Questions of institutional misogyny, pay inequality, and sexual violence brought the College Historical Society (the Hist) back to the Graduates Memorial Building (GMB) on Wednesday night to debate the motion, “This House Would Pay Reparations To Women”.
The debate was chaired by Trinity alumna Alana Ryan, the women’s health coordinator at the National Women’s Council of Ireland (NWCI), and featured guest speaker Dr Deirdre Foley, another Trinity graduate and the social media officer for the Economic and Social History Society of Ireland.
Throughout the evening, few topics were left untouched as both sides displayed a deep and thorough comprehension of the multitude of issues pertinent to women in today’s society. The central question, therefore, was not whether women deserve reparations, but rather if the implementation of such reparations would be practical and preferable when compared to other measures.
Foley kicked off the proposition’s argument. Speaking remotely, she chose to focus primarily on financial discrimination, which, according to her, is the most common form of institutionalised inequality faced by women. Limiting her statistics to the Republic of Ireland, she contextualised women’s need for reparations, citing the marriage bar that was introduced in the 1930s and not removed until the 1970s. She argued that it had an unquantifiable effect on women’s financial autonomy, leaving many solely dependent on their husbands to this day.
The proposition’s stance was that the formal recognition of sexism by the state was paramount, but it had to include compensation. The idea of creating a system not dissimilar to the pandemic unemployment payment was suggested by Ailbhe Noonan, but it was the only concrete example of how the payment of reparations would be effectuated. There was also confusion surrounding the form of such reparations, with some speakers proposing cash injections while others opted for subsidising women’s organisations. The latter was addressed by the opposition as being an issue of existing policy, not relevant to the terms of the motion.
Opening for the opposition, Molly Carroll refuted the “laughable” idea that 3.9 billion women worldwide could feasibly be given enough monetary compensation for it to be an act of reparation. Given the scale of such an operation, Carroll warned that the only feasible payments would be “insulting” and reductive. She instead called for education and structural reform. This became the core of the opposition’s argument.
Social policy was reinforced as the prime proposed solution as opposed to superficial, short-term aid, which the opposition felt would excuse those in power from providing solutions that target the root of the problem. Kate Henshaw proclaimed that “women don’t want reparations, they want their basic needs to be met”. Intersectionality was also addressed, with the opposition asking how women’s unique experiences could be compared and accordingly monetised.
While the beginning of the debate dealt with the substantive and practical issues of reparations, the dialogue became more personal and emotive towards the end, with speakers drawing on their own experiences with sexual assault and healthcare. Eva O’Beirne asserted that women in Ireland are not allowed to be in pain and that it would be easier for many to receive compensation instead of the burden of facing the justice system.
Similar experiences were echoed across the floor, although given the history of men paying off victims of assault and the fleeting, capitalist nature of cash handouts, the opposition opted for long-term, radical change as their solution. Despite arguing on separate sides of the motion, both teams were unanimous in their views that women today deserve and require a substantial paradigm shift in the search for true gender equality.
Alana Ryan closed the debate by asking for a moment’s silence for Ashling Murphy and other victims of male violence. She thanked all speakers for their “agitation, passion, and concern”, and highlighted the importance of ensuring that women’s health remains a top priority of the state.
When Ryan opened the vote to the chamber, the motion was unanimously defeated as the opposition had succeeded in convincing most members of the audience that the payment of reparations is an insufficient step for governments to take on the road to gender equality.
However, with no less than three separate assaults on women across the country in the past 72 hours, the debate served as a symbolic show of solidarity with the victims. Speakers on both sides presented a united front in the face of gender-based violence.
The NWCI is hosting a Women’s Rally on March 5th at 12pm outside Leinster House to demand action on women’s equality.
