Category Archives: Uncategorized

The Global Women’s Strike in Ireland calls for a Yes/No vote (#VoteYesNo) on 8 March:

YES to extending the definition of the family in the Irish Constitution but NO to the care referendum.

On the 39^th amendment,[1] the vote can only be YES. Despite an unhelpfully vague reference to ‘durable relationships’ (how will that be defined?), the new wording is more inclusive than the present definition based on marriage. Time must be called, once and for all, on the sadistic, sexist shaming of single mothers whose babies were killed or stolen while they were forced into slave labour in Mother and Baby Homes and Magdalen Laundries. And time must be called on the discriminatory and racist stereotypes which deny LGBTQI+ and immigrant families.

On the 40^th amendment,[2] the care referendum, there are compelling reasons to vote NO. For decades we and others have campaigned to amend the current article 41.2,[3] updating the sexist language while, crucially, retaining and strengthening the obligation of the State to support caring and carers. The Citizen’s Assembly gave voice to this grassroots perspective and the Oireachtas[4] committee found the words: ‘The State shall, therefore, take reasonable measures to support care within and outside the home and Family.’[5] This was a break-through for everyone receiving and/or providing care, unwaged and waged, who now are both left to struggle.

Outrageously, the government has robbed us all of this vital, strengthening support by replacing a legally enforceable ‘obligation’ with an unenforceable ‘striving’. As increasing numbers of people are pointing out: they are proposing to remove the only constitutional recognition of caring work that mainly women do and replace it with a patronizing, sexist and discriminatory proposal which assumes women will continue to do this work without any payment or other resources (though women are no longer named), and those of us with disabilities will be denied our right to the support we need to live with dignity and to be able to choose who provides our care and support. This is the same government that has refused to ratify the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities. We say No to the slavery of invisible unwaged work and forced dependence! No to Victorian charity! No to the Workhouse or the Asylum!

The government’s timing is deeply suspect: a case before the Supreme Court challenging the reduction of carer’s allowance is testing the legal obligation of the State under the current wording of article 41.2. The court described the issues raised by the case as ‘of systemic importance to carers’ (Irish Times, 13/02/24). Instead of waiting for the ruling (the hearing is in April), the government is rushing through a vote on deleting the article – what kind of justice is that for the mother and her son at the heart of that case, and for all of us? And they have chosen International Women’s Day to slap us in the face!

We must wait for the judgement of the Supreme Court but since the government has refused to postpone the referendum until then, we must vote NO to their discriminatory language which denies mothers, other carers and all who need support, the resources we are entitled to, in the family and outside.

We are not the only ones calling for a Yes/No vote. The national Free Legal Advice Centres, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, Justice for Magdalenes and a number of disability groups are also calling for a NO vote on the care referendum. A new disability rights network has formed for this purpose and Sinn Féin has said that, if they are in government after the next election and the vote is NO, they will revert to the Citizen’s Assembly wording and re-run the referendum. A NO vote is not a vote for the Ireland of the past but rather away from it. We must demand a better future.

Nothing can express better the public outrage at the government’s duplicity than the voices of those, from many sectors, who have spoken out against the government’s wording of the care referendum. We quote some of them here:

VOX POPULI: excerpts from letters, speeches and articles critical of and even opposed to the government wording on the care article taken to referendum on 8 March 2024[6]

We are being asked to vote on the abolition of Article 41.2 a month before the Supreme Court has an opportunity to consider what, in fact, the clause does mean for those providing full-time care in the home. Why?…The democratic thing to do would be to allow the Supreme Court to rule, enabling voters to make better informed choices on the referendum proposals. The referendum should be deferred until after the Supreme Court judgment. –  Dublin, Irish Times

[T]he Constitution is not the place for aspirational waffle. Also it’s poorly timed given the Supreme Court has recently agreed to hear a case on whether 41.2 actually does confer enforceable rights. –  Twitter

[I’m] a member of the Citizens’ Assembly on Gender Equality… I’m also a full-time carer. For two years we worked…with many legal experts on the wording…I find myself unable to support what I hand-on-heart supported 100%, as the onus is being put on the family of which most carers are women. I don’t have family to take care of my child after I die. So will he end up in a home, after fighting all his 22 years for services and listening to service providers talking about independence? The wording needs to go back to what the assembly proposed… – Anonymous, a member of the Citizens’ Assembly on Gender Equality, The Journal

[T]he word ‘strive’…is such a weak concept, and if past experience is anything to go by, meaningless. –  Galway, a full-time carer for his wife, The Journal

Article 42 isn’t aimed at bettering the lives of disabled people, older people, or anyone in dire need of State support. It places continued responsibility for support on family members who are women in the main…As a disabled person, I will not be patronised and ignored. I will make my voice heard. I will vote No. – Co Clare, Irish Times

Last year, the Government set up the ‘Basic Income for the Arts’ scheme whereby workers in that sector receive a basic income paid from the public purse. Micheál Martin[7] said at its launch that ‘We need to invest in that which sustains us’. I am baffled as to why women’s groups – and women journalists – are not calling on the Government to make good the Constitution’s declaration that women who choose to work in the home give to the State ‘a support without which the common good cannot be achieved’ and demand that the Government pay women in the home a similar basic income. – Co Wicklow, Irish Times

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. –   Dublin, Irish Times

The Government’s refusal to accept the wording of the Citizens’ Assembly…smacks of an attempt to embed neoliberal politics into the Constitution and replace a rights-based approach to disability with a Victorian charity model. If this referendum passes, I will go to my grave haunted by the fear of Ciarán, my grandson, ending up in the workhouse or its neoliberal equivalent. –  Kilkenny, The Journal

I do not want the very small acknowledgement of my role and my work in the home to be removed from our Constitution.
Neither do I want the article to be replaced with gender-neutral waffle so that we can all pretend to be living in a perfect world where domestic work, the bearing, feeding and care of children, and the care when it’s needed of family elders and other dependents is shared equally between men and women. It isn’t! We all know it isn’t; the 2022 census showed that 90 per cent of people filling this role were women…
Instead of abolishing or amending this article, why don’t we hold the State to it? –  Co Wicklow, Irish Times

