A referendum on women's place in the home.

mikeecho

Ireland to hold a referendum on women's place in the home.

How will you vote. ?

https://www.joe.ie/news/ireland-referendum-womens-place-home-632136

Ronaldinho

mikeecho wrote: »

Ireland to hold a referendum on women's place in the home.

How will you vote. ?

https://www.joe.ie/news/ireland-referendum-womens-place-home-632136

Sure everyone knows that already. Why hold a referendum?

Allinall

mikeecho wrote: »

Ireland to hold a referendum on women's place in the home.

How will you vote. ?

https://www.joe.ie/news/ireland-referendum-womens-place-home-632136

Whatever way she tells me to.

Atlantic Dawn

There will have to be 50/50 split in broadcasting rules for this, no doubt some people will set up organisations to go against it for the craic.

whisky_galore

Vote to keep it...just to piss feminists off.

In reality this means bugger all to everyone's daily life, just a box ticking exercise for the govt.

screamer

As a woman all I have to say what a load of horse ****e. Better things to be having referenda than this rubbish.

Jim Bob Scratcher

In the kitchen of course, but there has to be a bed in the kitchen too, in case I'm feeling randy while she's cooking the din dins..

nthclare

mikeecho wrote: »

Ireland to hold a referendum on women's place in the home.

How will you vote. ?

https://www.joe.ie/news/ireland-referendum-womens-place-home-632136

And throw away the key lol

ShooterSF

screamer wrote: »

As a woman all I have to say what a load of horse ****e. Better things to be having referenda than this rubbish.

I dont get this point of view. Our constitution is the cornerstone of our society and we should do our utmost to have it reflect that.

Yer Da sells Avon

whisky_galore wrote: »

Vote to keep it...just to piss feminists off.

It would also piss anyone who's interested in fathers' rights off.

Poor Uncle Tom

Ronaldinho wrote: »

Sure everyone knows that already. Why hold a referendum?

They're stepping out of line, time to remind them......

Donald Trump

Git in da kitchen and make me a pie

Poor Uncle Tom

mikeecho wrote: »

How will you vote. ?

Doesn't matter, if you vote wrong you'll get another chance to do it right......:pac:

ARNOLD J RIMMER

A woman’s place is in the work place - they get offended.

A woman’s place is in the home - they get offended

_Dara_

ARNOLD J RIMMER wrote: »

A woman’s place is in the work place - they get offended.

A woman’s place is in the home - they get offended

Why does there have to be any declaration on a woman’s place?

One eyed Jack

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

It would also piss anyone who's interested in fathers' rights off.

I'm trying to figure out how fathers rights would be relevant to a vote either way? I think voting either way just to piss anyone off is silly, but I'm just not seeing how voting against repeal would affect fathers rights?

Yer Da sells Avon

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm trying to figure out how fathers rights would be relevant to a vote either way? I think voting either way just to piss anyone off is silly, but I'm just not seeing how voting against repeal would affect fathers rights?

You don't see how singling mothers out, but failing to recognise fathers' existence in the constitution might have had a knock-on effect on the rights of fathers?

seamus

screamer wrote: »

As a woman all I have to say what a load of horse ****e. Better things to be having referenda than this rubbish.

The Constitution is a blueprint for how the state and by extension society sees itself.

There is no model of perfection, no country that's got it right, so we must continue to evolve and refine the Constitution, continually. I'd like to see at least one, if not two constitutional referendums yearly.

Sometimes they'll be huge sweeping changes, others will be more symbolic, hut nevertheless important.

I look forward to being able to have a more straightforward and less contentious vote tbh.

In this case I'm tentatively Yes, but I'm concerned that removing it could allow a future government to strip away social protections and move towards a US-style, "**** you for being poor" system. I'd rather see the article reworded to something gender neutral but that retained the State's recognition of the importance of families to society.

strandroad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm trying to figure out how fathers rights would be relevant to a vote either way? I think voting either way just to piss anyone off is silly, but I'm just not seeing how voting against repeal would affect fathers rights?

