Committee Reports > List of Committees > Joint > 1988 > Committee on Women's Rights > Report - Changing attitudes to the role of women in Ireland attitudes towards moral issues in relation to voting behaviour in recent referenda

REPORT

CONTENTS

DRAFT

REPORT

Changing Attitudes to the Role of Women in Ireland Attitudes towards Moral Issues in relation to Voting Behaviour in Recent Referenda

1.The Joint Committee on Women’s Rights present in the Appendix to this Report the third part of a research study by Dr. Margret Fine-Davis, Senior Research Fellow, Department of Psychology, Trinity College, Dublin, on Attitudes towards Moral Issues in relation to Voting Behaviour in Recent Referenda.

2.This report should be read in conjunction with the First Report issued by the Joint Committee in May, 1988 (Pl. 5609) dealing with Attitudes towards the Role and Status of Women, 1975 - 1986 and the Second Report issued in June, 1988 (Pl. 5673) dealing with Issues related to Equal Employment Opportunity.

3.Dr. Fine-Davis’s study gives a deeper insight into attitudes which people hold concerning a number of moral and social questions and, in particular, towards issues which are linked with divorce and abortion.

Divorce

4.On the basic issue of divorce little change was found in the overall attitude against its introduction. Over 90% of the anti-divorce group and 30% of the pro-divorce group agreed that “If you open the floodgates to divorce you undermine the very nature of marriage as a life-long commitment” - see page 11 of Appendix. It may be inferred that most Irish people are concerned to preserve marriage as a life-long commitment. This attitude is clearly tied to economic factors, particularly to a wife’s dependence and economic insecurity, rather than to feelings such as love or happiness. This is supported by the finding that 84% of the total sample believed that “in most cases the divorced wife would suffer great economic hardship in struggling to support her children and would be likely to end up on social welfare”. Further, half the total sample believed that “divorce is not in the best interests of women since it is the divorced husband who is more likely to remarry” - see page 12 of Appendix.

5.Judged by these criteria alone, many people felt that the introduction of divorce would be likely to impose increased hardship on women,

6.On the other hand, 72% of the total sample agreed that by making divorce available, society would show its compassion for those suffering the misery of marital breakdown, 89% felt that children suffer greater psychological damage by living with two parents who are in constant conflict, than by living with one divorced parent in a stable home, and 76% agreed that people have a right to a second chance at happiness, legalised by marriage, if their first marriage has failed - see pages 13 and 14 of Appendix. These seemingly contradictory findings appear reveal a striking ambivalence in people’s attitude to divorce.

7.It seems that in a crunch situation where a single overriding choice had to be made (as in the referendum in 1986), most people regarded the aspects mentioned in paragraph 6 as subordinate to a change which would undermine marriage as a life-long commitment. This outcome was, undoubtedly, influenced by those with certain the religious convictions which held that divorce was unacceptable and that marriage was indissoluble. It also reflected society’s perception of the dependent role of women in marriage.

8.However, as more women join the workforce they are more likely to see marriage as providing psychological rather than economic benefits. This trend, coupled with decreasing fertility and a fall in religious belief, is likely to contribute to social conditions more favourable to the future passage of divorce legislation.

9.The results of the study showed that young people and urban dwellers were more likely to believe that divorce (a) would lead to greater well-being in cases of conflict, (b) would facilitate reconciliation with Northern Ireland, (c) would protect minority rights and (d) would show compassion for those experiencing marital breakdown - see pages 20 and 21 of Appendix. The Joint Committee feel that, in the absence of some major influence to change these attitudes, they will become increasingly influential in the future.

Abortion

10.Despite the result of the referendum in 1983, only 38% of those interviewed felt that abortion was not permissible under any circumstances while 58% felt that it may be permissible in certain circumstances - see page 31 of Appendix. The data reflect the strong belief on the part of many - including many of those who voted for the constitutional amendment on the right to life of the unborn child - that abortion should be allowed when the life or health of the woman is in danger and when pregnancy results from rape or incest - see pages 34 and 35 of Appendix.

The Joint Committee were impressed by the high degree of consensus on these issues between those who voted for and against the Constitutional amendment.

11.This is brought out clearly in the data relating to life-saving treatment for a pregnant woman which may result in the loss of her unborn child. Overall 75% of the sample favoured giving treatment in such circumstances; this figure included a large majority of those who voted for the amendment of the Constitution - see pages 40 and 41 of Appendix.