The process of engaging with…state bodies to access care and support is, as any carer will tell you, nothing short of harrowing…For Roderic O’Gorman[8] to gushingly announce that this referendum will allow me to sue over this kind of mess is just insulting. Please support carers. We do not want charity. We want rights. – Anonymous, a carer for their 20-year-old son, The Journal

As a lifelong feminist, I canvassed widely for the Marriage Equality and Right to Choose referendums. I expected to be canvassing in favour of this one too and am heartbroken that I find myself voting no to 42B. The wording not only disappoints, it terrifies me. It deliberately obliges NOTHING from the State. It deliberately assigns the locus of care to the home and the duty of care to the family. It deliberately allows the HSE[9] and other Departments to use the Article as an excuse to deny. If I die before my partner, it leaves my partner with no right to care outside the family. It leaves my grandson and his family with no rights to care or to services… – Kilkenny, a carer for her partner and a helper to her son, who is a full-time carer for her grandson, The Journal

My youngest son was diagnosed privately with autism at age two…I left my job to care for him. I was a preschool teacher…I have had to source and fund private speech and language therapy, occupational therapy and other therapies to give him a good chance at life…Parents already have to go to court to vindicate their child’s rights. A change of wording in the Constitution to pure lip service. Another act of virtue signaling by an out-of-touch government. –  Cork, a carer for her two sons, The Journal

As a father of two autistic children, it will be a no from me…What keeps me awake? Fear. The fear of what will happen to my 12-year-old boy when I’m gone whether that’s now or in 40 years. The State doesn’t care a jot…This entire referendum is a sham. – The Journal

A NO from me as a carer for 28 years…involved in support of those caring for almost 40 years. Anyone who votes in agreement with this wording is doing a terrible disservice to family carers. Every person voting has been a carer, will be a carer, or will need care during their lifetime. – The Journal

[T]hey are expecting us to vote blind and fight it out in court, they refuse to publish the minutes of the committee that drew up the wording so they are hiding something, and they are absolving themselves and the HSE from any responsibility towards carers or disabled people – The Journal

[I]t is essential to ensure that any Constitutional amendments do not inadvertently undermine the financial aid or support mechanisms crucial for women to make authentic choices about their familial and professional responsibilities. – Irish Times

It’s not Article 41.2 that has ‘delivered nothing for women…’, it is all the governments that failed to deliver on the promise of the article that no mother shall be ‘obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home’. –  Dublin, Irish Times

Instead of strengthening protections for [mothers and fathers] at a time when housing and childcare are so expensive…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. – Dublin, Irish Times

I contacted the disability services manager…to find out what the plan now was for my adult son… [The social worker] asked whether he has a sister to which I replied ‘Yes’, …then asked: ‘Well then, what are you worried about? She will look after him when you die.’…[T]he majority of carers in the home, who are unpaid carers, are women and girls and siblings. This Article…which makes no reference to other supports in the community or outside the home, gives constitutional expression to that paternalistic and disempowering approach. – Senator Tom Clonan

All we appear to be missing from the Yes/Yes campaigns is a picture of a large green bus with ‘€350 million for Carers’ on the side. –  Irish Times

[T]he proposed wording…may be worse than useless: a gesture that in fact indicates the State’s complete lack of intention to create the changes without which women will never be fully equal citizens. – Fintan O’Toole, Irish Times

[H]aving put all that emphasis on the fact that what people will get is ‘care’ (not rights, choice, resources) it then only says that it will strive to support it. This gives no extra rights to carers. –  Twitter

As a social worker, I already know families up and down the country who are abandoned to provide full care which the State ‘strives to support’…Vote No.
NGOs who acknowledge wording is inadequate now suggest that a vote for something is better than nothing. Please remind them the onus is on the Govt to win the vote – not on the public to vote for weak proposals. – Twitter

As someone who grew up not knowing my identity or family of origin simply because I was born outside of marriage & adopted, I’ve lived the consequences of how family is defined in our Constitution. But I’m so disappointed…the proposed definition of care doesn’t pass muster. If you vote yes, you’re voting to leave people behind. – Twitter

The wording is paternalistic and is toxic to the rights of people with disabilities and carers…And yet so many NGOs and political parties…are settling for this…Reject, and reword with rights and respect for the dignity and autonomy of people with disabilities. – Dublin, Irish Times

The referendum wording…institutionalises people requiring care and support in the family home…and removes choice in how we are supported, exposes us to abuse by family carers and is contrary to the UN convention on rights of disabled people. – Twitter

There’s a very obvious effort to basically oppose any state of affairs where there could be any justiciable obligation on the State to actually provide care. Now, by justiciable here, I mean just simply something you could actually sue the State for. Okay? So words like ‘strive’, just like the word ‘endeavour’, they’re specifically chosen to avoid justiciable legal obligation. – Constitutional Law expert Dr Eoin Daly, Echo Chambers Podcast

The failure to follow the advice of both the Citizen’s Assembly on Gender Equality and the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Gender Equality to include both care within the home and wider community is a lost opportunity for the value of care in all its forms, the vast majority of which is provided by women… – Owen Reidy, General Secretary ICTU

Why do we have a Constitution if we do not put parameters and obligations on governments to do things that are at the very basic level essential for society? – Bríd Smith TD

‘Strive’ does not reflect the 81% of the citizens’ assembly members who preferred the word ‘oblige’. – Réada Cronin TD

De Valera’s State and McQuaid’s church…wrote blatant sexism into the Constitution, but what the Government is proposing to replace that with is disgraceful.
[A] legal obligation would open the door to improved carer’s allowance, improved foster care allowance, provision of better childcare and provision of better services for the elderly, people with disabilities and many others. – Mick Barry TD

The sealing of the mother and baby home records and the redress scheme, which is a disaster for survivors, show just how serious this Government takes its responsibility to address the State’s historic and current role in controlling women’s bodies and lives…
Some 98% of full-time carers are women. Some 98% of childcare staff are female. The hourly wage of childcare sector staff is 43.5% below the average national wage. Almost 80% of childcare workers do not have sick pay. Some 90% of childcare workers do not have a private pension. Some 65% of childcare workers do not have paid maternity leave. If the huge role women play in providing care, both paid and unpaid, in Ireland is not recognised, valued and supported, we are ignoring the reality of women’s lives in our society. – Joan Collins TD

