Occupation: married woman

Reesy

Now here's something that seems to come from Dev's Ireland...

When you register as a director of a company / charity at the Companies Registration Office, you have to fill in some details - including your occupation, which you pick from a list.



As you'll see from the image, you can select 'Married woman' as your occupation. Note that while you can select married woman twice, you can't select single woman, married man or single man.

To my simple mind this is bullsh1t. Anyone like to suggest to whom I might write, to get this changed?

Or are there any married loungers out there who see being married as an occupation?

lazygal

Being married is not an occupation, any more than being a daughter, sister, cousin or aunt is an occupation. I guess contact the body itself about this?

meeeeh

You could also talk to them about tax credits for cohabiting couples while you are at it. It might be relevant for tax purposes and it's revenue's way of contributing to relatively high marriage rates. I would say cro just copied categories from them.

Littlekittylou

What are the hrs like?
I don't think I have the right skill set though.

whiskeyman

Is homemaker on it?

Littlekittylou

whiskeyman wrote: »

Is homemaker on it?

ah no that would make sense.

Reesy

whiskeyman wrote: »

Is homemaker on it?

No, I don't think so. Or housewife, or househusband...

manageress
giggle

What was the one a few years ago with car insurance, you couldn't pick dr. as a title + female as a gender? Was that it? I'm sure someone posted a screenshot on boards

Littlekittylou

Reesy wrote: »

No, I don't think so. Or housewife, or househusband...

What about married man?

Rosy Posy

In the context it puts me in mind of the trope of the wealthy society wife who does charity work. I'm a SAHM and use 'homemaker' on those kind of forms but that might not be appropriate if you've got staff to do the home making for you. I suppose 'voluntary worker' or 'unemployed' would work. 'Married woman' seems ridiculous, especially when there's no option for married man or single or divorced anything. A throwback to the days when women were obliged to resign when they married.

Littlekittylou

Rosy Posy wrote: »

In the context it puts me in mind of the trope of the wealthy society wife who does charity work. I'm a SAHM and use 'homemaker' on those kind of forms but that might not be appropriate if you've got staff to do the home making for you. I suppose 'voluntary worker' or 'unemployed' would work. 'Married woman' seems ridiculous, especially when there's no option for married man or single or divorced anything. A throwback to the days when women were obliged to resign when they married.

Agreed if you don't wash your own floors/toilets and look after your own kids and laundry you are not a homemaker.

I think those you are referring to are called 'Ladies of Leisure.' :rolleyes:

Reesy

lazygal wrote: »

I guess contact the body itself about this?

I wouldn't think the CRO would listen to me, so I was hoping to get suggestions re somebody with a bit of influence who'd embarrass them into correcting this list.

lazygal

Reesy wrote: »

I wouldn't think the CRO would listen to me, so I was hoping to get suggestions re somebody with a bit of influence who'd embarrass them into correcting this list.

Contact the department of justice and equality. And maybe the cro would listen, it's run by people after all. Might be something they've never thought to check.

meeeeh

Rosy Posy wrote: »

In the context it puts me in mind of the trope of the wealthy society wife who does charity work. I'm a SAHM and use 'homemaker' on those kind of forms but that might not be appropriate if you've got staff to do the home making for you. I suppose 'voluntary worker' or 'unemployed' would work. 'Married woman' seems ridiculous, especially when there's no option for married man or single or divorced anything. A throwback to the days when women were obliged to resign when they married.

You can be homemaker while being single but you can't share tax credits with your spouse. For tax purposes married is actually the best distinction, what I don't get is, why is there no married man on the list. As for being discriminatory, the whole tax law is discriminatory, putting different name on it won't change that.

seamus

Most of these kinds of lists aren't created by someone in the department itself. They're copied from generic lists supplied from other places, which may come from other countries and other companies and will often be way out of date.
There often can be a few thousand entries in these lists, so nobody is bothered reviewing them for completeness.

In this case, the spelling of "Mathmatician" in the list (note the missing "E"), is common in India/Pakistan. This would say to me that the list of occupations was probably obtained from someone in that region - that part of the form could have been outsourced to an Indian/Pakistani company, and then never properly reviewed for spelling errors or otherwise.

"Married woman" could be some poor translation of the word "Homemaker" from Urdu, and that could explain why it appears twice - two similar words translating to "Married woman".

I would consider it somewhat funny, rather than offensive, because it exposes poor QA for whoever owns that form.

