Author: Erin Janke

Feminist responses toward the women in Armagh were polarized: either they felt they must support them as a women’s rights issue, or they felt that they could not support them due to their nationalist beliefs. The former group argued that the systematic male domination and sexual victimization within the prison bordered on human’s rights issues and could not be ignored. Many feminists took issue especially with the treatment of the prisoners during menstruation, during which they were inadequately supplied with sanitary products, and so smeared menstrual blood on the walls along with feces. One doctor commented on the effects of this kind of treatment:

“The most obvious stress results from the denial of adequate quantities of sanitary towels during menstruation. A ration of any sort is not only a cruel attempt at degradation.., but is physically inadequate” (Weinstein, 28).

In light of these concerns, along with sexual abuse, a faction of feminists took active support for the Armagh women. Indeed, the Armagh women themselves identified their issue as a feminist one,

“It is a feminist issue in so far as we are women, even though we are treated like criminals. It is a feminist issue when the network of this jail is completely geared to male domination. The governor, the assistant governor, and the doctor are all males. We are subject to physical and mental abuse from the male screws who patrol our wing daily, continually peeping into our cells. If this is not a feminist issue, then we feel that the word feminist needs to be redefined to suit these people who feel that “feminist” applies to a certain section of women rather than encompassing women everywhere, regardless of politically held views” (Weinstein, 26).

This identification with the feminist cause was also complicated by the prisoners’ claim that they weren’t separate from the men. The motive behind their protest was the same as the men’s, but they had been prevented from fully joining the men in their protest due to the gender inequalities within their own organization. Many people, like the faction of feminists supporting them, saw their protest as one against the degradation and mistreatment within the prison, less so as a political protest in the name of nationalism. Many republican women disagreed with this interpretation:

“People keep separating Armagh from H-Block. They shouldn’t be separated, they’re together, they are the same. The girls are not getting washed; there’s excreta smeared on the walls; no medical treatment; very little and almost inedible food (most of the girls live on bread most of the time); and harassment and beatings from the screws” (Weinstein, 25).

This reasoning is however, the main reason that many feminists refused to support the protesters. The nationalist goal of a “united Ireland,” which many republican women desired greater than their own freedom as women, many feminists did not agree with. To have a united republic would be to have the ideology of the republic, and necessarily of Catholicism, which was even more fiercely oppressive to women. One woman supported this stance:

“And that is why in no way am I looking for a united Ireland when, as things stand at the minute, all that would mean is more male domination” (Weinstein, 29).

For some women, the connection with the republican cause outweighed the issues of women’s rights at hand, and split the feminist community in their responses to the Armagh women. The schism between feminists was very clear, and those who supported the feminist caused criticized those who refused. Margaret D’arcy commented on this reaction:

“amazing how many women calling themselves feminists, closed their eyes, blocked up their ears, and ran to their political parties – Fine Gael, Sinn Fein the Workers’ Party, and the Irish Labour Party – seeking urgent reassurance in the old patriarchal priorities of women s needs” (Sullivan).

 Catholic Responses                    Republican Responses                    Feminist Responses

Republican responses toward the Armagh protests were complicated and varied in their support for the women. Within the Republican tradition is deeply embedded the age-old idea of “Mother Ireland,” the fictitious symbolic woman who must occupy the domestic sphere or inspire her men to fight for their country to the death. Because of the prevalence of this tradition in Republican ideology, women were expected to play the role and if they strayed from it, were looked down upon. One republican woman describes the mentality:

“… it all boils down to this romantic “Mother Ireland” image. They like to depict Irish women as very staunch and behind their men…but only strong in so far as they’re ultimately supported by men. Not that they can support themselves, make decisions for themselves to have an affair or an “illegitimate” baby, get divorced, or decide to be a lesbian. These things don’t accord with what the pure image of an Irish woman is” (Weinstein, 21-2).

