As a member of the Joint Committee on Women's Rights, like the two previous speakers I am glad to get an opportunity to make my contribution on this report. I would like to start off where Senator M. Higgins finished by paying a tribute to Deputy Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, the chairman, and Deputy Monica Barnes, the vice-chairman, for their hard work. I would also like to thank Mr. John Cullen for his patience and help on occasions and his assistant Ms. Maura Flanagan. I would also like to thank Ms. Maeve Casey, research psychologist with the department of psychology in UCD. Earlier today I paid a very brief tribute to Deputy Richard Bruton and I will not repeat that except to say that the committee passed a resolution congratulating Deputy Bruton on his promotion and expressing regret at losing the help of such an able and committed member. Together with many other aspects, this shows very clearly that the committee are, as they should be, above party political considerations. That is clear and I am grateful for it.
I will make a brief reference to the committee system. It is well worth while. It entails a great amount of work. In my case I found difficulty in attending many of the meetings. It is not easy to participate in the meetings and play a part in the proceedings of this House. That is the reservation I would have. Perhaps when reconsidering the committee system at a future date fewer committees might be more helpful, or there could be consideration with regard to meeting at different times when this House is not in progress.
Like the two previous Members, I want to express thanks to the individuals and groups who made written and oral submissions. I understand these will be published. I would like to know if they are available at present because, while we in the Oireachtas may get copies in the Oireachtas Library, I am sure many people outside would like to get copies of the minutes of those presentations. In terms of this report — and it is quite an extensive volume — those minutes would run into many volumes. I should like to ask the Minister if they are readily available. I think they should be.
Before I deal with the report — and indeed I will only deal with sections of it as it is so comprehensive that it would take very long to go through the whole report — I should like to deal with the religious aspect and specifically with the ordination of women. I raised this matter at the joint committee meeting on 14 February 1983 and I got a good response. Indeed, I made the case that even in this area we do not have altar girls, not that that would be satisfactory in itself. I have seen many reports since in this regard. Many people would say that we have more important matters to deal with at present such as unemployment and the state of the economy and, indeed, I would agree. Nevertheless, in relation to women's rights I believe this is a very important area. There might be others who would say it is not appropriate for me to make a case in this regard. I feel strongly about it and I got a good response at that committee meeting.
I am referring specifically to the Catholic Church of which I am a member although I am setting no great headline as a member. There is a basic inequality with regard to women. Men may receive the seven sacraments but women may receive only six. They cannot receive Holy Orders. The difficulty is that the Church upholds the highest moral standards. Nobody would question that. Here we are on this committee trying to do whatever is necessary to achieve equality. How can we expect to get equality when the Church says that women may not be ordained, that for some reason they are not suitable, they are not good enough and they cannot be ordained. I cannot see any difficulty in this regard. The historical fact is that women have never been ordained in the Church, but I do not think there is any great change of dogma necessary to bring about a situation in which women would be ordained, because the Church has life, vitality, growth. The central doctrine of the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, is alive and growing. There is this evolution in it.
Like church buildings one cannot be stagnant. We all recall the buildings of our youth. Indeed, some of them are with us still — the Gothic arches and so on that we identify with the Church. In the Church we have this growth. Buildings have changed and we now have modern buildings. What better evolution could we have or what better development within the Church than that women would be allowed to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders?
I will finish on this note in regard to this matter. I am no prophet, but I can foretell that the Church will ordain women. If it is to survive for another 2,000 years, and I believe it will, it must come to that decision to ordain women. People ask me am I questioning Christ. I am not doing any such thing. I am putting the case, as this committee are doing, that there should be equal rights for men and women. In this basic area of morality, no case can be made for continuing the situation as it is.
The terms of reference are fairly concise. They are that the joint committee shall:
(a) examine or propose legislative measures which would materially affect the interests of women,
(b) consider means by which any areas of discrimination against women can be eliminated, and by which the obstacles to their full participation and the political, social and economic life of the community can be removed.
(c) consider specific economic and social disadvantages applying to women in the home, and bearing in mind the special nature of their contribution to the community, to recommend effective policy and administrative changes to help eliminate these disadvantages and report to the Houses of the Oireachtas thereon.