I would just highlight the error with them and suggest they check the whole list for problems (like the mispelling of Mathematician)

pwurple

meeeeh wrote: »

You could also talk to them about tax credits for cohabiting couples while you are at it. It might be relevant for tax purposes and it's revenue's way of contributing to relatively high marriage rates. I would say cro just copied categories from them.

What do you mean? There is no tax credit for being married.

lazygal

pwurple wrote: »

What do you mean? There is no tax credit for being married.

There was a ruling in the 1980s that the state cannot make it less favourable for married couples in the tax system in Ireland as the constitution protects marriage.


There is a difference in being married compared to cohabiting, we saved on tax once we got married. While there is no tax credit, it is better financially to be married or in a civil partnership that cohabiting.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/money_and_tax/tax/income_tax_credits_and_reliefs/home_carers_tax_credit.html
I think this credit only applies to married/civil partnered people, or a single person living alone.

Neyite

Littlekittylou wrote: »

Agreed if you don't wash your own floors/toilets and look after your own kids and laundry you are not a homemaker.

I think those you are referring to are called 'Ladies of Leisure.' :rolleyes:

Laydees wot lunch.

pwurple wrote: »

What do you mean? There is no tax credit for being married.

No, but you can transfer unused tax credits from one spouse to another if married. I cant do that as a cohabitant.

seamus

pwurple wrote: »

What do you mean? There is no tax credit for being married.

No, but it is beneficial from a tax perspective.

Simple example:
Person 1 earns €25k
Person 2 earns €40k
Both PAYE, gross income €65k

Taxed cohabiting, total takehome = €51,921

Taxed jointly (i.e. married/civil partnership), total takehome = €53,160

Where the difference in salaries is large (e.g. one partner works part-time and only earns in the teens), the difference in take-home is enormous.

Carlos Orange

I imagine they generated the list automatically from existing paper forms.
No list of occupations that has ”mason” and ”mason or stone cutter” has ever had human intellect applied to it.

meeeeh

pwurple wrote: »

What do you mean? There is no tax credit for being married.

Married coupleas can share their tax credits. If you are not married you can't transfer them to your partner. As a director of a company you go into different tax bracket than an emplyee and it might be relevant.

pwurple

meeeeh wrote: »

Married coupleas can share their tax credits. If you are not married you can't transfer them to your partner. As a director of a company you go into different tax bracket than an emplyee and it might be relevant.

Ah yes, I get you. If one is a dependant on the other you can swap credits.

That said, along with hearing that co-habiting couples should have that option, and the option to appoint eachother next of kin, and the option to have the father of any children become automatic guardian, and have inheritance rights for eachother... I'm kinda thinking, well, that's pretty much the entire marriage legal pack.

lazygal

pwurple wrote: »

Ah yes, I get you. If one is a dependant on the other you can swap credits.

That said, along with hearing that co-habiting couples should have that option, and the option to appoint eachother next of kin, and the option to have the father of any children become automatic guardian, and have inheritance rights for eachother... I'm kinda thinking, well, that's pretty much the entire marriage legal pack.

I've seen posts from people asking how they can tie up all these legal loose ends and sort out the children's arrangements, and 99% of the time I'm thinking, 'just get married'. Way cheaper and less difficult to organize that multiple legal documents which can turn out to be worthless anyway.

Pat Mustard

I see that Stonecutter is an occupation.

meeeeh

pwurple wrote: »

Ah yes, I get you. If one is a dependant on the other you can swap credits.

That said, along with hearing that co-habiting couples should have that option, and the option to appoint eachother next of kin, and the option to have the father of any children become automatic guardian, and have inheritance rights for eachother... I'm kinda thinking, well, that's pretty much the entire marriage legal pack.

I still think wedding is nothing but bloody hassle but that is for another discussion. My point was that being homemaker or single woman or cohabiting woman is irrelevant as "occupation" for the tax purposes. That being said it is relevant only if cro and revenue actually bother to share data they collect.

lazygal

meeeeh wrote: »

I still think wedding is nothing but bloody hassle but that is for another discussion. My point was that being homemaker or single woman or cohabiting woman is irrelevant as "occupation" for the tax purposes. That being said it is relevant only if cro and revenue actually bother to share data they collect.