If there's a divorce in the family, who normally gets to stay in the house, even if both are working? The mother, who is considered to be the natural homemaker and carer - and the constitution as is supports it.

Conservatory

This will be the greatest atrocity for women’s rights of all.

No single mother payment if this passes.
Don’t worry you can have an abortion or jobbridge if you get knocked up.

strandroad

Conservatory wrote: »

This will be the greatest atrocity for women’s rights of all.

No single mother payment if this passes.
Don’t worry you can have an abortion or jobbridge if you get knocked up.

It's a single parent payment so no.

lawred2

screamer wrote: »

As a woman all I have to say what a load of horse ****e. Better things to be having referenda than this rubbish.

Not sure about that.. the Constitution should reflect the Ireland we live in. As such dated nonsense like this should have no part in it.

Conservatory

strandroad wrote: »

It's a single parent payment so no.

No right to a place in the home meaning no right to be at home with the kids

One eyed Jack

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

You don't see how singling mothers out, but failing to recognise fathers' existence in the constitution might have had a knock-on effect on the rights of fathers?

I don't look at the article in those terms if I'm being honest. I see it as specifically relating to women and the protection of their welfare and status in Irish society, but I don't read it as implying anything about fathers. That's likely exactly why I don't see it as having anything to do with fathers rights, let alone any sort of a knock-on effect on fathers rights. The idea was to provide protection for women working in the home and an acknowledgement of their contribution to Irish society.

The Rape of Lucretia

_Dara_ wrote: »

Why does there have to be any declaration on a woman’s place?

Because it is a statement of who we are, how we want to live our lives, and the society we aspire to be.
As people get to grips with what is being proposed here and its full implications, it will not be a simple box ticking exercise. It is worth having the discussion, sure - but probably too hasty, and a bandwagoning exercise by the government, who are getting used to a feel-good aura from referenda that appeal to a certain element of Ireland today.
It is a paragraph that has served Ireland well, and is integral to who we are today as a nation - the lip service paid to it by some being a poorer reflection on them than on the writers of the constitution.
The government may have misjudged this one in a desire for another 'modernising' shot in the arm hit. They will not romp to an easy yes vote on this one at all.

strandroad

Conservatory wrote: »

No right to a place in the home meaning no right to be at home with the kids

Single fathers receive this payment even though they are not included in the constitution; it has nothing to do with single parent payment.

Conservatory

strandroad wrote: »

Single fathers receive this payment even though they are not included in the constitution; it has nothing to do with single parent payment.

Single parents don’t have to work because of this little part of the constitution. They just never applied it to just women. There will be jobbridge centres with jobbridge crèches beside them when this happens. Go equality.

Podge_irl

41.2.1 wrote:

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.

The gender imbalance aside this is actually not a bad clause. I wouldn't be against a simple rewording of this to make it gender neutral.

41.2.2 wrote:

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.

This however should go completely.

That said, if the options on the table are "remove" or "keep" then its into the bin with all of it.

matrim

strandroad wrote: »

Single fathers receive this payment even though they are not included in the constitution; it has nothing to do with single parent payment.

But it's arguments like this that the people against it (probably iona institute or whatever front they present) will try to use. Throw as much mud at the change as they can and hope some sticks with voters

Podge_irl

Conservatory wrote: »

Single parents don’t have to work because of this little part of the constitution. They just never applied it to just women. There will be jobbridge centres with jobbridge crèches beside them when this happens. Go equality.

Assuming for a second you are serious, you are aware that single parent allowances are granted legislatively and not constitutionally right?

strandroad

matrim wrote: »

But it's arguments like this that the people against it (probably iona institute or whatever front they present) will try to use. Throw as much mud at the change as they can and hope some sticks with voters

Certainly. And some circles on the opposite side of the spectrum will run "we won't give up our benefits" campaigns too (it doesn't need to be based on facts after all).

One eyed Jack

strandroad wrote: »

If there's a divorce in the family, who normally gets to stay in the house, even if both are working? The mother, who is considered to be the natural homemaker and carer - and the constitution as is supports it.