What I would like to say here is that religion is not included. I accept that. Indeed, I am sure religion should not be included. The State should not be involved in religion. But then, and for that reason, it is all the more important to deal in whatever way possible with religious inequality. I know, and indeed today's report in one of the newspapers states very clearly, that there are many women who would not want to be ordained. That is not the basic problem. Even if Holy Orders were available to women and even if no woman wanted to receive Holy Orders, the big question is are women in religion unequal to men? With the situation as it is at the moment, that is as I see it. I believe that should be changed.
Some people feel that equality in effect is a lowering of the status of women. Some women believe that they are stronger, more principled in character, that many ways it is the women who keep the men on the straight path. I would accept that. But that is in a situation where we have a reaction of women in a loving relationship. It has been said, that we are not saying that women are equal in strength to men or in many other areas. It is a question of equal rights.
With regard to the reports we have dealt with before on education and social welfare, Senator Michael D. Higgins has said there has been an impact. This will extend into the future. This report on the portrayal of women in the media is equally important. Indeed, if it had been selected as our first report, I would not quibble with it. It is of such significance. It is a subject to which the members of the joint committee have devoted considerable time and deliberation. They did so in the belief that the subject is one of importance, not only to Irish women, but also to concerned Irishmen, in other words to society as a whole.
The committee devoted particular attention in a number of areas, and these are specified; images of women in advertising and their effects, the structure of the Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland and the application of their code of standards in relation to sexist abuses, controls for sexism in advertising that exist in other countries, the situation of women employed in the media and images of women in broadcast and print media. We had the oral presentations and the written submissions and in addition research was commissioned, as Senator Michael D. Higgins has stated.
The committee were satisfied from all the representations made to them that there is a high degree of resentment among sectors of the general public at the way in which women are portrayed in parts of the media. I would say this is related to concerned, thinking and forward looking people. The members are committed to elimination of this sexism from out society. Recognising the power of the media to influence attitudes, they attach a high priority to the elimination of sexism from all branches of the media. Some of the Members have dealt in detail with television and indeed television has a great impact. We all know the power of advertising. This is a feature of commercial and business life. Indeed, anyone who has a product to sell knows how important advertising is. In many instances I know that the price of an article is doubled, specifically because advertising is very expensive. But it pays in the long run. In the United States an £8 billion industry in the fifties rose to a £40 billion industry in the seventies. In Ireland £105 million turnover in 1984 grows to £117 million in 1985. That was an extraordinary increase. It is clear that such a high investment would not be countenanced by the industry unless it had an impact. Clearly in this area there is great potential for good, and the reverse.
All the advertisments project an image. Those targeted on women contain two messages. One is to buy brand X and the other is that women are thus in society. This is easy to understand. The primary purpose is to sell a product, but in addition to selling that product a myth is put across about women, that women are thus. The impact of this is great. The whole trend of the report is geared towards this power. To deny the implicit "women are thus" message is to deny the efficacy of advertising. Senator Dooge has stated that advertisers would claim that it is not the function of advertising to promote social change. As against that, the manner in which they portray women has an impact on social change, and cognisance should be taken of that. Members drew attention to the industry's own code of conduct which states that all advertisments should be prepared with a sense of responsibility to the consumer and to society, and that no advertisment should explicitly or by implication infringe the principles of the social, economic and cultural equality of the sexes. In a sense, I suppose, this is not terribly strong, but in any event it is the standard. It is the standard or the norm by which industry will judge advertisments.
In relation to sexism in advertising, the committee dealt with the reports and analyses of various journals. These reveal a consensus as to the main sexist abuses and are dealt with under three headings, (1), the demeaning portrayal of the home maker, that is by far at the top of the list, (2), the exploitation of the female body and (3), failure to mirror current reality in role patterns. This research has been condensed into a rather compact table. Senator Dooge has referred to it and I should like to take the important parts of this table which is worked out under three headings, (a), female image portrayed in advertisements (b), criteria of sexism and (c), rationale for criteria of sexism.
Under the heading of home maker the criteria are woman as dependent, male authority voice-overs, male expert advisers and women as unintelligent. The rationale for criteria of sexism suggests woman incapable of doing basic domestic tasks on her own authority or on a shared authority with her partner, the home maker reaching unparalleled heights of ecstacy from doing basic domestic tasks or being obsessional about certain domestic chores.
