Sir, Kathy Sheridan’s comments articulating the argument built around the term ‘mother’ as being meaningless, in relation to the ‘No’ campaign, appear to denote an accusation of intellectual deficiency targeted at those who opposed the care amendment. These were the individuals who voted ‘No’ to maintain the mentioning of ‘mothers’ within our nation’s primary document. One might inquire if Kathy Sheridan is equally discomforted by the utterance of the term ‘mothers’ and the process through which we transition into them, as my own mother was too shy to inform me about childbirth, opting instead for a charming tall tale of infants discovered beneath cabbages in our backyard.
It’s important to celebrate mothers, and fathers, for they are responsible for the continuation of our species, and such acknowledgement is definitely deserving of a mention in our foundational text. Also, conservatism often implies an inclination towards the preservation of law, duty, and order; values that were not promoted via the proposed amendment wording set to the public vote. Thankfully, the lack of substance was correctly identified by the most vote receivers.
It’s rather offensive, patronising, and disrespectful for Kathy Sheridan to insinuate that Irish individuals who chose to keep references to women and mothers in the constitution might have done so not due to their personal, rational, and morally grounded reasons, but as a cover-up for an agenda against transgender and gender identity issues, or because they subscribe to far-right ideologies or are ‘anti-woke’. The public voice has resonated. Their views may not be palatable to all, but that is not indicative of their incorrectness.
Yours,
HELEN McGOLDRICK,
Dublin 11.
The role of mothers and motherhood is of undeniable importance to me and many women like me — a mother, feminist, realist, and female. We believe that our labour should be recognised and safeguarded constitutionally, in contradiction to columnist Kathy Sheridan’s accusations of vacuum clinging.
Addressing Kathy Sheridan’s critiques, it seems she aims to vilify the 1.1 million No voters, attributing their actions to far-right men’s attempt to attach themselves to women’s matters. These far-right activists frequently manipulate social causes to gain notoriety and attention. Our victory celebration doesn’t mean we are legitimising the far-right. Advocating for constitutional recognition of mothers doesn’t suggest a supremacy over others. Our fight for maintaining our gender-specific language is not a war against transgender people. The engagement in defending our rights based on sex doesn’t imply latent hatred towards anyone.
Turning a blind eye to insincere individuals who mimic our actions doesn’t make us accountable for their future actions. Perhaps Kathy can remember her own advice that intelligent human minds can entertain multiple thoughts concurrently.
Moving on, I agree with Fintan O’Toole’s observation that the swift decline of religious beliefs has created a societal vacuum. But his theory that religion may soon become extinct is not scientifically backed. According to ‘Lindy’s Law’, an idea’s future lifespan is directly proportional to its current age. Christianity’s 2,000-year-existence suggests that the current religious unpopularity might be temporary, and individuals will eventually return to seek meaning after understanding the emptiness of the alternatives.
The potential shift in the tide might just have been triggered by the referendums held last week. The public had to decide between keeping Christian ideals or making room for open-ended questions in our Constitution and their choice was unequivocally clear.
Kind regards,
David Geary, Limerick.
Sir, an unanticipated advantage of political organisations holding dissenting views from the majority is the rapid removal of their ‘Yes’ campaigning materials.
Kind regards,
David Curran, Knocknacarra, Galway.
Sir, “Affirmative, my answer is affirmative, negative, I wrote negative”.
Kind regards,
Séamus Dooley, Dublin 8.