The appointment of Jenny Pyper as interim head of the civil service last week is the third appointment of a woman to the most senior positions in our public life. Brenda King was appointed as interim Attorney General in the summer and Marie Anderson as Police Ombudsman in May of last year. These appointments dramatically change the public sphere's landscape of gender representation, especially with two female joint First Ministers.
his is welcome relief from previous administrations, which saw overwhelmingly male appointments and some low water-marks for gender equality. Remember the appointment of only one woman to the 16-person Commission on Flags, Culture and Identity in 2016?
However, while the overall gender picture is beginning to improve, there are gaping holes, not least the disgraceful treatment of women in the legacy debate.
Women's experience of our conflict was different to men's and, because society traditionally places little value on women's roles, then that experience is all but deleted in our ineffective efforts on how to deal with our past.
Women who have been bereaved and injured by the conflict have seen little resolution or remedy for the harms inflicted on them.
When we realise that 91% of all of those injured during our conflict were men, we immediately realise the gendered implications of legacy are not just perceived, but very real.
To date, all of the focus in the debate on dealing with the past has been on deaths, their investigation and the debate on accountability. The women who survived are treated as "next of kin" on legal aid green forms, or as "eyewitnesses" in investigations.
Periodically, we will hear some of the voices of women who have been bereaved, usually in connection to an interrogation of the circumstances in which the men were killed. None of the Stormont House infrastructure mentions women and, even now, despite this being highlighted at the time, it is never mentioned in the debate.
When the payment scheme for the injured was introduced earlier this year, it made provision for those who had suffered psychological injury, which is progressive; however, the legislation purposefully excludes those whose injury is a result of violent bereavement, but who were not at the scene of the killing.
Because of the nature of how and where deaths occurred, this will exclude the most harmed of the bereaved and that will be, by its nature, overwhelmingly women.
A physical example of how we view women and their experience of conflict is the Maze/Long Kesh site. There are few preserved buildings there, but those that survive speak to the experience of prisoners and the wardens and, compellingly, the complex history and role of that prison in our shared history.
Thousands of men went through those spaces. The first buildings to be demolished, however, were the Quakers hut and the visiting blocks. These sites saw hundreds of thousands of women visiting husbands, boyfriends, brothers, fathers and especially sons.
The role of the Quakers was extraordinary in supporting those women, often visiting with young children and babies. Yet that experience of so many was not even considered with the demolition. Their history was deliberately deleted.
But it could all have been so different. This year marks the 20th anniversary of a landmark resolution at the United Nations Security Council, which recognises the particular and essential experience of women during and after conflict.
UN Security Council Resolution 1325 binds member states to actions that ensure women are supported to participate in political spheres and measures are taken to ensure that their particular needs post-conflict are appreciated and met.
Sadly, for women bereaved and injured who live in this part of the world, the resolution does not reach them.
The British Government, a permanent member of the Security Council, does not recognise what happened here as a conflict, so they will not apply their national action plans to the north of Ireland.
The Irish action plan recognises the north, but their plans are diplomatic and concentrate on community relations, rather than the hard issues faced by women who have waited nearly 50 years for truth or justice, or are denied the injured pension.
Both governments are fully aware of this lacuna for women and nod with furrowed brows when it is raised, which it has been and often, but do nothing about it.
Our post-conflict society has treated victims and survivors with shameful contempt. There has been perpetual denial of the rights and experiences of those most harmed, with little political consequence.
The appalling treatment of women as part of that denial compounds the harms they have endured and makes that picture all the more sordid and shameful.
Andree Murphy is deputy director of Relatives for Justice