How do we create the conditions in which a parent of either sex can be at home and not be forced out into a market by the demands of a neoliberal approach to society that has led us to the precipice with climate change and wars? That is a debate worth having. – Catherine Connolly TD

[E]conomic justice should animate the debate about care. The implicit balance for the last few decades between formal (paid) and informal (unpaid) care was all wrong. – Gerard Quinn, Prof Emeritus, University of Galway, former UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Irish Times

Free Legal Advice Centres (FLAC) supported the family amendment but described the care amendment as ‘ineffective’, ‘implicitly sexist’ and potentially compromising of the rights of people with disabilities… The Independent Living Movement Ireland (ILMI) confirmed it has withdrawn from the equality coalition, an alliance of civil society groups campaigning for equality, ‘as we are not in a position to endorse a Yes/Yes campaign based on the realisation of disabled people’s rights and fully implementing the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities’. – Irish Times 20/02/24

Sinn Féin promises to re-run referendums should they fail. Mary Lou McDonald sharply criticised the wording proposed by the Government, and the timing of the referendum – while urging a dual Yes vote. ‘Should this fail, the question we would put would be the wording as per the Citizens’ Assembly…That’s what should be happening now.’ – Irish Times, 21/02/24

---

[1] The government’s proposed wording for the 39^th amendment involves altering article 41.1 to insert ‘whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships’ after mention of ‘the Family’ and amending article 41.3 to delete ‘on which the Family is founded’ after mention of ‘the institution of Marriage’.

[2] The government’s proposed wording for the 40^th amendment involves deleting article 41.2 completely and inserting a new article 42B which states:

The State recognizes that the provision of care, by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, and shall strive to support such provision.

[3] The current wording of Article 41.2 states:

1. In particular, the State recognizes that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved. 2. The State shall, therefore, 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. 

[4] All-party parliamentary committee.

[5] In 2022, following the recommendation of the Citizen’s Assembly, an Oireachtas committee proposed this amendment to 41.2:

1. The State recognises that care within and outside the home and Family gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved. 2. The State shall, therefore, take reasonable measures to support care within and outside the home and Family.

[6] Dates and details of publication are available on request.

[7] The Tánaiste (Deputy Prime Minister)

[8] The Irish government Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth

[9] Health Service Executive (the State’s health service)

As feminists living across the island of Ireland, we wish to express our heartfelt solidarity with our courageous sisters and comrades in Rojava as their project for women’s freedom is under attack. Please know that as the fascist Turkish state attempts to isolate, dispossess and brutalise the communities of the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria, they will only serve to strengthen our collective resistance and resolve.

 

You stood with us as we fought to repeal the 8th Amendment. You visited us in Ireland and generously shared your knowledge so we could learn from your struggles and victories. You invited and warmly welcomed us into your communities, demonstrating how a feminist society could be organised in practice, something we had only previously imagined.

 

Let us be unequivocal, an attack on the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria is an attack on women’s rights, on feminist organising and on ways of organising society that prioritise ecology, community and humanity over profit. Your woman-led political movement offers a feminist alternative to global capitalism, with its gender-balanced decision-making system, and the centring of women’s liberation in this unprecedented democratic project.

 

Erdoğan and the Turkish state are threatened by the democratic values of Rojava, by its empowered women and its commitment to equality.  These attacks in the name of establishing a ‘safe zone’ are no more than an attack to drive out our friends and comrades from the region, to smash the democratic project and to put an end to women’s liberation.

 

The creation of a so-called ‘safe zone’ also serves the purpose of deporting thousands of Syrian asylum seekers residing in Turkey. They will be brought back to Syria under the strengthened rule of Bashar al Assad, a war criminal, in spite of the fact that they fled from it in the first place. The invasion of Rojava and the full reinstatement of al Assad’s power over Syria and its diverse population are two sides of the same coin, which contemplates the return to an authoritarian stability that can stop the movement of people (so much desired by the fortress Europe), achieved at the price of slaughtering civilians and destroying emancipatory political experiences.

 

We draw inspiration from your courage and your strength and will come out onto our streets to raise our voices in solidarity with you and to fight fascism, our common enemy.

 

 

We call on feminists across the globe to join us in supporting our sisters, friends, comrades. Organise, march, shout, fight and rise up for Rojava.

 

Jin, jiyan, azadi! Ní Saoirse go Saoirse na mBan

 