Every case is decided on it's individual merits with the best interests of the children involved of paramount consideration in any decisions made.

Conservatory

matrim wrote: »

But it's arguments like this that the people against it (probably iona institute or whatever front they present) will try to use. Throw as much mud at the change as they can and hope some sticks with voters

Iona institute will be all for this. They hate single mothers.

strandroad

Conservatory wrote: »

Iona institute will be all for this. They hate single mothers.

Oh no they will absolutely want to keep it - think housewives, homeschooling, Maria Steen, Breda O'Brien etc. They are opposing subsidised childcare after all. They love women in the home.

Conservatory

strandroad wrote: »

Oh no they will absolutely want to keep it - think housewives, homeschooling etc. They are opposing subsidised childcare after all. They love women in the home.

There is nothing in this change that helps mothers. They have a right to chose not to work. This is being taken away.
Go progress. Burn the bras.

Funkfield

Conservatory wrote: »

There is nothing in this change that helps mothers. They have a right to chose not to work. This is being taken away.
Go progress. Burn the bras.

Why?

anewme

It’s an outdated unnecessary clause in the Constitution that has no place in today’s society.

I would not have bothered holding a referendum on it, but as it’s now an option I will vote to get rid.

Conservatory

Funkfield wrote: »

Why?

Because their place in the home is recognized as value to the state. Meaning if mommy needs new shoes the state has got her covered she shouldn’t have to work if she wants to stay at home with the kids.

cassid

Leaving aside the referendum. My opinion on parenting has changed. I got really sick a year and a half ago and had to take time off work, am still in recovery mode. I job shared so always got to spend time with my children.

But now I get to spend so much more time with them, I love to see their faces at school picks, I love that they nearly kill each other in the back of the car, getting their news out. We talk, play, watch movies do sometime everyday. The illness was bad, left us financially struggling but spending extra special time with my children has been such a positive experience for all of us.

You just don't much time when you are a single parent working or when both parents work full time. The work/life balance is too much work and not enough family time. I hear from my children that some of their class mates are online, playing with each up to 10 hours a day, another child has 100 games, including over 18's when the class is 11 year olds. Some kids 11 years old are left on their own for the summer while parents are working.

I don't have the answer but its sad as parents we have to spend so much of our time in work, travelling to work and then at weekends catching up with washing, housework and shopping. I think we as adults and our children needs just to spend more time together, I don't think many of us have the balance right. Many of my children's friends call over to our house, they will be fed, play games in the garden and have fun, I love to see children enjoying themselves, that's what childhood should be about.

namloc1980

Can't wait to see what shïtshow the Iona Institute come out with on this one.

Conservatory

namloc1980 wrote: »

Can't wait to see what shïtshow the Iona Institute come out with on this one.

Why do people keep trying to bring the Iona institute into everything. They havnt even picked a side as far as I know. I will vote for blasphemy to be done away with here but this isn’t a church issue it’s taking away a mothers rights being dressed up as liberation.

For the record my wife stays at home she loves it.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Conservatory wrote: »

There is nothing in this change that helps mothers. They have a right to chose not to work. This is being taken away.
Go progress. Burn the bras.

Exactly. This part of the Constitution is meant to ensure that no mother should be forced to work in order to support their family, not that they be denied the right to work.

The wording should probably be changed to reflect that nowadays it might be the father who should be facilitated to be at home with his children.

But the Principle is the same. But don't let that get in the way of a good bit of 'feminist' indignation.

Calhoun

Will be voting to have it removed of course, as anything in law that favors one sex over the other when it comes to raising kids is wrong.

Hopefully this will be a step to getting fathers rights aligned in our court system.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Calhoun wrote: »

Will be voting to have it removed of course, as anything in law that favors one sex over the other when it comes to raising kids is wrong.

Hopefully this will be a step to getting fathers rights aligned in our court system.

But all this will do is to remove the obligation on the State to assist any parent to be able to stay at home and look after their children.