Under the second heading, the decorative female is subcategorised under the headings of carefree, fashion, sensual and sex symbol. The criterion there is that excessive use fails to mirror the current reality of women in a wider diversity of roles. That excessive use implies that the female main role in life is to be passively decorative. The criterion with regard to the sex symbol is nudity as eye catcher, and the rationale or criteria of sexism are use of female body solely as attention getter; woman as object; exploitation of female body, and other areas which I will not mention in regard to the concept of decorative female.
Thirdly, consideration is given to modern woman combining a career with a home making role. The criteria there are excessive avoidance of modern woman — failure to mirror current reality in role patterns with the rationale denying current reality of the growing number of women's lifestyles.
Number four relates to the older woman and the criterion there is excessive avoidance of indeed, we could go so far as to say total avoidance of the older woman. This suggests that the older woman is better hidden or invisible, even privately, given the portrayal of domestic life in advertising.
The last consideration is of authority in voice-overs. We note that there is excessive use of male authority voice-overs and that this fails to mirror the reality of women as comprising over 50 per cent of the population. I do not spend very long in front of television but even so I note that we have these voice-overs. I realise that many of these advertisements are prepared in other countries and that it will take some time before this report will have effect in that regard, but I will be looking out for that.
With regard to sexism in advertising in Ireland, the committee found that in order to present reliable and accurate information regarding the portrayal of women in advertising it was necessary to commission research. Part of this involved the collation of 339 advertisements under certain categories from television, radio, magazines, newspapers, buses and billboards during the period March and April 1985. It is interesting to note from the table supplied in the report with regard to that research that of the total number of 339, 84 were related to home maker. Of these, 27 had own or shared authority, 45 had a male authority and 12 had no voice-over. The decorative female category had a staggering number of 183 out of 339, 44 showes the female as carefree, 66 as sensual, 38 as fashionable and 35 as sex objects. Therefore, of the 339, 84 and 133 involved the home maker or the decorative female.
Let me make a brief comment on that research. Of the advertisements using a home maker image 54 per cent suggested with their choice of voice-over that a woman performed her domestic duties subject to male authority and a number of these implied that women attach enormous importance to basic domestic chores.
In the category excessive use of decorative females in advertisements, 54 per cent suggested that a woman's main role in life was to be decorative and a majority of these showed woman as passive. Of the advertisements referred to 19 per cent were blatantly exploitive in using women as sex objects and only four per cent portrayed women in any work whatever outside the home, including the most traditional female work areas such as clerk, secretary, teacher, nurse and factory worker. It is noted that almost 80 per cent of the advertisements sampled showed women in the glamour girl, home maker dichotomy and only 1 per cent of the advertisements portrayed older women, while 82 per cent of radio advertisements for non-domestic products used male voice-overs, thus failing to reflect that over 50 per cent of the population is female.
The report comes to the conclusion that these findings present a narrow, limited, inaccurate and at times exploitive portrayal of women. Could anybody really question those findings? I do not think so.
With regard to the effects of sexist advertising, the cumulative effect of this portrayal hour after hour, day after day, week after week, is to undermine women whether their primary roles be as home makers or participants in the labour force. It does not mirror current reality in role patterns. More important, this undermining is bound to counteract the work being done in other areas such as schools, industry, trade unions and among all concerned people who want change in this area. It is not suggested that advertisers set out consciously to demean women; of course they do not, but the widespread use of sexism in advertising indicates a grave awareness with regard to the advertising industry and is contrary to their own code of standards — the standards of the Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland — which state, and this has been mentioned by Senator Higgins:
All advertisements should be prepared with a sense of responsibility to the consumer and society. No advertisement should explicitly or by implication infringe the principle of the social, economic and cultural equality of the sexes.
That is not as positive as we would wish but nevertheless it is a norm and if the advertisements shown on television were compared with it, they would not be allowed. This portrayal of women is inaccurate at all times — the report states "at times". It is common to so many people that it poses a real problem, not only for today but for the future. This is the nub of the problem.
The constant exposure of young impressionable people to this type of advertising will lead them inevitably to believe in it and many of them will accept it as true. Over a long period the effect of this type of advertising will certainly influence women as to how they should behave and convey to men and to boys an impression as to how women should behave. If they do not behave in that manner they are stepping outside their role and misbehaving. This lays down the parameters to the role women must play. This is the major problem. It is impossible to understand fully the impressions advertisements make on young people. In that area, there is no room for the many women who have special talents. The media are one area which shows that women have many talents. The talented well known women journalists are proof of that. I am tempted to name some of them but, on reflection, it might be better not to. Everybody will accept the statement that women in journalism and in the media could be considered superior to men.