Theresa O’Keefe

Farah Azadi

Juliana Sassi

Wendy Lyon

Paola Rivetti

Aileen O’Carroll

Helen Guinane

Jen Doh

Caoimhe Butterly

Eve Campbell

Hilary Darcy

Stephanie Lord

Sinéad Redmond

Emily Waszak

Aoife Frances

Mary McAuliffe

JA Valois

Maggie ONeill

Linda Connolly

Ursula Ní Shionnain

Suzanne Leen

Sharron A. FitzGerald

Mx Brody Hodgins

Jane Xavier

Paula Geraghty

Melanie McArdle

Dervla O’Neill

Caroline Forde

Ciara Fitzpatrick

Susan Miner

Alanna O Neill

Julia Crowe

Lauren Foley

Heather Ferguson

Joanne Lynam

Emer Smith

Shannon Patterson

Natasha Finnerty

Margaret Ward

Claire McGinley

Nicoletta Mandolini

Clara Purcell

Clare O Connor

Lisa Keogh Finnegan

Tracey Ryan

Anne Mulhall

Maire Ni Mhordha

Eilís Ní Fhlannagáin

Sinead Pembroke

Leticia Ortega

Dyuti Chakravarty

Beth O’Neill

Niamh McDonald

Linda Kavanagh

Antoinette Murphy

Leness Falls

Yvie Murphy

Elaine D’Alton

Maggie Feeley

Siobhán Nic Fhloinn

Becca Bor

Lisa Basire

Xavier Beardwood

Anita Villa

Layla Kuyper

Marie Mulholland

Caroline Kuyper

Marie Moran

Céile Varley

Sharon L Mc Menamin

Muuka Gwaba

Anne McLean

Katharina Swirak

Jacqueline O’Toole

Antonella Garofalo

Brigid Quilligan

Ann O Sullivan

Cat Inglis

Breige Ann McCaughley

Maria Perkins

Sian Cowman

Vivienne Daly

Samantha Kenny

Louise Inglis

Ciara Miller Johnston

Keeva Lilith Carroll

Martine Jackson

Heather McPolin

Ruby Moss

Stacy Wrenn

Tara Ní Dhuinn

Emma Hendrick

Jacqueline Johnston

Sarah Walsh

Breanainn Quinn

Ilaina Khairulzaman

Ina Doyle

Michelle Brown

Alex Ronan

Marianne Farrelly

Joanne McDonald

Georgina O’Halloran

Audrey Fergus

Sarah Shiel

Martina Ferrari

Emma Wallace

Elaine Crory

Becky Indigo Farrell

Cliona Kelly

Goretti Horgan

Bec Fahy

Elaine Mernagh

Melíosa Bracken

Francisca Ribeiro

Kate o keeffe

Joanne Dennehy

Aoife McLean

Mags Glennon

Syd Delz

Carly Bailey

Mairead Enright

Jess Lynch

SaoirseJohnston

Judy Walsh

Aislinn Wallace

Erika Csibi

Stacey Grant-Canham

Laura Ryan

Louisa Moss

Kellie Sweeney

Kerry Guinan

Aisling Corbett

Jane Robb

Sian Cowman

Ingrid Seim

Polly Molotov

Ciara Crawford

Karen Carson

Gillian Brien

Karen Carson

orlagh nic suibhne

Catherine Clarke

Liz Kelly

Irene Doval Marcos

Maryanne Daly

Rose Mullen

Tracy Wall

Maggie Bent

Louise Delz

Bronwen Lang

Rosa Thompson

Edel Quirke

Milena Barnes

Corinne O’Neill

Grainne Griffin

Joanna Schaffalitzky

Aimee Doyle

Cate Dillon

Jennifer Larke

Kalianne Farren

Maebh Murphy

H Oakes

Emma Beuster

Ciara Beuster

Kate Ware

Natalia  R Fedz

Felicity Rawson

Layla Wade

Jene Hinds

Laura J Acha

Niamh P. Keoghan

Lisa Whelan

فرح مخترعيزاده

Cora Quigley

Kellie O’Dowd

Amy walsh

Yasmin O’Connor

Aoife Crowe

Laura McVeigh

Joanna McMinn

Suzanne Dunne

Anne Ralph

Bernie Hughes

Ashley Keenan

Lisa dunne

April Keane

Ann Gerety Smyth

Karen Till

Divya Ravikumar

Jacinta Fay

Caoimhe Doyle

Emma Walsh-Hackett

Tricia Nugent

Natasha Lambert

Anna Higgins

Sorcha Szczerbiak

Alice Chau

Vicky Conway

K McKinney

Sinéad Williams

Ramona Parkes

Charlotte Fassbender

Lorna O’Hara

Niamh Casey

Layla Wade

Rebek’ah McKinney-Perry

Kitty Colbert

Alexandra Day

Síona Cahill

Gen Smith

Heike Stone

Aisling Ní Fhrighil

Aoife hammond

Karen Hammond

Eimear Nic Roibeaird

Mary McDermott

Ellen Murphy

Sarah Elaine McHugh

Niamh Murtagh

Rebecca murphy

Joni Kelly

Bríd Collins

Annie Hoey

Kate Butler

Marie Sherlock

Katie Noone

Ber Grogan

Aisling Cusack

Emma Challacombe

Kerry O’Donnell

Meaghan Carmody

Janet O’Sullivan

Patricia Magee

Gillian Kearns

Éinne Ó Cathasaigh

Claire Brennan

Muireann O’Sullivan

dervla o’malley

Freyja Bourke

Sarah Cassidy

Soma Gregory

Lucy Michael

Deirbhile Brennan

Margo Harkin

Caroline McCormack

Deirdre O’Shea

Liadh Ni Faogain

Yasmary Perdomo Rodriguez

Hayley Fox-Roberts

Pamela Rochford

Clare mccann

Barbara Western

Rebekka K. Steg

Evelyn Campbell

Mariel Whelan

Nicola grant

Dairíona Ní Mhuirí

Taryn de Vere

Yurika Higashikawa

Sallyann Green-Millar

Deb Crawley

Bernadette Hughes

Vikkie Patterson

Trish Hegarty

Katie Harrington

Helen O’Sullivan

Leona Mc Mahon

Rosanna O Keeffe

Angela Coraccio

Helen Stonehouse

Emma Allen

Karen Dempsey

Carola Speth

Aisling Mathews

Catherine Stocker

Jennifer Schweppe

Debbie Hutchinson

Anna McMahon

Rebecca Heslin

Sinéad Ring

Tríona Reid

Loretta J frehill

Aine O’Gorman

Kate Dineen

Amy Kelly

Sharon Pickering

Kelley O’Hanlon

Deidre colgan

Geraldine Moorkens Byrne

Grace Harrison

Phyllis Verschoyle

Emma Dowling

Roisin Blade
Keeva Farrelly
Eve Campbell
Aoife Dermody
Kylie Jarrett
Emily Duffy
Emma Campbell
Helen Crickard
Sevinç Karaca
Leanne Doyle
Jane Ruffino
Wim Hendrix
Emer McHugh
Emilia Burgio
Rachelle Howell
Emma O’Brien
Paula Dennan
Aisling Walsh
Melanie Drumm
Michelle Woods
Lynsey Farrell
Sorcha Fox
Tara Folds
Shauna Stanley
Leah Doherty
Julie Daly
Sarah Holland
Vicky Langan
