Change in Women in Constitution

ateam

Can anyone tell me why there wasn't a change in the position of women in the 1937 constitution. I know there was a committee on the issue a couple of years ago..can anyone tell me the outcome of that and why it was decided not to change the constitution. Thanks

Johnmb

ateam wrote: »

Can anyone tell me why there wasn't a change in the position of women in the 1937 constitution. I know there was a committee on the issue a couple of years ago..can anyone tell me the outcome of that and why it was decided not to change the constitution. Thanks

What exactly is there to change? Its been a long time since I read the constitution, so I can't remember if it is explicitly stated in it, or if the Supreme Court ruled that it is implied, but the end result is that any reference to men in it is deemed to also include women. So basically, men and women are treated equally in the constitution as it currently is, so there's no need to change it on equality grounds. (the practice may be different, but that's a different matter).

ateam

Johnmb wrote: »

What exactly is there to change? Its been a long time since I read the constitution, so I can't remember if it is explicitly stated in it, or if the Supreme Court ruled that it is implied, but the end result is that any reference to men in it is deemed to also include women. So basically, men and women are treated equally in the constitution as it currently is, so there's no need to change it on equality grounds. (the practice may be different, but that's a different matter).

The constitution states that the correct place for a woman is in the home.

Johnmb

ateam wrote: »

The constitution states that the correct place for a woman is in the home.

Which article states that? I know there was the family one which stated the no woman should have to work outside the home, supposedly to safeguard families, but that particular article doesn't say it is the correct place for a woman iirc. Plus, it is pretty much meaningless now. When the government changed the tax rules for married couples they ignored that article, and no successful challenge was made. Also, while it could be deemed to be unfair to men, if it did have any meaning then that meaning could easily be argued to apply to men also (if mentions of "men" also refer to women, then the reverse must also be true), so effectively it simply means that if one parent wishes to stay at home to raise the children, then the state should ensure that it is possible for him/her to do so. That obviously would create problems regarding one parent families, but that is a different matter.

brianthebard

The position of women wasn't changed cause Dev was a backward fool. There was a committee in the late 60s/early 70s set up by the UN, and when Ireland joined the EU there was a general shift to more equality, but I'm not exactly sure what form that took in the constitution.

Johnmb

I checked out the constitution on the web, and can't find any explicit statement that where reference to "man" occurs it also includes "woman", and I could be wrong about the Supreme Court ruling on the matter, so I won't use that either. But I can find no place in the constitution where it says the correct place for a woman is in the home. The two sections that come closest to it, in modern times are discriminating against men, and in their time served a purpose. One states that a woman who chooses to stay at home looking after the children etc is carrying out an important task, and should not be discriminated against as a result. That was important at the time due to the shift (especially in the UK) in the role of women. And the feminist movement of the time also tried to put pressure on women to do what they (feminist movement) felt women should be doing, not what the women themselves wanted. So that addition to the constitution protected those women who chose to be housewives, it doesn't say that they should be housewives. The second part states that a mother should not have to work outside the home due to economic necessity. Again, in modern times that discriminates against fathers, and is probably not required at all, but in context it was written at a time when families were generally much larger and it was almost exclusively the mother who raised the children, so this was a protection to them in a time when the men controlled the money, it gave economic guarantees to the women (or at least those who were mothers). In modern times, the whole thing needs to be rewritten, but that wouldn't be a topic for this board to discuss.

brianthebard

The second part you refer to is why people get single parent allowances and suchlike.

Johnmb

brianthebard wrote: »

The second part you refer to is why people get single parent allowances and suchlike.

Yep. Something that was necessary at the time the constitution was written. While it may all need updating now, it should be judged by what it achieved in its time (on this particular board).

brianthebard

I'm not sure what you are getting at John, that particular aspect of the constitution is invoked every day, whether by people getting the child benefit or more substantial payments. I'm well aware that this is a history forum, but history isn't relevant if it doesn't relate to the modern day. Anyways the point I'm making is that whatever article you are referring to is still important today.

Johnmb

I'm not denying that it is still important today. However, that is irrelevant to the OP. And a long discussion on all the things that should be changed would be better placed on the politics board than here. The OP suggests that the constitution says the correct place for women is in the home, and I pointed out that is not the case.

ateam

Johnmb wrote: »

I'm not denying that it is still important today. However, that is irrelevant to the OP. And a long discussion on all the things that should be changed would be better placed on the politics board than here. The OP suggests that the constitution says the correct place for women is in the home, and I pointed out that is not the case.

Well the constitution doesn't explicitly state that the "correct" place for a woman is in the home, but it is implied. As far as I know, it hasn't changed and I'm wondering why. It's articles 40, 41 or 42.

Gobán Saor

Article 41 is the relevent bit. It says:

1. 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.
2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.
2. 1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.
2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

The Constitutional Review group's position was:

Article 41.2 assigns to women a domestic role as wives and mothers. It is a dated provision much criticized in recent years. Notwithstanding its terms, it has not been of any particular assistance even to women working exclusively within the home.

Nothing has been done about it since.