debate on the complex issue that is work/life/family balance. - Yours, etc,
ORLA LANE, Upper Mount Pleasant Avenue, Dublin 6.