Katherine O’Keefe
Alber Saborío
Fiadh Punch
Mary Landis
Conorayne
Cathie Shiels
Sonia Balagopalan
Anne Kane, Associate Professor of Sociology
Zoë Lawlor
Natalia Kunachowicz
Lennita Oliveira Ruggi
Bernadette Jennings
Irma Bochorishvili
Oana Marian
Yasmary Perdomo Rodriguez
Anne Marie Kelly
Olga Murphy
Jade Lydon
Aideen Farrell
Eve Cobain
Renata Kempf
Elaine waldock
Kelly Doolin
Avril Corroon
Ashling Cronin
Carol Ballantine
begoña landa
Anastasia Ryan
V’cenza Cirefice
Julie Maher
Tara Flynn
Claire Brophy
Aoife O’Neill
Sharon Boggans Stich
Bernadette A D’Arcy
Gemma Kearney
Eimear Tester
Karin O’Sullivan
Amy Aylmer
Megan Whittington
Sophie Dalton
Jamie Canavan
Eimear O’Neill
Ruth Patten
Livia Hekanaho
Aoife Stephens
Becky Leacy
Caoimhe Ní Néill
Jessica Reid
Lisa Carey
Danielle Lavigne
Eimear Hawthorne
Aisling Murphy
Sandra Fay
Darwesh Obeid
Phyllis Murphy
Jo Parsons
Linda Hayden
Denise C
Kristine Wahl
Kate O’Hara
Aoife Mallon
Rebecca Gorman
Raven Neill
Becci Jeffers
Lisa Breslin
Shivani Jain
Natalie Conroy
Jane Clare
Mo Ludwig
Mary McGill
Jemma McCallum
Dionne Roberts
Dr Sindy Joyce
Naomi English
Charlene Delaney
Caroline Ryan
Elaine Hanson
Joan O’Connell
Suzan Günbay
Sonja Rohan
Kim O’Driscoll
Amy Ní Mhurchú
Lorna Johnson
Stefania Oggioni
Melanie Drumm
Jamie Drumm
Amelia Feery
Hollie Feery
Clare Bell
Ash Hayes
Alacoque
Joan Humphreys
Niamh Webbley-O’Gorman
Katie O’Hara
Mary Connell
Eadaoin de Faoite
Roseanne Doran
Lora O’Brien
Jean Alfred
Vanessa Moore
Grainne
Zoë Lawlor
Vicki Loughran
Aoife Butler
Eanna Finnen
Tara Robinson
Mary Palmer
Ciara hendrick
Marese Hegarty
Siobhán Cawley
Rohan Swamy
Sandra Ní Dhubhthaigh
Zoë Lawlor
Jenny Oreilly
Sian Ní Mhuirí
Aoife FitzGibbon O’Riordan
Gabriela Burnett
Aoife Dermody
Duana mcardle
Dorcy Mac An Fháilí
Sharon Nolan
Nafisah Azeem
Keeva Farrelly
Isabel Rubio
Fiona Lynam
Julie Gleeson
Áine White
Amelia Feery
Hollie Feery
Paula Flanagan
Martha Dalton
Aoileann Conway
Joanna Thompson
Ciara May Boud-Keegan
Nikki O’Malley
Doris Murphy
Vicky Donnelly
Niamh McCrea
Ciara Browne
Amel Yacef
Eugenia Siapera
Ailis Ni Chofaigh
Mo Mansfield
Aedín O’Cuill
Kate Kenny
Aoife Kirk
Stephanie Fleming
Joanne Neary
Emma Brännlund
Sinead Corcoran
Joanne Byrne
Miriam Needham
Lola Gonzalez
Anna Carnegie
Maria Johanna Heschl
Alexandra Soares
Stacey Scriver
Debbie O Rourke
Shauna Markey
Beth Hayden
Jenny Carla Moran
Liath James

Groups and Organisations:

Need Abortion Ireland

Strike 4 Repeal

MERJ – Migrants and Ethnic-minorities for Reproductive Justice

Parents for Choice

Kildare Feminist Network

Fingal Feminist Network

Dundalk for Change

Queer Action Ireland

Reclaim the Agenda

Alliance for Choice Belfast
London Irish Feminist Collective
Dublin south west housing action

ARC Offaly
Galway Feminist Collective

Queer Diaspora Ireland

Feminist/Queer Discussion Group – NUI Galway

 

To add your name please go to https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSejUIr6m4tmm50_Vt8BpkohTKPsQR4A8DBetI3FeGL6s63YtA/viewform

Just a quick one because I’m super busy today, but this is important. The attack by Turkey on the Kurdish region of northeastern Syria (Rojava) is not just an unjustified act of war, a humanitarian crisis, another blow to a people who have suffered more than enough already. It is all that, but it’s also something that should greatly concern everyone who cares about women’s rights. Because the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria – the autonomous entity serving as the de facto government of the region – has in place what is by far the most progressive administration in its neighbourhood, where women’s rights are concerned. In fact there are a lot of things about it that western governments could learn from; but certainly it’s well beyond any of the alternative regimes available to the women there.

And make no mistake about it; if this attack continues many of the women of Rojava are going to find themselves living under another form of rule. Turkey’s aim is not, as it claims, merely to create a “safe zone” to protect itself from Kurdish attacks; it is to completely repopulate the parts of Syria closest to its borders – replacing Syrian Kurds with Syrian Arabs. This is precisely what has happened in Afrin, which Turkey attacked a year and a half ago (to a deafening silence from most of the west), with the consequence of forcing the veil on women who wouldn’t have worn it voluntarily and annihilating the rights that women in the DFNS enjoy (such as freedom from forced marriage and protection against domestic abuse).

At the same time, the Syrian Democratic Forces which (currently) control the region are being forced to reduce their capacity to guard the prison camps in which ISIS fighters and loyalists are held. Needless to say, they will also be more poorly equipped to respond in the event of an ISIS resurgence along the Iraqi border. I really don’t think I need to say how utterly catastrophic this would be for women in the affected areas.

