Referendum on "Women in the Home" clause in the Constitution not forthcoming

Foxhound38

According to the Journal.ie this embarassing carbuncle in our Constitution won't be subject to a referendum for for the moment.

Who in the hell wouldn't want this sexist crap taken out of the blue book? If the Government are so concerned about acknowledging the role of carers, then they should simply replace it with "the State acknowledges the important role of carers" surely?

Skid X

Did you read the article?

A REFERENDUM ON changing the reference in the constitution to women’s ‘life within the home’ will not happen before “extensive consultations” take place according to Justice Minister Alan Shatter.

Seems perfectly sensible to tread carefully before changing the Constitution. As we have seen before, any amendment can have unforeseen consequences.

There is merit in updating this part of the Constitution, but the last thing we need is a badly worded change.

Foxhound38

Skid X wrote: »

Did you read the article?



Seems perfectly sensible to tread carefully before changing the Constitution. As we have seen before, any amendment can have unforeseen consequences.

There is merit in updating this part of the Constitution, but the last thing we need is a badly worded change.

Oh come on, that's the oldest trick in the book. He hasn't ruled it out but he refuses to put any sort of a timescale on it - it's kicking the can down the road

Jimminy Mc Fukhead

Although creating a new constituition is itself a difficult and involved process it would be better than having referendums every week to keep patching up the DeValera one.

fl4pj4ck

Foxhound38 wrote: »

Oh come on, that's the oldest trick in the book. He hasn't ruled it out but he refuses to put any sort of a timescale on it - it's kicking the can down the road

you DO know how much those consultations will cost right?

pharmaton

but who will make the sandwiches?

Skid X

Foxhound38 wrote: »

Oh come on, that's the oldest trick in the book. He hasn't ruled it out but he refuses to put any sort of a timescale on it - it's kicking the can down the road

Nothing of the sort.

If you meddle with the Constitution you are creating a situation where you are changing the rights of the citizens. There are many potential implications - Women's Rights, Mens Rights, Carers Rights, Rights of separated and divorced parents.

No-one can predict absolutely what the consequences of an Amendment might be, but I would like them to take their time about getting the wording correct. it is in everyone's interest.

EyeSight

Why do we need so many Referendums? Can we not save them all up and put them together? Once one ends another begins

5starpool

Obviously it's a stupid inclusion, but is it actually detrimental to women at the moment? Making these references gender neutral or removing them wouldn't mean that women would stop being held back in certain ways would it?

Fighting Irish

Foxhound38 wrote: »

According to the Journal.ie

P_1

5starpool wrote: »

Obviously it's a stupid inclusion, but is it actually detrimental to women at the moment? Making these references gender neutral or removing them wouldn't mean that women would stop being held back in certain ways would it?

To be honest the way it is currently worded is more detrimental to men than it is to women especially in terms of the family courts, child custody and the like IMO

jam_mac_jam

Its so meaningless and irrelevant that I don't see what the issue is with leaving it there. There are a high proportion of women who have to work because of economic necessity so it is being ignored at present.

expectationlost

how would removing this clause harm carers (and those the care about)

arn't carers legally recognised apart from the entity that is Women

Karl Stein

Could we not just change 'woman' to 'legal guardian'?

Pumpkinseeds

Honestly can this country afford to keep having utterly pointless Referendums? Christ if it ain't important why spend money on it? Kids of 16 shouldn't be able to vote, thats just common sense,and how much will it cost fcuking about providing votes for those Irish living abroad. For fecks sake a bit of common sense wouldn't go amiss.

Cody Pomeray

The constitutional review group recommended that Article 41.2. be deleted or edited as far back as 1996.

I don't see the point of being outraged. This provision has not been used to any detrimental effect that I am aware of. Although it is easy to criticise it for being paternalistic, in practice the provision has only ever been used to secure the minimum entitlements of mothers and women at their own beckoning, and to my knowledge has never been used to limit their lives or livelihoods by another party, or by the State.

There are individuals in Ireland today - especially unmarried mothers, and their children - who have benefited from this article. I don't think anyone has been materially harmed by it. I would venture that not even men have been harmed by it.

I guess we should change it do a gender neutral provision, but I don't see the point in abolishing it.

WoollyRedHat

To be honest with you, changing the relevant article in this situation should not be complicated at all, and should certainly not need to be extensive. All the constituion review committee need do is refer back to the 1922 consitution and replace the relvant article with that, which was gender neutral.
In fact, while they're at it they may well revert most of the consituion back to 1922 before De Valera decided to priortise rights of the family meanwhile denying us equality for the individual... amongst other problems.

There are individuals in Ireland today - especially unmarried mothers, and their children - who have benefited from this article. I don't think anyone has been materially harmed by it. I would venture that not even men have been harmed by it.

Correct me if I'm wrong somebody, but that article has harmed men when it comes to their rights as fathers.

kowloon

The constitution needs a bit of a spring clean. It doesn't exist to serve as an historical document of the values of people who are beyond criticism.

Karl Stein

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I don't see the point of being outraged. This provision has not been used to any detrimental effect that I am aware of.