With regard to woman as the home maker, this is an important area. A number of submissions emphasised that many advertisements implied that a woman's place is only in the home, that her only work is housework and that this is the only basis for asserting her worth. She is shown as being interested only in serving her husband and children without regard to her own talents or ambitions. She is seen as a docile, passive and contented individual. While advertisements might show the woman in that light, many married men would say otherwise. I say that in passing. These advertisements show a woman as being unsure of herself and always needing the advice of a man and his approval for anything she does, buys or wears. Most of the advertisements are for products used mostly by women.
I have already referred to the preponderance of male voice-overs which, in one sense, is insulting to women, with regard to such items as washing machines, detergents, polishes and so on. In any of the advertisements I have seen on television, I cannot recall seeing a man wearing an apron washing up dishes. Perhaps there is such an advertisement, but if there is, I am sure it would be typical of modern life in Ireland where increasingly the husband is playing his part with the domestic chores. The report asks how many men know anything about these articles. Even when they help in the home, I am sure they depend on the judgment of the woman of the house.
The joint committee are not denigrating the value of the work of a woman in the home. On the contrary it is a contribution Members believe our culture has consistently undervalued. It must be emphasised that the talents of a woman extend beyond the area of the kitchen. There is a growing tendency for the work to be shared by the man and the woman, but this fact does not seem to have permeated through to the advertisers. This portrayal implies that the woman is lacking in intelligence and that her interests outside the home are nil. It is inaccurate in that it suggests men do not share the housework with their partners. It shows the woman slavishly tied to the kitchen sink. Those of us involved in house design know that the trend is to get away from the kitchen sink and this trend has been very successful.
With regard to the woman as a decorative female sex object, the proliferation of advertisements which depict women as sex objects or mere decorations suggests that women are obsessed by their bodies and by being sexually attractive to men. This type of advertising reinforces the impression that a woman cannot be appreciated as a person in her own right, a person with intelligence, chosen for her intelligence and appreciated for her intelligence, but for such things as hair style, make-up, perfume, clothes or lack of clothes, which make her attractive to men. This is insulting. It undervalues the intelligence of women and those who watch the advertisements. It is interesting to note that, in advertisements of this kind, women are always portrayed as young, pretty and slim. It would seem that in the world of advertising the heavy hand of old age never touches the female form. This is a totally unreal situation.
The report stated that the portrayal of a woman as a sex object to promote the sale of goods and services is, in effect, an affront to the dignity and the intelligence of the human person. It stated that the continued portrayal of women in such situations as decorative additions to merchandise can result only in a lowering of the status and dignity of women in society. It was represented to the joint committee that such a portrayal is on a continuum from soft to hard pornography. Those are very strong words. It is a very strong condemnation but who can say it is extreme? Who can say it is exaggerated? It puts it in its proper light as viewed by the committee.
The report stated that while it cannot be shown there is direct link between such portrayal and the sexual abuse of women, it is reasonable to infer that the portrayal of women as sex objects conditions the mind to accepting them as such. Advertisers must realise they have a responsibility in this regard to portray women in a non-sexist and dignified fashion.
The Advertising Authority for Ireland have been referred to. They are a voluntary body responsible for both broadcast and print advertising. I wish to express my gratitude to them for the help they gave the committee. The Code of Advertising Standards for Ireland is administered by the Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland. It is a voluntary code containing a specific reference which deals with sexism. The code states inter alia that:
—all advertisements should be prepared with a sense of responsibility to the consumer and to society. No advertisement should explicitly or by implication infringe the principle of the social, economic and cultural equality of the sexes.
Personally, I would prefer to see that in a positive rather than in a negative light. It also stated that all advertisements should be legal, decent, honest and truthful. Quite frankly, I find this to be rather ambiguous. Some of the advertisements to which the committee would take grave exception might possibly be justified when considered in the light of those criteria.
The report stated that between the period May 1981 and February 1985 almost 10 per cent of the 945 complaints by the Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland related to sexist issues. Some 945 complaints were received and of these 727 were not pursued. Of the total number received 92 relation to sexism, 16 were not pursued, 76 were pursued and 22 were upheld, 29 per cent. The report made this comment in connection with the matter.