Sofiztikated

Conservatory wrote: »

Why do people keep trying to bring the Iona institute into everything. They havnt even picked a side as far as I know. I will vote for blasphemy to be done away with here but this isn’t a church issue it’s taking away a mothers rights being dressed up as liberation.

For the record my wife stays at home she loves it.

You're having a laugh, right?

It's as plain as the nose on your face what way Iona Institute will go on this.

Calhoun

Kaiya Sweet Gill wrote: »

But all this will do is to remove the obligation on the State to assist any parent to be able to stay at home and look after their children.

How?

One eyed Jack

Calhoun wrote: »

Will be voting to have it removed of course, as anything in law that favors one sex over the other when it comes to raising kids is wrong.

Hopefully this will be a step to getting fathers rights aligned in our court system.

I don't think the intent of the article is to favour one sex over another when it comes to raising kids though? It's simply an acknowledgement of the importance of women's and mothers contribution to society for their work in the home? They aren't employed, so they aren't paid for their labour, but they provide an invaluable contribution to Irish society at the same time. I don't see this as any reflection on women who choose employment instead of working in the home, and it has nothing to do with fathers rights, so I don't see how it would have any influence on fathers rights.

Calhoun

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't think the intent of the article is to favour one sex over another when it comes to raising kids though? It's simply an acknowledgement of the importance of women's and mothers contribution to society for their work in the home? They aren't employed, so they aren't paid for their labour, but they provide an invaluable contribution to Irish society at the same time. I don't see this as any reflection on women who choose employment instead of working in the home, and it has nothing to do with fathers rights, so I don't see how it would have any influence on fathers rights.

Well when you place so much importance on one sex when it comes to child rearing and go as far as putting it into the constitution your basically saying that fathers couldn't do the same thing.

Conservatory

Sofiztikated wrote: »

You're having a laugh, right?

It's as plain as the nose on your face what way Iona Institute will go on this.

I couldn’t give a toss what the Iona institute do. If they were against child molesting would you be for it just to spite them?

How Soon Is Now

cassid wrote: »

Leaving aside the referendum. My opinion on parenting has changed. I got really sick a year and a half ago and had to take time off work, am still in recovery mode. I job shared so always got to spend time with my children.

But now I get to spend so much more time with them, I love to see their faces at school picks, I love that they nearly kill each other in the back of the car, getting their news out. We talk, play, watch movies do sometime everyday. The illness was bad, left us financially struggling but spending extra special time with my children has been such a positive experience for all of us.

You just don't much time when you are a single parent working or when both parents work full time. The work/life balance is too much work and not enough family time. I hear from my children that some of their class mates are online, playing with each up to 10 hours a day, another child has 100 games, including over 18's when the class is 11 year olds. Some kids 11 years old are left on their own for the summer while parents are working.

I don't have the answer but its sad as parents we have to spend so much of our time in work, travelling to work and then at weekends catching up with washing, housework and shopping. I think we as adults and our children needs just to spend more time together, I don't think many of us have the balance right. Many of my children's friends call over to our house, they will be fed, play games in the garden and have fun, I love to see children enjoying themselves, that's what childhood should be about.

Ya i know what your saying i have a 4 year old and a 1 year old and ive been out of work since earlier in the year. I was working as a chef before this and used to piss me off so much that if i was lucky i might get home one or two nights just to put my son to bed (4 year old). I was working all the public holidays and most weekends and the money was basic i taught to myself wtf am i doing this for!


I left because not only was the place affecting me mentally the money i was earning wasnt even worth it once the bills where payed etc.


Im working on finding something more suited 9 to 5 Monday to Friday etc but ya if my girlfriend found a job in the morning herself id love to look after the kids if we had enough money.


Earning money working etc etc is obviously important but when i think of when i was younger and me da was never really around that much cause he worked such ****e hours its such a waste of our lives to miss out on things like this that cant be experienced again.


Unfortunately thats just how it is for most people though as cant survive on nothing!.

Conservatory

Children’s allowance could disappear too.