Sir, – Given that a home is now a place of work for both men and women, mothers and fathers, all having equal employment rights, Maria Steen’s defence of Article 41.2 of the Constitution where a woman is subservient to men is difficult to justify (“The Constitution should continue to acknowledge the work women do in the home”, Opinion & Analysis, October 18th).
All the whataboutery on gender ideology doesn’t change the fact that the current constitutional wording regarding women in the home is archaic, sexist, demeaning and quite frankly unbecoming of a modern, pluralist society. – Is mise,
TOM McELLIGOTT,
Listowel,
Four ways to use less electricity with your Christmas lights
‘I am embarrassed for him’: Roy Keane scarlet for Kyle Walker before Manchester turns red
Mario Rosenstock: ‘Everyone lost money in the crash. I was no different, but it never bothered me’
Irish rail disruption hell: ‘There has not been one day without delays on the train’
Co Kerry.
Sir, – Maria Steen is correct to point out that Article 41.2 does not state that a woman’s place is in the home. She correctly identifies that the article acknowledge the invaluable work that women do in the home. Few could dispute that this work deserves recognition. However, where I disagree with Ms Steen is her apparent view that this work is only women’s work. Today, we see an ever-increasing number of men taking a more active role within the home. Is it right that our Constitution refuses to acknowledge the value of that work? In 1937, when the Constitution was enacted, it is factually accurate to record that most woman did not work outside the home. The Constitution rightly asserted that work within the home had value. The value of that work has not changed, but the people doing it has. Is it wrong for our Constitution to reflect that change? Is the work a man does in the home not equally worthy of constitutional recognition? I suggest the proposal to amend Article 41.2 to give recognition to all person who provide work within the home simply reflects the reality of our current society. More fundamentally, Maria Steen seems to have missed the point of the proposed amendment. Women are not losing any constitutional recognition. Instead, that recognition is being offered to all to perform such work. She says that, “All woman invest time in their homes, not just those who are at home full-time”. Is that not equally true of men? She also says, “a woman makes a house a home”. What about the dwelling of two gay men, is that not a home? What about the dwelling of a widower, is that not a home? Contrary to what she claims, nothing is being assigned to a “rubbish heap”. It is simply being proposed to give recognition to all people – irrespective of sex or gender – who do work within the home. Valuing men does not devalue women.
SIMON DONAGH,
Dublin 8.
Sir, – I agree with Maria Steen. My wife started her paid work at 6am on Monday and finished at 2pm. Then she started her unpaid work immediately and finished at about 10pm. I worked about 10 hours in my job. We have four young adults at home and that is hard work. The service my wife has done for this State is unmeasurable. She should, as all other mothers should, be paid for this. When will Ireland move into the modern era and treat mothers with respect? – Yours, etc,
PAUL DORAN,
Dublin 22.