The final option would be for the DFNS to collapse and go back under Bashir Assad’s fold. From a feminist perspective this might be the least worst option, but don’t be under any illusions; despite the officially secular stance of Assad’s Syria, only this year have women been given some of the rights that Rojava guarantees – and unlike in Rojava, there is no ideological commitment to women’s rights. It is simply a pragmatic measure adopted in the interest of preserving a battered regime. And we all know how readily that can swing back the other way.

In simplest terms, the demise of Rojava would mean the end of an era of a form of government which is inseparable from the goal of women’s liberation. There is literally no alternative that isn’t worse for the women of Rojava – in some cases a lot lot worse. And while it would obviously be a disaster for them, the fallout from it would hurt the cause of all of us.

There are a number of demonstrations taking place tomorrow – in Ireland (Dublin, Belfast, Limerick, Galway) and elsewhere – to protest the Turkish attack. Please attend if you can. If you can’t, please share. This matters. It really does.

https://womendefendrojava.net/

We write as cisgender feminists in Ireland to the organisers of the ‘We Need To Talk’ speaking tour who plan to hold an event in Ireland in February.

The main purpose of the ‘We Need To Talk’ tour is to promote opposition to the proposed reform of the Gender Recognition Act in the UK. The reformed act would allow people to self-declare their gender  (currently in the UK people are forced to go through the indignity of medical diagnosis in order to have their gender recognised). This proposed legal reform is a necessary and urgent step toward undoing the stigma, discrimination and violence that trans people in the UK currently endure. The organisers of ‘We Need to Talk’ are making a stop here in Ireland, under the guise of talking about abortion. However, their motives remain clear to us, and we write this letter to show that their exclusionary, discriminatory attitudes to trans people – in particular trans women – are not welcome here in Ireland. We will not sit in silence while the organisers of this meeting peddle ideas and opinions that are actively harmful to the well-being and safety of our comrades.

Trans women and men in Ireland have the legal right to self-declare their gender. Trans people and particularly trans women are an inextricable part of our feminist community. The needs of trans people are part of our campaigns. There is no difference between ‘feminists’ spreading transphobic and transmisogynist ideas or spreading racism or homophobia. We want no part of it, and we don’t want it here. So yes, we do need to talk.

We can see from your social media posts about your tour and its contents, that your opposition to the GRA is based on the idea that feminist organising and women’s rights will somehow be harmed through trans inclusivity and organising with our trans sisters. We know this is not true. We, the signatories of this letter, organise hand in hand with our trans sisters. Together, cis and trans, we are Irish feminism. Trans women are our sisters; their struggles are ours, our struggles theirs. They were our sisters before any state-issued certification said so and will always be no matter what any legislation says, either now or in the future.

In the south of Ireland*, trans women have been able to declare themselves women and have the state change their documentation to reflect that declaration since 2015. The sky has not fallen. Cis women have not lost anything whatsoever from this. If anything, all of Irish feminism has gained: our struggle for bodily autonomy gains in strength and momentum through this victory for our trans sisters. There are few things as feminists in Ireland we can say we have been pleased to see passed by the state. This, although flawed in its lack of recognition of trans children and non-binary people, is one.

So tell us: what is it that you know of Irish feminism that you feel entitled and authorised to come here and lecture us on? Dublin has not been part of the UK since 1921, yet you originally described ‘We Need To Talk’ as a UK tour while still including Dublin on your list of venues. This gives us some idea of how little you know about Irish realities, north or south.

We do not need you here. We have not had your support in our fight for #repealthe8th, our fight against the historical and ongoing impact of the Magdalene Laundries, our fight for taking back control of our hospitals from religious orders, our fight for justice for women and babies tortured and entombed in Mother and Baby homes.

Do you know, for example, that in the north of Ireland, legally part of the UK, women still cannot access safe and legal abortion? Have you campaigned on this in any way? If you have, why don’t we know about it? Did you strike in solidarity with us on March 8th last year? Did you even know we were striking and for what? Do you have any kind of concept of what a feminism in a country shaped by struggle against Empire looks like? Did you take even a second to consider that, in assuming you have the right to come here in any kind of position of feminist authority, you’re behaving with the arrogance of just that imperialism? We have had enough of colonialism in Ireland without needing more of it from you

We neither want nor need your lecture tour. You’re not welcome here.

Read the rest of this entry →

The Irish Times Women’s Podcast today aired a show entitled #coponcomrades: Men and Feminism. For some reason none of the initiators or signiatories of the #coponcomrades letter were invited to speak. Instead three male writers for the Irish Times were on the panel, Frankie Gaffney, Mark Paul and Patrick Freye, only one of whom describes themselves as a feminist.

As someone who signed the #coponcomrades letter I listened with interest to the podcast. In some respects it was very illuminating. Like I was unaware when I signed #coponcomrades that I should’ve indicated my economic status when signing, which by the way is working class. (I can provide all the poverty porn details for anyone who needs it if required).

Listening to the podcast I discovered that I had apparently been duped by some bourgeois academic women who lured stupid old working class wimminz like me into signing the letter. Apparently my voice and those of the many, many other working class women who signed was purely “tokenistic”. Thank god I listened or I never would’ve known that no matter what I do or say or put my name to — my opinions can easily be dismissed as tokenism, by virtue of my working class status. But then, how could I have know this before, without an academic woman to tell me what to do or a Not-Feminist (but in no way mansplaining) man to explain it to me?

So, please bare with stupid working class me while I talk you through the podcast.

It started on a dodgy note, with host Kathy Sheridan saying that the podcast was to be about “The challenges for men that want to stand with women and the views that men hold that they don’t think they can express without being shouted down.”

I wonder what kind of views men might have that they might feel afraid to express without being “shouted down”? And who are these shouty women that are silencing the voices of men who HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY ABOUT FEMINISM?

So, let’s delve in (this is HEAVILY abridged),

Gaffney: “The Irony is that the people who use “mansplain” are the most patronising people I’ve ever encountered.”

I have to put my hand up here folks, as I’m one of those patronising women who uses the term “mansplain” when I’m trying to express my dislike of men who assume I’m an idiot. Luckily I have men like Gaffney to tell me that my use of the word is wrong.

