Celebrating pioneering Irish women scientists

International Women’s Day, and so many events, celebrations and protests to choose from. I picked the launch of Lab Coats and Lace, published by WITS and edited by Mary Mulvihill, at the Dublin Book Festival in City Hall. This is a companion volume to the hard-to-come-by Stars, Shells and Bluebells, published in 1997. Both celebrate the lives and legacies of inspiring Irish women scientists and pioneers, many of them in non-traditional careers and often fighting institutionalised discrimination, who nevertheless went on to achieve national and international recognition.

Labour launches Gender Parity Bill for International Women's Day

On Tuesday The Labour Party launched the Electoral (Gender Parity) Bill 2009. The Bill was launched by Labour leader Eamon Gilmore, deputy leader Joan Burton, and Local Government spokesperson Ciarán Lynch at a press conference organised by Labour Women. The Bill would oblige all political parties to put forward an increasing percentage of women candidates in order to avail of their full state funding under the Electoral Acts. This type of legislation has been introduced in Belgium, France, Portugal, Spain and Slovenia. See my previous post for why it is necessary in Ireland.

Remembering Deirdre Kelly

Last weekend I attended the opening of a new monument in Ranelagh in memory of local historian and activist Deirdre Kelly, author of Four Roads to Dublin. Deirdre campaigned throughout her life for the preservation of city communities, which she feared would be destroyed as a result of commercial development. She defended much of Dublin’s heritage and was involved in many protests to prevent the demolition of some of the city’s most historic buildings.

The monument, which consists of a replica of Deirdre’s beloved bicycle set into the ground beneath a glass panel and a half-pyramid steel structure bearing an inscription chosen by Deirdre’s late husband Aidan Kelly, was unveiled by Cllr Mary Freehill. Members of Deridre’s family spoke movingly of their memories of her and colleagues told of her passion and commitment to the city and people of Dublin.

Verdict: not funny

This offensive little piece of ‘satire’ by Newton Emerson in yesterday’s Irish Times has been causing quite a stir amongst feminists. Several members of Feminist Open Forum have written to the Irish Times to complain that it just aint funny. Meanwhile UK website The F Word seems to have taken it for an entirely serious opinion piece. Sticking with the assumption that it’s supposed to be funny my thoughts on this are:

1. If you can’t do satire well, don’t bother. It won’t be funny.

2. If you’re trying to satirise something like, let’s say, misogyny, it probably won’t work if you’re a misogynist yourself. You won’t sound funny, you’ll just sound like a misogynistic prick.

3. It’s not funny because I have no doubt that arguments like these are, in fact, going to be used entirely seriously to counter the gains women have made towards achieving workplace and financial equality. It may be more subtle than Emerson’s blunt wit but mark my words, in this economic climate there will be a backlash against working women. And it’s not funny.

Equality first

On Saturday LGBT Noise held a Valentine’s Day demonstration outside the Central Bank in Dublin to call for full civil marriage rights for all.

There are those within the gay-rights and feminist communities who argue that marriage is an oppressive institution, concerned primarily with the control of property and the ownership of women and children. Another point of view is that marriage is becoming increasingly irrelevant in today’s society and that people should be free to make their own domestic arrangements without requiring sanction from the state.

I have sympathies with both points view. I am certainly ambivalent about getting married myself. In my current situation: in my late twenties, in steady employment, child-free and with no desire to pay less tax I cannot see any reason to marry my boyfriend. We are equals, earning more-or-less equally and contributing equally to the household, both financially and in terms of housework. Were we to split up we could both walk away with no financial implications. But it is a different story for many women, especially those with children who have given up paid work either permanently or temporarily to care for the family. When families break up women are usually more financially disadvantaged than men. And this is where marriage can protect women. Upon divorce a financial settlement can be made that takes into account a woman’s loss of earnings while she was caring for the family. A woman with no pension provision of her own may be able to claim some of her ex-husband’s pension to provide for her in her old-age. Widows and widowers may be entitled to claim their late spouse’s pension, a provision that is not usually made for cohabiting couples.

I cannot see why these rights should not be extended to same-sex couples. It is not just children that complicate things (although many same-sex couples will and do have children). The realities of life often dictate that one person in a couple gives up some of their earning potential in order to facilitate the other’s. In fact I cannot see why marriage, with all its flaws, should not be extended to same-sex couples. There are things about marriage I don’t like. And I understand the need for certain legal protections for unmarried couples, especially those with children. But if marriage is to evolve or be reformed then I think it should be by starting from a position of equality for gay and straight couples. If everyone has the choice of a civil marriage, regardless of sexuality, then we will be in a position to ask what we want out of marriage, or indeed whether we want it at all.