Of the 92 complaints relating to sexism, 76 were pursued. Of these complaints 22 relating to three sexist advertisements were upheld. In the latter case the offending advertisments were withdrawn but no fines were imposed on the manufacturers, advertising agencies or media involved. Whilst the members accept that the low number of complaints received suggest public apathy on this issue, they find it deplorable that in the case of 36 complaints made and not upheld (mainly relating to the portrayal of women as a sex object) the specific clause of the ASAI code relating to sexism appears to have been ignored. Complaints were rejected on the grounds that they were not in breach of a general clause in the code which states that—
advertisements should contain nothing which is likely, in the light of generally prevailing standards of decency and propriety, to cause grave or widespread offence.
I find this is very vague and not at all forward looking. Something more specific is required there.
The report states that members of the ASAI interviewed claim they had a difficulty in interpreting the clause covering sexism in their own code. The committee suggested that the criteria laid down in the table in the report be accepted.
Senator Higgins referred to advertorials. An advertorial is neither an editorial nor an advertisement. It is difficult to come to a conclusion as to who is responsible for it. It seems to me that an advertorial is a clever way of pretending that something advertised is recommended by the editorial staff. I am sure it is very effective. I will not go so far as to say it is deceitful, but in a situation where so many people would read an advertorial and accept it as editorial input I think it is deceitful. Advertorials, as I understand them, are not related solely to text; pictures are included. This is an area where it is necessary to have some kind of definition as to who is responsible. I hope this will be done in the near future.
The committee made certain recommendations for change in the ASAI. They were satisfied that, if the existing code of standards were strengthened by the inclusion of a specific section dealing with the portrayal of women, including proper guidelines as to what is and is not acceptable in the whole area of advertising, the agencies and the industry in general would become more aware of the need to eliminate sexism to reflect the reality of the rapidly changing role of women in society.
The code of the Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland at present contains ten appendices setting out rules to be adhered to in relation to the advertising of specific goods and services but, significantly, there are no rules, regulations or guidelines to cover the portrayal of women in advertising. The committee consider that omission should be rectified immediately. I feel if this were done it would do much good and it would in itself justify the work of the committee. Again, the committee suggest that the criteria laid down in table 1 in the report be adopted.
The broadcast media have been referred to by Senator Dooge and Senator Michael Higgins. The role of Radio Telefis Éireann as the national broadcasting service is vital to any discussion of women in the media. The joint committee expressed thanks to the Liaison Group on Women in Broadcasting and the copy clearance committee of RTE for appearing before them, setting out the situation as they saw it in RTE and also to the management and staff who gave the fullest co-operation at all times.
The report states that in January 1979 a working party was set up by the RTE Authority to examine the position with regard to women in broadcasting. Its terms of reference covered three specific areas: (1) representation of women in programmes, in terms both of actual participation and programme orientation; (2) job opportunities in broadcasting; and (3) portrayal of women in advertising. All advertisements on television are subject to the code of conduct of the ASAI but RTE also operate their own code of conduct for standards in broadcast advertising.
Senator Dooge dealt with the question of the copy clearance committee and pointed out that it did not have even one lady member. It is very difficult to understand how in an organisation where so many women are employed and have made a big impact that this is so. The committee were very disappointed to discover that. However, as Senator Dooge said, arrangements were made to draft one lady onto the copy clearance committee and we were promised it would be done by September 1985 but this deadline was not met. Nevertheless, in October 1985 a woman was drafted onto that copy clearance committee. The joint committee made it clear that they wanted a very competent person, somebody who would make a big impact on that committee and I believe this has been done. The committee also had reservations about the composition of the copy clearance committee and Senator Dooge referred to that. Members were drawn solely from the managers sales division and the committee thought it was very important to have consumer representation on that committee.
With regard to the print media the image most prevalent in advertisements is that of the decorative female. Members of the joint committee are very conscious of the importance of portraying a woman in an attractive way but they rejected the narrowness of vision which emphasises this aspect of femininity to the exclusion of all other aspects of a woman's life. Appendix J to the Code of Advertising Standards states:
Advertisements should neither claim nor suggest that any drink can contribute towards sexual success or make the drinker more attractive to the opposite sex.
Yet this is being done. It is difficult to understand how, in view of that part of the code, these advertisements got through but, nevertheless, that is the reality.
