Sir, – The words “mothering and motherhood” seem to trigger Kathy Sheridan (“Government made a hames of it, but where were the Men for Mothers brigade until now?”, Opinion & Analysis, March 13th).
She also referred to “the vacuous ‘mother’ argument” used during the No campaign.
Was she implying a lack of intelligence on behalf of those who rejected the care amendment, where the motivation for a No vote was to retain the reference to “mothers” in the Constitution?
I hadn’t considered “mothering and motherhood” to be off limits since my mother spared her blushes by telling me, when I was a child, that babies were found under a head of cabbage at the end of the garden. Is Kathy Sheridan similarly embarrassed by the mere mention of mothers and how we become mothers?
:quality(70):focal(2366x1642:2376x1652)/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/irishtimes/O5WHDMZFQNEWRF2SJBCKLXTUBE.jpg)
:quality(70)/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/irishtimes/DAHQDRRLFFHEZEM3J7RBVIK3BA.jpg)
:quality(70)/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/irishtimes/6NGGCHBVNNFZBJ3CX3FVIKYDD4.JPG)
:quality(70):focal(2308x1039:2318x1049)/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/irishtimes/QIPCMHENWKHQQ5IINBM2WWGSQQ.jpg)
We owe the survival of the human species to mothers, and fathers, and surely that’s worthy of recognition in our founding document?
Being “conservative” is often described as tending to favour law, duty and structure, principles that were not served by the proposed wording of the amendments that were put before the people.
Thankfully the majority of voters recognised the real vacuousness when they saw it. – Yours, etc,
HELEN McGOLDRICK,
Dublin 11.
Sir, – Kathy Sheridan’s suggestion that the men and women of Ireland who voted to keep the words woman and mother in the Constitution did so not because they have genuinely intelligent, practical, moral and ethical reasons of their own to do so, but as a “camouflage for a war against transgenderism and gender identity”, and because they are “far right” or “anti-woke”, is frankly insulting, patronising and condescending.
The people have spoken. You may not like what they’ve said, but that doesn’t mean that they are wrong.
As a mother (a word which irritates your columnist no end), a woman, a feminist, and a realist, I and thousands of other women like me are not afraid to acknowledge that motherhood and mothering are really important and are only done by women (regardless of how many genders Kathy Sheridan believes there are).
The argument that our work should be recognised and protected by the Constitution is not “vacuous”. – Yours, etc,
CATHERINE MONAGHAN,
Ashford,
Co Wicklow.
Sir, – Kathy Sheridan seems to want to blame 1.1 million No voters for the fact that a handful of far-right men are attempting to attach themselves to women’s issues. The far right have always and will always glom on to whatever causes will bring them profile and attention, and your columnist has delivered on both.
Gathering to celebrate our victory does not mean we are enabling the far right. Recognising mothers in the Constitution does not mean elevating mothers over anybody else. Fighting to maintain the words we use to define the female sex does not mean we are engaged in a “war against transgenderism”. Protecting our sex-based rights does not mean we are projecting “pent-up hatred” toward anyone.
Ignoring bad-faith actors who are copying our homework does not mean we are responsible for whatever they do next.
Perhaps your columnist might heed her own reminder that “functioning human brains are capable of accommodating several ideas at the same time”. – Yours, etc,
HELEN DUIGNAN,
Monkstown,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – Fintan O’Toole is correct when he writes that the rapid collapse in religious belief left a void at the heart of our society (“Invited to replace a potent 1930s vision with a wishy-washy 2020s gesture, voters said No”, Opinion & Analysis, March 11th).
However, science would not necessarily support his view that religion is consigned to the past. Lindy’s Law postulates that the future life expectancy of an idea is proportional to its current age.
Given that Christianity has been in situ for over 2,000 years, it is more likely that the current unpopularity of religion is temporary, and that people will again seek meaning once they realise the emptiness of the alternatives.
Last week’s referendums may well have been the point at which the tide has begun to turn. Faced with a choice between retaining Christian values and inserting open-ended riddles into our Constitution, the electorate’s decision was very clear. – Yours, etc,
DAVID GEARY,
Limerick.
Sir, – One of the unexpected upsides of political parties being on the wrong side of public opinion is just how quickly they take down their Yes posters. – Yours, etc,
DAVID CURRAN,
Knocknacarra,
Galway.
Sir, – “Yes, I will Yes,
No, I wrote No”. – Yours, etc,
SÉAMUS DOOLEY,
Dublin 8.