Sir, – Prof Diarmaid Ferriter provided a largely positive review of my edited book Women and the Irish Revolution: Feminism, Activism, Violence ("Women and the Irish Revolution: Vital and valuable insights", Books, March 7th).
There are, however, some inaccurate and confused assertions in this review, which require correction.
Some select sentences from the book’s detailed introduction chapter, in particular, are taken out of context and rehashed in the review in a rather haphazard and cursory way.
First, Prof Ferriter’s contention that the book is not and should be “a celebration” of research and writing on Irish women’s history is erroneous and misleading. The introduction to this book patently discusses all the accomplishments and achievements in this field to date, as indeed do all of my international, peer-reviewed publications on Irish women conducted over a number of years.
Much of the introduction synthesises the work and contribution of pioneering and leading published scholars in this field for the last 40 years, a number of whom are contributors to the book. Any suggestion to the contrary is absurd.
Second, the widely acknowledged prevalence of heroic, masculine militarism in Irish revolutionary history and a need for “transformation” may be denied by this reviewer, but it is certainly not a “lazy” or “very dated” debate, as is suggested. Nor does exploring and critiquing this issue in a scholarly way negate in any way the tremendous growth of feminist scholarship and the achievements of outstanding scholars in the field. The book introduction names known publications on the Irish revolution up to the recent present that for decades failed to adequately include or even consider women’s history. Prof David Fitzpatrick’s Terror in Ireland is just one example cited. Indeed, the omission of women’s experience was graciously and publicly acknowledged by our late colleague, when I was invited to speak at the conference to mark his retirement from Trinity College Dublin in 2018. The reviewer is therefore wrong in stating he is not told what the sources that “airbrushed” women out of the narrative are; a number are fully referenced including in the footnotes and evidently discussed.
Third, the reviewer claims the contention that the fields of women’s history and revolutionary history merit parity of esteem “in equal measure” is not fully explained. However, the book’s introduction and my own later chapter in the book go to great lengths to demonstrate, for instance, that while women and men experienced fatalities and violence in the revolution differently, the particular violence women experienced was not given due recognition or parity for many decades in the historiography. Does such brutal, gender inequality one hundred years ago really require more explanation?
To quote the words of the great political scientist turned historian EH Carr in 1961, the idea that the privileged historian is in any sort of commanding position, “like a general taking a salute” is now outdated. Nonetheless gender inequality persists in Irish historical studies. The introduction to this book also includes a reminder that over 80 per cent of professors of history in Ireland are disproportionately men – a situation that does indeed suggest disciplinary “transformation” is required. – Yours, etc,
Prof LINDA CONNOLLY,
Director,
Social Sciences Institute,
Maynooth University.