I kinda like the idea that the state recognises that a Mother/Father/significant care-giver is important in children's lives.

The gender/status specific language is a bit out-dated but I think the idea is sound.

LoonyLovegood

The average constitution lasts somewhere around 30 years, afair. Are we not better off creating a new constitution, rather than patching up a dated, badly in need of reform one?

brokenarms

Another big waste of money.

My name is URL

The opening few sentences of the thing is basically a bloody prayer. The whole thing will remain a joke as long as that's the case.

In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
We, the people of Éire,
Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial

fcuking cringe

ScumLord

A REFERENDUM ON changing the reference in the constitution to women’s ‘life within the home’ will not happen before “extensive consultations” take place according to Justice Minister Alan Shatter.

Cue solicitors and barristers sitting around all day drinking tea racking up unnecessary bills.

Menas

The funny thing is that the 1937 referendum to enact the new constitution was opposed by supporters of Fine Gael and the Labour Party, Unionists, and some independents and feminists.

Going back to the 1922 one is a bad idea though, that ties us to the UK.

WoollyRedHat

Trigger Happy wrote: »

The funny thing is that the 1937 referendum to enact the new constitution was opposed by supporters of Fine Gael and the Labour Party, Unionists, and some independents and feminists.

Going back to the 1922 one is a bad idea though, that ties us to the UK.

Lol ok then, alter the bit that ties in with the U.K.

The 1922 constitution was a much more progressive constiutuion than the one that followed it 15 years later, by a man who disregarded the legacies of Pearse and co. despite his involvement in the orginal proclamation.

Dev's Ireland, shaped that way for decades to come, and its soul still lingers on like a demon who refuses to be exorcised.

Menas

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

Lol ok then, alter the bit that ties in with the U.K.

The 1922 constitution was a much more progressive constiutuion than the one that followed it 15 years later, by a man who disregarded the legacies of Pearse and co. despite his involvement in the orginal proclamation.

Dev's Ireland, shaped that way for decades to come, and it's soul still lingers on like a demon who just won't go away.

He wrote it in 1937....but it feels like it was written in 1837.

Mike 1972

CTYIgirl wrote: »

The average constitution lasts somewhere around 30 years, afair.?

The American one is 224 years old and hasnt had as many amendments (27) as the Irish one (33).

Fratton Fred

Trigger Happy wrote: »

He wrote it in 1937....but it feels like it was written in 1837.

That's because archbishop McQuaid was pulling his strings.

Menas

My name is URL wrote: »

The opening few sentences of the thing is basically a bloody prayer. The whole thing will remain a joke as long as that's the case.



fcuking cringe

That is awful ****e.....wonder why they did not get rid of it in 1973 referendum when they cleared up some of the other religious nonsense in there.

List of all the referendums we have had so far.


http://electionsireland.org/results/referendum/

Sh1tbag OToole

It would actually be a nice idea to think that the women can just stay at home but in todays rat race its hard to make ends meet that way. Now everyone has to work to keep the banks, the insurance industry and the resellers of Chinese rubbish and other economic parasites going.

I dont see anything wrong with a society where the woman stays at home to look after the kids. If that's what they feel like doing...

jill_valentine

P_1 wrote: »

To be honest the way it is currently worded is more detrimental to men than it is to women especially in terms of the family courts, child custody and the like IMO

I'd probably agree with that.

It may not have an overt, visible effect, but having something like that in the Constitution of the country does set a pretty backwards tone.

The whole document is full of stuff that makes me wince though, tbh. It's funny, when you see Irish people chatting about politics with Americans, when they cite stuff from their constitution with pride, and Irish people just can't identify with that idea. The Constitution, to us, is just an archaic auld embarrassment of a thing that we can never seem to patch fast enough to give it any semblance of credibility.

Mike 1972

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

I dont see anything wrong with a society where the woman stays at home to look after the kids. If that's what they feel like doing...

Or the Father ?

Czarcasm

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Or the Father ?

And the son, and the holy spirit, all men.


*tumbleweed*

Sh1tbag OToole

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Or the Father ?

Its bad form to send the women off to work while the lad stays at home. Chivalry isnt dead.

Almaviva

Skid X wrote: »

Seems perfectly sensible to tread carefully before changing the Constitution. As we have seen before, any amendment can have unforeseen consequences.

Agreed. If this were not handled carefully, you could end up with women working even after they get married, or worse, being paid the same wages as men, or thinking they could have 'careers'. Dangerous stuff to be meddling with.

catallus

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

It would actually be a nice idea to think that the women can just stay at home but in todays rat race its hard to make ends meet that way. Now everyone has to work to keep the banks, the insurance industry and the resellers of Chinese rubbish and other economic parasites going.

I dont see anything wrong with a society where the woman stays at home to look after the kids. If that's what they feel like doing...

You've hit the nail right on the head! All this talk of equality between the sexes has effectively more than halved the value of mens' labour!!