In their recommendations with regard to control of sexism in advertisements here the committee felt it was necessary to have a statutory regulation for the control of advertising. We considered the position in ten countries that had various means of controlling advertising. Canada is one country where a voluntary code seems to be successful. Other countries had less success but the committee came to the conclusion with regard to the progress being made here and the want of concern, that statutory regulations were important. The committee felt it was important that in any new legislation there would be a specific clause covering sexism in advertising. The report dealt with Norway where there is a specific statute and although the clause seemed rather innocuous to me it appears to be very effective. The clause is as follows:
The advertiser and anyone who creates advertising shall ensure that the advertisement does not conflict with the inherent equality between the sexes, and that it does not imply any derogatory judgment of either sex, or portray a man or woman in an offensive manner.
The committee suggest that in order to aid the transition to non-sexist advertising a liaison committee should be established. The joint committee felt this should be comprised of one ASAI representative from each of the following groups: advertisers, advertising practitioners, broadcast media and print media. It should also have one representative of consumer interests, nominated by the Director of Consumer Affairs and two representatives of women's affairs nominated by the Council for the Status of Women. Members recommended that the liaison committee in pursuit of their aims should take the following steps:
(1) prepare guidelines of do's and dont's towards a positive portrayal of women in advertising.
That is important, could be very effective and would not be in any way inhibiting. The recommendations continue:
(2) prepare an audio visual presentation on sexism in advertising to be made available to the industry, consumer groups, women's groups and other interested parties.
(3) that speakers be available to address interested groups, in particular groups from the advertising industry.
(4) that a bibliography of sexism in advertising be prepared and made available on request.
(5) that the committee's role as watchdog for the primary consumer group in our society as regards her portrayal in advertising, be made public.
Like other Members I should like to thank the editors of the Irish Sunday newspapers who came before us. Members of the committee were disappointed that one editor declined an invitation to appear before the joint committee and a copy of his letter is included in our report. It has been referred to already and I do not intend to spend any time on it except to say I was disappointed with the letter. The editor of that newspaper stated:
My own view is that there is a considerable difference between men and women. They look different, for a start and I firmly believe that a tractor adorned by a girl in a bikini is infinitely more pleasing to the human eye than the same tractor adorned by a man in Y-fronts.
With regard to that point, the exploitation of the female body, the report states:
The distaste experienced by women's rights activists at the exploitation of the female body in a National Sunday newspaper is well known. The members of this committee find it regrettable that the NUJ continue to tolerate such blatant, flagrant, and persistent infringements of their own Code of Professional Conduct.
The point has been answered perfectly by Senator Dooge. Anybody trying to sell a tractor will be hoping to sell it for agricultural use and, while I am sure there are many women playing a very important role on the farm and driving tractors, it is not a decorative role, and people will buy a tractor for what it can do rather than on the basis of a picture in a paper.
The religious basis this editor referred to was dealt with and is interesting. He concluded:
And I don't think that me sitting in a room answering questions is going to change the fact that women, by and large, not only look different to men, but also think differently and act differently.
My regret in this regard is that in order to make inroads into this problem it is very important to have the co-operation of all those who are in such vital positions. This editor, if he came before us, while he did refer in a perjorative way to the august body, would find that the emphasis was in trying to deal with this great problem. I very much regret that the editor of such an important paper could not see his way to play a part in the work we were trying to do.
Any lowering in the dignity and status of woman is an offence against the whole human family and is resented by both male and female. The joint committee presented the report to all the interested parties in a spirit of co-operation and goodwill. The study by the members was not intended to antagonise or upset anybody or any group and criticisms in the report arise only after long and careful deliberations, from their commitment to eliminate sexism and from the point of view that it could not be eliminated.
The final part of the report is as follows and is important. It is stated on page 70:
Every individual can play a part in promoting the concept of equality between the sexes, but nowhere is the opportunity to do so as great as in the mass media, that powerful moulder of attitudes. This opportunity must be grasped by all concerned so that the days of negative and unreal portrayal of women be a thing of the past, and women are seen to have equal rights with men in the pursuit of fulfilment and happiness, be their primary contribution as homemakers or in the workforce.
I look forward to the Minister's reply. As the two previous reports on education and social welfare made a considerable impact, I hope that this report will make an even greater impact because it affects everybody; nobody escapes from it. For that reason, I look forward to immediate and long term results from this very comprehensive report.