It costs €200 and takes ten minutes to get married. Considering all the legal protections you get for the price and time, its a no brainer for anyone in a serious, long term relationship, especially if you have children, and have no intention of separating. A wedding can be a hassle, but getting married is easy peasy.

meeeeh

I grew up in a different and fairly secular culture. Getting married wouldn't be exactly top priority for most of the non believers. It might not make much sense in Ireland but it is part of my cultural background. I'm very well aware of the cost for marriage licence, we are told about it every time someone says they don't want to get married. Anyway as I said being married or not actually does make a difference, weather you are lady of leisure or homemaker doesn't.

Peregrinus

"Married woman" used to be a very common self-chosen descriptor, used by women who (a) were married and (b) didn't work outside the home. It dates from the time when a married woman was generally expected not to work, and was offered as in answer to an "occupation" question partly because it was seen as an occupation - the dinner doesn't cook itself, you know - but mainly because it explained why the respondent wasn't claiming a more formal, paid occupation. Nowadays we'd prefer "homemaker".

I suspect it appears on this list because of inertia. And it will continue to appear as long as any appreciable number of people select it when filling in the form.

skallywag

Peregrinus wrote: »

"Married woman" used to be a very common self-chosen descriptor, used by women who (a) were married and (b) didn't work outside the home.

Good point. I know plenty of women who would still term themselves a 'housewife' if asked for an occupation, as is the case with this form. The majority of those I speak of would tend to be of an older generation, and would be happier to have an option to pick such an occupation from an online form rather than have to enter something like 'No Occupation' etc.

Hence I am sure that there are still plenty of women who would appreciate having such an option available on such a form.

skallywag

FYI, here is feedback from the CRO as to why the entry is there:

> This occupation list is made up of the occupations that individuals completed on forms over the years. I hope this explains the reason it is there, it is purely historical.

pwurple

meeeeh wrote: »

I grew up in a different and fairly secular culture. Getting married wouldn't be exactly top priority for most of the non believers.

Not so. I know plenty of married athiests and agnostics. It's a very practical thing to do when you want a set of legal functions completed, and there is a simple and straightforward way of accomplishing them.

I know religion overlaps marriage for loads of people, but a marriage is not religious unless you add that bit on yourself. It's a legal set of operations. Switching all the links from your parents to your spouse.


edit... fwiw, I've filled out the paper version of that company directorship form myself, and it's not a list or checkboxes you choose from, you fill in whatever you want. I didn't put in MARRIED WOMAN as my occupation though!

meeeeh

Again I grew up in different cultural background not in Ireland (and was talking about my friends there). I don't know why I have to be constantly told how I should be married. I know I live in Ireland now but I have and never had any particular desire to get married and our feelings on those issues usually form when we are younger. Can't people just except that not every nation under the sun has the same attitude towards the marriage.

skallywag

meeeeh wrote: »

I don't know why I have to be constantly told how I should be married

I think you are completely correct, and it's a particularly Irish phenomenon, which I am guessing is a throwback to the fact that one was living in sin in times gone by if not married.

Outside of Ireland one rarely encounters the same enthusiasm and zest on the topic.

eviltwin

meeeeh wrote: »

Again I grew up in different cultural background not in Ireland (and was talking about my friends there). I don't know why I have to be constantly told how I should be married. I know I live in Ireland now but I have and never had any particular desire to get married and our feelings on those issues usually form when we are younger. Can't people just except that not every nation under the sun has the same attitude towards the marriage.

I don't think many people feel you should be married, its more a recognition of our very behind the times laws and how legally you can be in a difficult position if your not married. A lot of couples don't actually realise just how few rights they have. There is still a cohort of women usually who think marriage is the be all and end all but tbh I've seen those is much larger numbers in other countries. I think we are actually pretty laid back here when it comes to cohabitation.

Leeleather

lazygal wrote: »

It costs €200 and takes ten minutes to get married. Considering all the legal protections you get for the price and time, its a no brainer for anyone in a serious, long term relationship, especially if you have children, and have no intention of separating. A wedding can be a hassle, but getting married is easy peasy.

If you're a Father then even moreso if you have the intention of separating.

lazygal

meeeeh wrote: »

Again I grew up in different cultural background not in Ireland (and was talking about my friends there). I don't know why I have to be constantly told how I should be married. I know I live in Ireland now but I have and never had any particular desire to get married and our feelings on those issues usually form when we are younger. Can't people just except that not every nation under the sun has the same attitude towards the marriage.