This ideology doesn’t leave room for real women to exist, and subsequently women are turned into symbols within this culture. Republican women existed as symbols in the eyes of their male counterparts up until the dirty protest shattered that image. The smeared menstrual blood on the walls of women’s cells is the antithesis to Mother Ireland, and casts the idea of “woman as nation” in a vastly different light. Though the IRA regarded the women’s participation in the dirty protest as a “step too far,” they ultimately needed to support their women publicly or risk fracturing (Weinstein, 21). This support for the women in both the dirty protest and the hunger strike was vastly gendered, and served merely to try to contextualize the protests within their traditional republican framework. One source noted the differences in media portrayal:

“The H-Block prisoners were portrayed as strong men with high morale-exhibiting a need to keep up the spirits of republican supporters. Republican News observed: ‘The men are possessed by a quiet confidence that what they are doing is right and eventually they will win. There can be little doubt that the morale of the screws will break before the morale of the blanket men.’ On the other hand, the republican media portrayed the protesting women as having been forced into the no-wash protest after they had been beaten by male warders and subsequently denied access to toilet and washing facilities. Rather than discussing their ‘unique and original’ offensive, the republican papers were filled with headlines like ‘Armagh women attacked,’ ‘Armagh beatings,’ and ‘Men squads beat women prisoners’” (22-3).

This rhetoric reinforces the oppressive Republican ideology towards women and reads their actions as something other than what they are. Not all republican reactions were the same, however. Some republican men, especially those protesting in Long Kesh, supported the women as comrades, and had an incredibly positive changed view about women following their time in prison. One man recounts this transition:

“We learnt to appreciate and even pay tribute to women’s participation in and contribution to the struggle. It took us much longer, however, to begin to critically examine our own roles and privileges as men, let alone the gendered division of power and labour in society, as well as in the republican movement. Our respect of women’s political involvement grew out of the contacts we had with our imprisoned female comrades in Armagh Prison. They suffered particularly harsh conditions within the prison because of their actions. In terms of the prison regime they were deemed doubly guilty – not only had they broken the laws of the state but they had also gone against their feminine gender roles as deemed by society” (Sharoni, 113).

These positive changes in ideology led to further positive social change within the IRA and even more so, Sinn Fein, whose policies were adapted to include women as equally as men, and was overall more progressive in their attitudes towards women than most organizations in Northern Ireland in the time following the hunger strikes.

Catholic Responses                    Republican Responses                    Feminist Responses

Catholics generally tended to do what some feminist groups couldn’t, and set aside the matter of republicanism entirely when assessing the Armagh women. Unlike the feminists who were objecting to the inequality the women experienced, Catholic responses tended to do otherwise, characterizing the women as helpless and in need of saving, as in the following appeal:

“To deliberately organise a large group of men to beat a group of helpless women would appear to be an action of peculiar heinousness. To do this on women who are imprisoned and helpless is worse, to misrepresent the truth about it is worse still, and to punish further the unfortunate women who have been beaten severely and indecently is the worst of all” (Weinstein, 32).

In fact, responses from the general Catholic community were in total conflict with those of the feminists. The ideology, even more pervasively so than within the Republican community, was so incredibly engendered. One observation defines the role of women in this ideology,

“We have apostrophised the country itself as a mother. The concept of Mother Ireland has met with wholehearted national approval. The message has been unequivocal. The proper place for women apart from the convent is the home, preferably raising sons for Ireland” (Weinstein, 31).

This response, above all others, did the opposite of what the women intended, and dis-empowered them entirely. Popular Catholic ideology at the time was incredibly restrictive on the role of women that it promoted, and in juxtaposition to an attempt at progress, proves incredibly ironic. The Pope defined the role of women in their ideology,

“May Irish mothers, young women and girls, not listen to those who tell them that working at a secular job, succeeding in a secular profession, is more important than the vocation of giving life and caring for this life as a mother” (Weinstein, 30-1)

 Certainly these views did not adhere to the goals of the women in Armagh, but rather the attempt at support actively attempted to reinforce the roles from which the women were trying to escape. This reaction also ignored one of the main goals of the protests, which was in the name of treatment of republican prisoners, not solely women.

Catholic Responses                    Republican Responses                    Feminist Responses

“Three women today joined the five-week-old hunger strike by prisoners in Northern Ireland demanding that the British Government grant them political status” (Borders)

---

 

The three, inmates of the women’s jail in the town of Armagh, are convicted terrorists, like the seven men who have been refusing all food since Oct. 27 at the Maze Prison near Belfast

---

 

The women at Armagh, though participating in the same protests as their male counterparts in H-Block, received a vastly different reaction to their efforts than the men.

