Sir, – Minister for Minister for Children and Equality Roderic O’Gorman TD has developed a habit of setting up straw men (or women) to knock them down again. He originally told The Irish Times that “progressive” people would “have to explain” why they want to maintain the status quo “about a woman’s place being in the home” (News, January 1st).
Since then he appears to have realised that the Constitution makes no reference to “a woman’s place being in the home”.
So now he has a new line (“Referendums are our chance to do away with narrow views”, Opinion & Analysis, February 12th). He suggests that the present Constitution includes “the idea that mothers who choose to enter the workforce are in neglect of their duties at home”.
He seems to have misread again Section 41, which actually states that “The State shall endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.” It is a failure of his and earlier governments that they have not delivered better protection to poor parents who wish to have children and work outside the home.
Ciarán Murphy: Confidence slowly drains away as the All-Ireland dream dies
Sting operations, AI and a national database: How Irish investigators aim to tackle ‘explosion’ in online child sex abuse
Christmas TV and movie guide: the best shows and films to watch
Laura Kennedy: We like the ideal of Christmas. The reality, though, is often strained, sad and weird
Fathers and mothers each have duties within the home that give to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved. Instead of strengthening protections for them both, at a time when housing and childcare are so expensive, this Government wants to make changes that are ill-defined.
Does its reference to “care by members of a family” do anything for all “carers” in the usual sense of that word?
What are “durable relationships”? Mr O’Gorman’s version of what the proposal means, including that single parents (or does the Minister for Equality really mean just single mothers?) necessarily have “durable relationships”, is merely speculative.
They are toying with the Constitution again. It is progressive to reject such a proposal and to vote No to send it back for revision. – Yours, etc,
COLUM KENNY,
Professor Emeritus,
Dublin City University,
Dublin 9.
Sir, – Roderic O’Gorman writes that Article 41.2 “has delivered nothing for women in the 90 years since it was passed”. If the current article which places a specific obligation on the State “to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home” has failed to extract anything tangible from the Government for women, why is he so confident that the amendment, which places a less specific obligation on the State, will fare any better?
The new wording is undoubtedly more inclusive but it obligates the State merely to “support” the provision of care. There are no parameters like in the current Article to specify what a lack of support would look like. If a succession of governments, his own included, have “delivered nothing for women” from the relatively specific instruction already existing in Article 41.2, why should we believe him when he claims that the amendment’s less specific language “isn’t just symbolic” and will lead to a “progressive realisation of support for care within a family”? – Yours, etc,
DAMIAN BRUCE,
Dublin 18.
Sir, – As it stands, the Irish State is possibly one of the only countries in the world that recognises and places value on the mental load and emotional labour carried out by women in their homes, particularly those who are mothers. This is the invisible and often unappreciated work that is essential to ensure a happy and healthy home life and is almost exclusively borne by women.
Arguments that Article 41.2 has confined women to their homes and excluded their participation in paid employment, much less pursue a successful career, are simply not true. Surely, that is a failing of successive governments, not the Constitution.
The Constitution contains a direct recognition of the contribution of women, particularly mothers. This should not be thrown away, despite a need to recognise and fully support carers as a distinct group. – Yours, etc,
VICTORIA FARRELL,
Dublin 5.