They can accept differences of course. I just know, given the legal position of marriage and children and access rights etc for men in Ireland there's not a chance in hell my husband would have agreed to have children outside of marriage here. It wasn't a religious thing for us and never would be, but we didn't want to have our children outside of marriage while the law is the way it is here. For my sake, my husband's sake and, most importantly, our children's sake we got married for our protection as well as that of any children we might have.

If anything happened to me my parents are my next of kin if I'm not married in Ireland, even if I have a long-term partner. I know my husband would accede to some things my parents would ignore, so I am far happier knowing he, rather than my parents, would make end of life and other medical decisions for me and our children.

pwurple

meeeeh wrote: »

Again I grew up in different cultural background not in Ireland (and was talking about my friends there). I don't know why I have to be constantly told how I should be married. I know I live in Ireland now but I have and never had any particular desire to get married and our feelings on those issues usually form when we are younger. Can't people just except that not every nation under the sun has the same attitude towards the marriage.

Sorry, I didn't think I was telling you to get married! Far from it. If you prefer to have your parents rather than your boyrfiend linked to all the next-of-kin, inheritance, guardianship stuff, then that's a.o.k. You sound like you are aware of where you stand legally. Loads of people are completely oblivious to their own status (moreso men though!). If, as a woman you are earning in the higher tax bracket, you're possibly better off NOT married, especially if you have children or financial assets you want to pass on to someone other than a spouse. You get all the rights to any children while unmarried, the unmarried man gets zilch.

Lyaiera

skallywag wrote: »

FYI, here is feedback from the CRO as to why the entry is there:

> This occupation list is made up of the occupations that individuals completed on forms over the years. I hope this explains the reason it is there, it is purely historical.

If I ever have to fill out that form I'm definitely putting my occupation as "Bonne vivante."

Peregrinus

meeeeh wrote: »

Again I grew up in different cultural background not in Ireland (and was talking about my friends there). I don't know why I have to be constantly told how I should be married. I know I live in Ireland now but I have and never had any particular desire to get married and our feelings on those issues usually form when we are younger. Can't people just except that not every nation under the sun has the same attitude towards the marriage.

I think what people are possibly trying to say is that if you want legal, administrative etc recognition of your relationship - if you want you and your partner to be regarded as one another's next-of-kin, if you want to be able to pool your tax allowances and tax bands, if you want to have default inheritance rights from one another - then the rational, self-interested, common-sense course is to marry, since that is the procedure by which you secure this treatment. And possibly there is a degree of impatience with people - not you, of course - who choose not to marry, and then complain that they are treated as unmarried.

Yes, they take a different attitude in other countries. Here in Australia, for instance, we have the notion of de facto couples - people who cohabit are legally and administratively treated as married, with all the attendant rights and obligations, regardless of whether they want that treatment or not. On the whole, I think there may be something to be said for the Irish system, where you get to choose whether to marry or not, and the state (largely) respects that choice.

FactCheck

The case going through the courts at the moment, with this poor woman who is clinically dead, underscores how important next of kin rights are. She has two children with her partner, he's the father of this baby, but it's still her parents who are next of kin. Such an awful situation for them.

I am very close to both my parents and they love my husband, but I am glad that were I in her situation, my husband would be the next of kin.

I was about to write that this is of course a very rare and unusual situation that I will probably never find myself in. And of course that's true. But there is an uncomfortable truth that we are all of us, me and everyone reading this, going to get sick someday, and die someday. We might get lucky and pass quickly in our sleep in reasonable good health and old age. But it's much more likely that we will be in a hospital bed and difficult decisions will have to be made, and it could come much quicker than we hope.

If marriage is not the setup someone wants, I still hope they make the necessary legal arrangements for themselves (even though that is a considerably more expensive, complicated and time consuming process than just making an appointment at the registry office).

On the issue of de facto couples - this weekend in Paris I met someone in a PACS for the first time. It's a civil partnership that was introduced for gay couples, but has been taken up with great enthusiasm by straight couples eager to gain more legal ties (particularly if they have children, own property or - in the case of my acquaintance - want a partner to immigrate) without a full marriage.

lazygal

In Ireland making legal arrangements doesn't matter a damn. If you're not married you parents and/immediate family or spouse if married are your legal next of kin. You can draw up all sorts of arrangements with a solicitor but it's very questionable as to whether they'd have any legal standing.