---

“In terms of the prison regime they were deemed doubly guilty – not only had they broken the laws of the state but they had also gone against their feminine gender roles as defined by society” (Sharoni, 113)

---

“In the story the media coverage of Long Kesh contrasts with the lack of information about Armagh prison. The protagonist’s mother only knows how bad the situation is in Armagh because she can relate her daughter’s protest to the male prisoner’s no-wash protest. But Armagh women are not only ignored by the media, men also turn a blind eye to their protest; the other female prisoner in the story complains that her father “won’t even mention it”. A woman surrounded by her bodily waste and her menstrual blood was at odds with the traditionally gentle, passive, and maternal image expected of her gender” (del Pozo, 18)

---

Reactions towards the H-Block protests were polarized: people either saw them as terrorists or as martyrs, willing to dye for their country. The reactions towards the Armagh protests resembled more of a spectrum. Catholic responses tended towards viewing the women as helpless creatures who needed to be protected. Republican responses tended at first to view the women as having strayed from their domestic role, but ultimately supported them and produced social change. Feminists were split among their responses, and either lent their support in the name of women’s rights, but others refused due to the nationalist affiliations. Each group, in response to the same events produced vastly different reactions and rationale supporting them. Though the women received support from many of these factions, in each case it can easily be seen how complicated the support or lack of support is, with the main complicating factor being the pervasive traditional role of women in Ireland.

Catholic Responses                    Republican Responses                   Feminist Responses

---

Within Northern Ireland and indeed within the international stage as a whole, there were extreme and polarized reactions to the 1980 and ’81 hunger strikes in the H-Block of Long Kesh. Bobby Sands became an international figure if not a household name, whether as martyr or terrorist, alongside thirty-some other men. The main objections to the hunger strikes aligned with Margaret Thatcher’s famous statement “crime is crime is crime,” and refused to see Bobby Sands and the other republican protesters as anything but terrorists manipulating their situation into martyrdom.

---

 “Since the start of Sands’ self-starvation, The New York Times and The Washington Post have explained Sands’ imprisonment only in terms of convictions for ‘illegal possession of guns.’ That may be technically accurate; it is not informative. Although it taints the melodrama, it is well to remember that Sands is a terrorist.”

     “Broken Window-Pane Politics,” George F. Will

      Washington Post, 30 April 1981, A-35-1-P

---

“On the question of principle, Britain’s prime minister Thatcher is right in refusing to yield political status to Bobby Sands, the Irish Republican Army hunger striker. But this dying young man has made it appear that her stubbornness, rather than his own, is the source of a fearful conflict already ravaging Northern Ireland. For that, Mrs. Thatcher is partly to blame. By appearing unfeeling and unresponsive, she and her Government are providing Bobby Sands with a death-bed gift-the crown of martyrdom.”

      “Britain’s Gift to Bobby Sands

      New York Times, 29 April 1981, 26:1

---

Supporters of the hunger strikes often appealed to due process, inhuman conditions in Long Kesh, and fear for the explosive reaction from republican supporters that would inevitably come with Sands’ death.

---

 “The Massachusetts Legislature unanimously passed a resolution memorializing the President of the United States to urge the Government of Great Britain to recognize Bobby Sands as a political prisoner.

 In co-sponsoring this resolution, Representative Charles Doyle (D-Boston) and Marie Howe (D-Somerville) called upon the British government ‘to recognize British injustice in occupied Ireland which violates the fundamental principles of common law and human decency that persons are interned without being charged with a crime; are unable to attain a trial by a jury of their peers; coerced confessions are admissible into evidence; and political dissidents are presumed guilty until they have proven themselves innocent.’

 The Massachusetts House of Representatives further declared its abhorrence of ‘the inhuman conditions that have led to a second hunger strike’ and requested the President to inform British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of its desire that the proposals ‘submitted by the British Government to those on the first hunger strike on Dec. 18, 1980, and accepted by them as fulfilling the conditions they sought on embarking on their hunger strike, be implemented by prison authorities without delay.’

 In closing, the Massachusetts House requested President Reagan to immediately contact Prime Minister Thatcher and request her to recognize Sands as a political prisoner and that he not be classed as a common criminal.”

      “Mass. House Resolution Backs Bobby Sands”

       Irish Echo, 2 May 1981, 2

---

“I am asking you not to let Bobby Sands die. His death will result in more violence and senseless deaths. It’s within your power to bring this situation to a peaceful end. For the good of England, and the good of Ireland, please set forth this important peace initiative.”