And why are some folk on here "Fukin Cringing" at the mention of god or divinity or jesus in the pre-amble to the constitution: it is laughable that people can make such uninformed and maladjusted and uncouth criticisms of a document that was written by some of the finest legal minds that the country had to offer, and was based on other existing constitutions around the globe; it would be sad if the criticism was coming from legitimate sources but the critics on-thread are the same ones who offer the lamest critiques of organised religion; the types whose atheism would last about half an hour in a blackout.

Benny_Cake

Trigger Happy wrote: »

He wrote it in 1937....but it feels like it was written in 1837.

In a way, the 1937 constitution was progressive for it's time - democracy was in full retreat all around Europe and most countries were drifting into authoritarian rule if they weren't there already.

That said, I'd be in favour of a new constitution. The economic crisis provided an opportunity to reassess where this country was going and what our values are. This convention is at best a second rate alternative.

tritium

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

Its bad form to send the women off to work while the lad stays at home. Chivalry isnt dead.

That's not chivalry, that's just antiquated. Absolutely no reason a couple shouldn't decide for themselves which if any of them stay at home

Cody Pomeray

Benny_Cake wrote: »

In a way, the 1937 constitution was progressive for it's time - democracy was in full retreat all around Europe and most countries were drifting into authoritarian rule if they weren't there already.

Very true.

There are plenty of claims that our constitution was inspired by the Weimar constitution and the older continental constitutions that preceded Fascism. DeV isn't given enough credit for avoiding the totalitarian paradigm that was all around him when he decided to develop Our constitution.

And for another thing. It was common for European constitutions to refer to God and women in the home. The Weimar constitution had the same thing, but guess what, they didn't interpret it so as to hide their women under a rock for 50 years like we did. Don't blame our constitution for that, blame the courts and the society that chose to interpret it in the spirit of intolerant dogma.

dj jarvis

so if they take it out of the constitution does that mean women will be allowed out of the home ?
jasus - they will give them equal rights and the vote next

returnNull

dj jarvis wrote: »

so if they take it out of the constitution does that mean women will be allowed out of the home ?
jasus - they will give them equal rights and the vote next

and some fukwit gave them internet access in the meantime :pac:

Menas

returnNull wrote: »

and some fukwit gave them internet access in the meantime :pac:

Its the week arsed dumnwit who thought them to speak that I blame.

Sh1tbag OToole

tritium wrote: »

That's not chivalry, that's just antiquated. Absolutely no reason a couple shouldn't decide for themselves which if any of them stay at home

I think very few couples who either own or rent a house these days can afford the luxury of one of them staying at home. Unfortunately when out of necessity nearly all men and women are forced to find a job the house prices also creep up towards the maximum of what yer average couple can afford when both are working.

The Antiquated boys definitely have one over on us moderners with this. The kids were better looked after then, men had a warm dinner waiting for them when they got home and the women had more time to relax and socialise. Really what it says in the constitution is something we should strive for again even though there aren't massive gains for the men.

Czarcasm

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

The Antiquated boys definitely have one over on us moderners with this. The kids were better looked after then, men had a warm dinner waiting for them when they got home and the women had more time to relax and socialise. Really what it says in the constitution is something we should strive for again even though there aren't massive gains for the men.

You need to stop watching The Waltons ffs! Living up to your username at least - Shìtetalk O' Tool.

catallus

Hey he's making a very good point! I think it would re-centralise the notion of family units and raise the living standard and value of everyone's labour!

jill_valentine

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

The Antiquated boys definitely have one over on us moderners with this. The kids were better looked after then, men had a warm dinner waiting for them when they got home and the women had more time to relax and socialise. Really what it says in the constitution is something we should strive for again even though there aren't massive gains for the men.

Legitimately unsure if you're intentionally trolling or not.

You're jading me, boards.

Sh1tbag OToole

Czarcasm wrote: »

You need to stop watching The Waltons ffs! Living up to your username at least - Shìtetalk O' Tool.

Never watched it. I don't know how the common way of doing things now with both parents working their arse off to pay some massive mortgage and rip off child care, property tax and every other kind of tax or fee that is solely designed to rip off the average family, is in any way better than back in the day when most women didn't have a proper job.

Benny_Cake

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

Never watched it. I don't know how the common way of doing things now with both parents working their arse off to pay some massive mortgage and rip off child care, property tax and every other kind of tax or fee that is solely designed to rip off the average family, is in any way better than back in the day when most women didn't have a proper job.

Managing a home and bringing up kids wasn't a proper job?! Keep digging!

Sh1tbag OToole

jill_valentine wrote: »

Legitimately unsure if you're intentionally trolling or not.

You're jading me, boards.

What is so bad about it? Just becaue I'm not sold on the modern way of 100% of the population joining the rat race doesn't mean I'm trolling.

I know that taking any gender specific mention out of the constitution is the atheistic, modern, "progress" and politically correct thing to do (and therefore popular on AH) but the other way of doing things has its advantages too.

bodice ripper

catallus wrote: »

Hey he's making a very good point! I think it would re-centralise the notion of family units and raise the living standard and value of everyone's labour!

except women's labour, you mean?

Sh1tbag OToole

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Managing a home and bringing up kids wasn't a proper job?! Keep digging!

Not a paid one with boss, income tax and a commute anyway, apologies if I said that the wrong way