Gaffney continues: “This is not America. There is something perverse in the narrative… Girls from Dalkey lecturing me about my privilege…This is not normal. This is not right…We can’t just import American ideas wholesale into Ireland and expect them to work.”

I assume it was intersectionality that Gaffney was taking issue with here, a systematic way of looking at the intersecting oppressions that any individual may have. (The expression was coined by American Kimberle Crenshaw and aims to make feminism more inclusive). These are the kind of ideas I personally would like to see more of in Ireland. (Here’s hoping those hated women from Dalkey were intersectional feminists!)

Gaffney: Speaking about #coponcomrades, “The most striking thing in the reaction since, when I talk about using straight white male using that as an insult, middle class Irish girls, fellas as well, talking about white cisgendered male, why are you excluding…if you’re talking about misogyny why are you bringing race in and throwing these things in together when class is one of the biggest predictors of life outcome in this country?…It was like apartheid going in in the demographics in Trinity….(conversation moves on)… the gender balance was 60–70% female.”

*EDITED to add that I have been told (by Gaffney) since I initially posted this that the apartheid comment was in relation to class, not gender  (Gaffney said,”the class ratio in Trinity TSM maybe 2%”)*

Apartheid – yeah… I’m just gonna leave that one for all you smarter and middle class people to dissect.

But Gaffney wasn’t the only enlightening male voice on the panel, Mark Paul had a lot to say about feminism too,

Paul: “You can get too wrapped up in putting people in boxes. I’m more interested in what people do than what they are…. Trudeau bought in a cabinet was completely gender balanced and that is obviously a very laudible thing to do… has it performed any better than any of the governments that went before, I dunno….”

Kathy Sheridan tried to interject here but Paul spoke over her,

“…Tredeau’s pretty clever embrace of feminism”

Freyne: “Varakar doesn’t care about class or gender. He is entirely economic focused.”

Paul: “The Taoiseach isn’t a superman.”

Apparently only a superman cares about class and gender. I didn’t know that it requires super powers to care about class or gender, but I guess that makes sense, him being a man and me being, well just a silly and gullible woman. 

Gaffney:“People have attributed views to men that I don’t hold. Like I believe in gender quotas”

Paul :“I’m against anything that puts a restriction on someone’s vote.”

Gaffney :“Parliament should reflect demographically.”

Paul (speaking over Gaffney): “But mostly it should reflect the votes of the people.”

Gaffney: “I’ve been getting smeared, coponcomrades connected me with alt right language, and I didn’t…. on the one hand you have a prohibition on offensive speech… on the other hand an opening up and normalisation of anti male, anti white, anti straight rhetoric. Identity politics is very bad when it stigmatises and attacks based on a demographic.”

Sheridan: “About the #coponcomrades, the response to the letter felt like a silencing to us — these people represent a lot of threads in society, have you any reservations at all about that piece now?”

Gaffney: “None.”

Paul: “I defy you to look at the reaction to Frankie’s piece and say that the reaction he received was not a personal attack on him.”

Gaffney: “I don’t mention any person’s name in my piece…People object to any objection going in the opposite direction…The article wasn’t about feminism it was about a certain style of identity politics and some terminology used by feminism.”

Freyne: “…I think you’re punching down in this instance…”

Gaffney: “ Listen, academics using their departmental accounts to tweet about me, I’m not punching down, upper middle class women having a go at me giving out about me and using departmental accounts.”

Sheridan: “ The people who signed this letter aren’t all middle class Frankie.”

Gaffney: “The people who drafted the letter and the people that organised the campaign are. 500 people didn’t write the letter. It was initiated by one small group and they tokenistically they got working class women on board… I have empathy for everybody that’s the difference between me and those that single out and generalise.”

Freyne (to Gaffney): “No body is stopping you talking.”

Paul (speaking about #coponcomrades signators): “There is a complete and utter intellectual insecurity in people who can’t tolerate another person’s opinions. Feminism to me that exemplifies the worst of it is like a big tent right, and everybody is inside the tent and in order to get into the tent you have to bend your knees to the rules of the tent but they’re absolutely useless at talking to anybody outside the tent. Why such a backlash against Frankie’s article? Why such a ferocious response to his article?”

Say wha? But if everybody is inside the tent Paul who is left to try and get in the tent? (Also, I hope I’m in the #FeminismTent)

Sheridan reads from the #coponcomrades letter, then says: “You’re putting all these people into one little basket, like your accusing them of doing to you.”

Gaffney: “What I meant by that was it was initiated by a group of middle class people.”

This is how I found out that some of my friends have been lying to me about their working class backgrounds! (But then I am just a silly working class woman.)

Sheridan again reads from the letter: “They feel betrayed by what you wrote Frankie.”

Gaffney: “That’s not my problem. That’s their own projection.”

Freyne (speaking about Gaffney’s article): “There’s a much better way to engage with these things…”

Gaffeny: “You’re tone policing.”

Freyne (laughing): “I don’t have a problem with tone policing.”

Gaffney: “I’m glad you say that. I have a problem with the hypocrisy involved of the people who would decry tone policing when it goes one direction or who would decry gender generalisation… I see these words abused more than they’re used toxic masculinity , fragile masculinity, mansplaining, all of this kind of stuff…”

Men bonding over not having a problem with tone policing…#sweet

Paul (on toxic masculinity): “When you portray it as the only form of masculinity that is out there….”

Freyne: “Nobody is portraying it as the only form of masculinity, I’ve never seen anyone describe it as the only form of masculinity, maybe you have but it’s not common. People are taking descriptions of structures as a personal attack and it’s not-”

Gaffney: “People are taking descriptions of language as a personal attack.”

Freyne: “It’s one thing for you to come out and point out that there are levels of lack of privilege in your life that aren’t being addressed by these people…”

Paul: “Feminism is no longer the underdog when it comes to public debate. We are here in the Irish Times Womens’s podcast, there are more feminists in the….Feminism is not the underdog. For anyone to say that feminism is the oppressed viewpoint.. there are more feminists per square foot in this building than in any other building in Dublin… It’s not an oppressed viewpoint. ..Any movement with power is deserving of criticism. of scorn, analysis. Why when anyone criticises or analyses it are they piled on?”