12.A series of questions was put to respondents concerning how much “say” they felt various parties should have in the decision of whether a pregnant woman with a life threatening disease could receive treatment, even if this would result in the loss of her foetus. The results showed that while 80% felt the woman should have the final say, it was clear that three (usually) male figures may also actively contribute to the decision on her life (i.e., husband, doctor and priest) - see page 44 of Appendix.

13.Denial of medical treatment could pose a serious threat to her life. Is it now the position that a doctor may be constrained to deny treatment in such circumstances because of fear of breaking the law? Will this lead to an ineq inequitous situation where a woman who can afford it is able to travel abroad while a less well off woman may be left at risk? The Joint Committee cannot regard this as an ideal situation.

Moral Issues

14.Respondents were presented with 15 different moral issues, or behaviours with moral or potentially moral implications, which they were asked to rate in terms of immorality or sinfulness. The following data, which are taken from page 55 (and presented in greater detail on pages 52-53) of the Appendix, show the rank order, as listed:

Perceived Sinfulness/Immorality of Various Behaviours

1.Murder

2.Rape

3.Killings Carried out for Political Motives

4.Abortion

5.Adultery

6.Racial Prejudice

7.Stealing

8.Discrimination against Women

9.Discrimination against Itinerants

10.Religious Intolerance

11.Lying

12.Evading Tax

13.Pre-Marital Sexual Intercourse

14.Divorce

15.Using Contraceptives

15.The Joint Committee are somewhat surprised at the low ranking given to divorce and contraception in view of the public debate and controversy which these issues engendered.

16.It was found that adultery and stealing were considered more immoral than discrimination against women and itinerants while racial prejudice was considered more immoral than discrimination against women, itinerants and religious minorities. The Committee believes Perhaps it is easier to acknowledge the immorality of racial prejudice when it is not on one’s own doorstep, whereas injustices against groups closer to home, such as women and itinerants, not to mention religious minorities, may be more comfortable to overlook.

17.The results of the study revealed the close link between religiosity and perceived immorality of sex-related behaviours, whereas no link between religious beliefs and perceived morality/immorality of issues concerned with social justice was found. The apparent pre-occupation with the morality of sex-related behaviours by all Churchs and the apparent relative under-emphasis of the morality of other issues, such as discrimination, including discrimination against women, has led to a situation in which sex-related issues receive pre-eminent attention in public debates in the Oireachtas and in the media. The Joint Committee are concerned that issues of social justice, particularly discrimination against women and other disadvantaged groups, are not widely perceived as moral issues by the population. These are issues which should be incorporated into school curricula and teacher training. This recommendation complements recommendations made in the Joint Committee’s Report on Education (Pl. 2671).

18.The Joint Committee acknowledge that the Catholic Church in Ireland has been greatly concerned with social justice, particularly concerning poverty and economically disadvantaged groups. They are aware that the Irish Bishops have recognised the feminist movement as one of the most

significant movements in our time. Moreover, the Joint Committee welcome the statement by Cardinal Tomas Ó Fiaich at the Synod of Bishops in Rome in October 1987 that feminism is now a challenge facing the Church which can no longer be written-off as middle class madness or an American aberration. If this and other challenges are to be faced, more remains to be done in relation to discrimination against women, itinerants, and racial and religious minorities in this country.

19.In an increasingly complicated world where the rights of minorities must be respected, the The geui Committed fell legislation should be sufficiently flexible to meet the complexities of modern life. The Constitution, with all its merits, is too blunt an instrument to use to govern such situations because, of its nature, it is too rigid and too difficult to amend to enable it to respond to the needs of a changing society. A person who is called on to answer “yes” or “no” to a single question put in a Constitutional referendum cannot have regard to a range of nuances arising from the principal proposition even if they have been exhaustively discussed beforehand. This calls into question the desirability of regulating in the Constitution issues which closely affect women as well as other issue in such a way as to preclude flexibility of approach which is essential if the rights of women are to be preserved.

20.Despite the results of the referenda in 1983 and 1986, there would seem to be evidence of considerable ambivalence in attitude towards moral questions relating to divorce and abortion. The application of legislative provisions - constitutional or other - depends on the consent of the population at large. If that consent is not forthcoming or there is a considerable body of dissent there is a danger that the law will fall into disrepute or that those who can afford it will be able to circumvent the law while the less well off will be required to conform. As legislators, the members of the Joint Committee on Women’s Rights believe that this is a situation which should be avoided at all costs.

Approved by the Joint Committee on July, 1988.

Monica Barnes, T.D.

Chairwoman.

July, 1988.