      U.S. Representative Geraldine A. Ferraro (D-Queens) in a telegram sent to Margaret Thatcher

      The Irish World, American Industrial Liberator & Gaelic American, 9 May 1981, 4

---

Throughout the republican protests, vehement protests came from all around the international stage in regards to the treatment of the men held in Long Kesh, but gone almost entirely unnoticed through those long months were the women performing the same protests in Armagh Prison. According to their male counterparts, “In terms of the prison regime they were deemed doubly guilty – not only had they broken the laws of the state but they had also gone against their feminine gender roles as defined by society” (Sharoni, 113)

Reactions to the Armagh Hunger Strikes

Meaghan Dwyer, Katie Senft, Marion R. Casey. 1981 Hunger Strikes: America Reacts. Archives of Irish America. Website. 12/2/14. http://www.nyu.edu/library/bobst/research/aia/exhibits/0501_hunger/ampress/pov_editorials.htm

Weinstein, Laura. “The Significance Of The Armagh Dirty Protest.” Eire-Ireland 41.3/4 (2006): 11-41. Humanities Source. Web. 25 Nov. 2014.

Sharoni, Simona. “Gendering Resistance within an Irish Republican Prisoner Community.” International Feminist Journal of Politics Volume.Issue (Spring 2000): 104-123. Web. 28 Nov. 2014

Sullivan, Megan. “Roisin McAliskey and the Discourse of Incarceration: Gendered Prison Narratives.” Women in Northern Ireland Cultural Studies and Material Conditions. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida, 1999. Print.

Borders, William. “THREE WOMEN IN ULSTER JOIN PRISONERS HUNGER STRIKE.” The New York Times 2 Dec. 1980. Web. 11 Dec. 2014.

Boland, Evan. “”Anorexic”” N.p., n.d. Web.
Bradley, Laura. “Bernadette Devlin McAliskey.” Bernadette Devlin McAliskey. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Dec. 2014.
McCafferty, Nell. The Armagh Women. Dublin: Co-op, 1981. Print.
Rock, Marcia, Jack Holland, and Angelica Huston. “DAUGHTERS OF THE TROUBLES: BELFAST STORIES.” Daughters of the Troubles, Northern Ireland. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Dec. 2014.

The Armagh Hunger Strikes

---

         In 1976, the British Government moved to declassify the Republican political prisoners. In response to this decision and in support of their male comrades, the Republican women prisoners of Armagh joined the fight and began a dirty protest in 1978. The dirty protest consisted of the women smearing their excrement and menstrual blood on the walls. Two years later, in 1980, these same women would join with Bobby sands and the male prisoners of H-block in a hunger strike. The Hunger Strike demanded for people to listen and forced the British Government to answer to them. The women who participated in these protests did not get the same attention as their male counterparts, but in the end, the actions they took made an impact on the lives of the Republican political prisoners.

---

Works Cited

History

---

The history that lead up to and produced the Armagh hunger strikes reaches far back into traditions of the culture such as the trope of “Mother Ireland,” which is fundamental in understanding the role that had been developed for women in Northern Ireland. The way that women have been viewed, historically, in Ireland is also important in understanding the complicated reactions that different groups had towards the women’s protests. To understand the problematic ways in which the hunger strikes were viewed, is important to read them in the context of the history of the nation to which these women were devoting their lives.

---

                                         

Works Cited

Literature

---

A great deal of literary work has arisen out of the Armagh Hunger strikes in effort to both understand and respond to it. Many of these works are clearly defined in the context of the Armagh hunger strike, and others gain new perspective when read in the context of Armagh. Additionally, these works help to gain different perspectives on the hunger strikes themselves, and can influence the way we read the history of the events.

---

                                                

Works Cited

Silent Grace (Orla Brady and Cara Seymour) was released theatrically by Guerilla Films in the UK and Ireland. It was Critics Choice in the London Metro and Dublin Hot Press.
It was awarded the Soka Art Award and nominated for the Conflict and Resolution Award at the Hamptons Film Festival USA.

Set in Armagh Women’s Prisons in 1980, Silent Grace is inspired by the largely unreported female involvement in the dirty protests and hunger strikes.
Aine, a wild child criminal gets thrown into the same cell as the highest-ranking Republican prisoner, Eileen. Eileen helps save Aine’s sanity and in a dramatic turn of events, Aine helps save Eileen’s life.

Visit the Director’s Site Here