Gaffney: “What I was talking about in the article was when feminism talks about me, I’m entitled, when someone talks about my demographic, I’m gonna talk about it. It’s a movement that objects to gender generalising and gender stereotyping and invents new forms of it and pushing the boundaries of discourse by making terms like straight white male a part of it…”

Paul: “Straight white male is very often deployed as an insult.”

Sheridan: “I don’t think it’s used as an insult, it’s used as a label for someone who already has intrinsic power.”

Paul: “Ah, come on.”

Gaffney: “It’s a derogatory phrase.”

Freyne: “They are genuine signifiers of power in western society, with class.”

Gaffney: “I don’t believe for a second that single white men are the most oppressed in society…(discussion moves on to the alt right, Trump and how feminism has been accused of playing a part in his rise to power)…The rise of the alt right have been fuelled by that kind of style of identity politics rather than trying to liberate their own group.”

Paul: “Feminism as a movement should try talking to men.”

So THAT’s what we’ve been doing wrong! We weren’t talking to the right people about the structural and societal inequalities women have been facing for thousands of years! Silly us! We should’ve been talking to MEN! Duh! Like, why didn’t we think of that? I mean I said, “Please don’t rape me” To the guy who raped me but I guess I must’ve been saying it wrong, cause it obviously wasn’t the way he was culturally conditioned to feel entitled to use my body. I said “Please stop abusing me” to the man I was in a relationship with who abused me but now I know it wasn’t becuase he grew up in a society that doesn’t even bother to collect statistics on domestic abuse victims, such is the disregard for women’s lives. It was just me, silly feminist, always talking to the wrong people. Thank God we have Mark Paul to tell us that all we need to do to achieve gender equality is TALK TO MEN. #HighFiveMark

(Still Mark espousing about feminism): “Feminism in not very good at talking to people who don’t bend the knee to it’s ideas. Feminism doesn’t engage with the world very well, it’s not a great communicator, it’s intellectually incestuous I think… I don’t identify as a feminist.”

*insert a bajillion laughing emoticons*

Freyne: “I think it’s threatening to people the idea that they don’t own all their success. People take these analyses as personal attack.”

Gaffney: “I don’t do that though. I don’t expect Richard Boyd Barrett or Paul Murphy to bend down to me and apologise for being born middle class… I hate this check your privilege stuff. People should identify oppression and fight oppression… Making young men, young people, think about their skin colour rather than their economic position in society is a dangerous game to play — that has contributed to the…(Gaffney was talked over at this point).

Sheridan: Reads from the #coponcomrades letter. “Have you had any rape threats Frankie since your piece?”

Gaffney: “I’ve had threats of violence. But not rape threats no…I believe in solidarity and shared humanity.”

Sheridan: “And they’re accusing you of the exact opposite…I’m talking about gender based violence, where women can’t walk home alone at night.”

Sheridan: “My little brother is much more at risk of violence.”

Freyne: “You have to acknowledge that there are different problems, related to identity.”

Gaffney: “I know women have needed and still need to organise away from men for their rights. Equality, is the word I believe in, I want to fight together.”

Freyne: “We have to look at all the different problems in society. Working class women have very different issues to working class men.”

Paul: “The backlash against Frankie wasn’t because he wasn’t listening to anybody else it was because people were trying to silence what he was saying.”

Gaffney (speaking about the response to his article): “…This constant demand that I should listen to the women. The amount of left wing people and the amount of feminists that agreed with me, I could’ve got 500 people to sign something no problem…(conversation moves on)…If I’d been a woman saying these things I wouldn’t have got half the attacks I did. .. I don’t put out tweets like typical bourgeois wankers. The working class women I know see me as representing the working class just as well as they could. They don’t see me as representing a working class man.”

I only speak for myself but I see Gaffney as representing working class men, he does not speak for me. There were over 100 women from all walks of life and classes who worked on the many, many drafts that created the #coponcomrades letter and hundreds more who felt so strongly about the contents that they signed it. Many of these women were frightened about signing it and I’m aware of a couple of women who agreed with the message but felt afraid to sign. I don’t doubt that some working class women see Gaffney as speaking for them, but he does not speak for all of us. 

Sheridan: “Should men be listening to women more?”

Gaffney: “Men talk a lot more than women and certainly women should be heard.”

Wouldn’t that be great?

#coponcomrades

This is all.

Happy International Women’s Day. My feminism is intersectional. Solidarity with women of colour, queer & trans* women, and sex workers.

— + Yvonne Aburrow (@vogelbeere) March 8, 2013

Signal boosting from Unlike Youth Defence, I trust women to decide their lives for themselves:

On Saturday January 19th, a group called ‘vigil for life’ are demonstrating at Merrion Square at 16.30. We’re asking that a number of our followers join us in a counter-demonstration close by.

These people (whether they realise it or not) are protesting against the introduction of legislation that would save the lives of women living in Ireland.

They’re protesting against legislation that the majority have voted for in a referendum.

They’re protesting against a supreme court decision.

They’re protesting directly against what the ECHR says Ireland needs to do to protect the human rights of pregnant women.

We intend to protest silently, without the use of chants or shouting, with signs and pictures of women who have been denied their right to life and health because of this country’s antiquated abortion laws. We have lives too, and its time our government stepped up to protect us.

Please join us in our silent counter-protest. Please bring a sign if you can (it’s as simple as asking a local shop for one of their cardboard stock boxes and using paints or markers) to help get our message across without the need to attempt to shout the other side down.

We will be meeting at Merrion Square South between 4.30 and 4.45. We ask that people coming from town to meet walk across Baggot St, up Lower Fitzwilliam Street and over Merrion Square South (see map below). We ask that people not walk via Merrion Street Upper and past the government buildings, as adversarial confrontation with the Vigil For Life is not our aim in this and they will likely be gathered there. At least one of our members will be waiting at the meeting place early with a large pro-choice sign, so look out for her!

*Image taken from flyposters in Smithfield, December 2012 which were created to highlight the restrictive abortion laws which force women in Ireland to travel abroad while suffering in silence for fear of stigmatisation