Peregrinus

lazygal wrote: »

In Ireland making legal arrangements doesn't matter a damn. If you're not married you parents and/immediate family or spouse if married are your legal next of kin. You can draw up all sorts of arrangements with a solicitor but it's very questionable as to whether they'd have any legal standing.

It's not quite that bad. As far as property goes, if you leave no will (and no children) your parents or, failing them, your siblings are your next-of-kin and will inherit your vast estate, but if you make a will leaving it to your partner that's completely effective. As far as personal care decisions go should you become incapacitated, you can make an enduring power of attorney which names your partner as the person who is to make these decisions, and that works too.

But if you want to replicate the effects of marriage generally, the best way to do this is to marry. You can attempt it by entering into a slew of different arrangements like wills, powers of attorney, etc, but (a) that's a lot more trouble and expense, and (b) only gets you so far; there are some things, like the pooling of tax bands and tax allowances, that you can only get by marrying.

FactCheck

Peregrinus wrote: »

But if you want to replicate the effects of marriage generally, the best way to do this is to marry. You can attempt it by entering into a slew of different arrangements like wills, powers of attorney, etc, but (a) that's a lot more trouble and expense, and (b) only gets you so far; there are some things, like the pooling of tax bands and tax allowances, that you can only get by marrying.

And, of course, you will need to go back to the solicitors every couple of years, to make sure you are keeping abreast of any relevant changes to the law that might require an alteration in the arrangements.

On the question of powers of attorney and being incapacitated, I think a lot of people would hope that if it were to happen to them, their spouse/partner and their parents would be on the same page and indeed hopefully lean on each other for support. Certainly I would expect that of my family. But I always think - what if the reason you were incapacitated was because you were in a car accident and your partner was driving? Even if it wasn't their fault. My parents adore my husband. But I cannot swear that they would be able to continue to work closely with him if they thought it was his fault I was brain dead. They are human, they might look for someone to blame. And this is not that unlikely a situation - certainly one of the most common causes for being incapacitated at a young age is a car accident. And so many women are driven by their husbands when they are both in the car together.

You just can't "hope" everyone will get along. You have to decide who you want to be next of kin, and make arrangements accordingly.

lazygal

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's not quite that bad. As far as property goes, if you leave no will (and no children) your parents or, failing them, your siblings are your next-of-kin and will inherit your vast estate, but if you make a will leaving it to your partner that's completely effective. As far as personal care decisions go should you become incapacitated, you can make an enduring power of attorney which names your partner as the person who is to make these decisions, and that works too.

But if you want to replicate the effects of marriage generally, the best way to do this is to marry. You can attempt it by entering into a slew of different arrangements like wills, powers of attorney, etc, but (a) that's a lot more trouble and expense, and (b) only gets you so far; there are some things, like the pooling of tax bands and tax allowances, that you can only get by marrying.

Its easy to challenge a will though, or ignore the terms, both of which I've seen happen in my extended families, especially where property and land is at stake. I know most of the time families are on the same page and get along fine and wishes are respected, but there will always be cases of conflict over who thinks they are in the right, or simply who thinks they 'deserve' more of a say over assets or personal rights of another. Marriage clears a lot of those issues up, but not completely.

It is not the greatest worry, but I know my parents would have a full catholic funeral for me if I died. I know my husband would make different end of life decisions for me than my parents would have too. If we weren't married, I'd be relying on the 'everyone getting along' theory for my wishes to be carried out.

Frigga_92

lazygal wrote: »

It is not the greatest worry, but I know my parents would have a full catholic funeral for me if I died. I know my husband would make different end of life decisions for me than my parents would have too. If we weren't married, I'd be relying on the 'everyone getting along' theory for my wishes to be carried out.

Same here.
I was not married in a church, I am not a religious person, I do not want a traditional funeral at all and I want to be cremated and have a particular type of funeral. My husband knows this, however, I know my parents would try to force a full on catholic funeral and all it entails.

My parents would also differ greatly to me and my husband with regard to end of life decisions.

Reesy

An update: I raised this with my TD, Olivia Mitchell. She submitted a Dail question to Richard Bruton (Edit: the minister responsible for the CRO), and it seems that a new pick-list of occupations (without 'married woman') is being rolled out across the CRO site.

Edit: Not sure if my request had any impact or whether the change was coming anyway, but it's great to see the CRO joining the 21st century.

Thank you Olivia!