Referendum on Gender Equality (THREADBANS IN OP)

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120341771#Comment_120341771

What? Basically citizens assemblies are all just a government conspiracy?

Water John

Anna, you'll get used to conspiracy theories. Another one comes along every five minutes.

deirdremf

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120342177#Comment_120342177

Now you really are extrapolating!

Fighting Tao

This thread now belongs in the conspiracy theory forum. It’s gone off the deep end.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120342239#Comment_120342239

Not really - you are coming up with all this stuff about government and CAs

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120341771#Comment_120341771

Where was it reported?

Celmullet

I'll be vote yes for the change in the constitution, not for us today but for any possible future Ireland. We have all seen countries devolve in the last few decades with people who had rights losing them due to a change in regimes. Now I'm not saying I think Ireland will go in that direction, but if it does there won't be a precedence set in the constitution that a woman's place is in the home for misogynists to latch on to.

kowloonkev

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120342604#Comment_120342604

I would also be voting yes if as discussed it means that women are not guaranteed possession of the family home in a divorce. Presumably it will be 50/50 which would be a really great day for equality in this country.

If we can get that, I'd be happy to trade the 'precedence set in the constitution that a woman's place is in the home'. You can have that removed and I can live in my own house for life, guaranteed.

kowloonkev

I think we are learning more about these citizens assemblies on this thread. Thanks for all the information. Basically the individuals are chosen at random, but what they discuss is decided by government, as is what they vote on, and ultimately the government of the day can decide to accept these conclusions or not. They can also choose any time that is convenient for them to run a referendum.

That is really a great tool to have for any government.

osarusan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120343651#Comment_120343651

You can't actually think that a 50-50 split in property retention after divorce can be enshrined in the constitution, do you?

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120343652#Comment_120343652

The overall topic for discussion is decided by government. Government doesnt decide what they discuss about the topic or what they vote on.

Celmullet

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120343651#Comment_120343651

I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic at hand, but just FYI, I know plenty of women who did not retain the family home in a divorce. The legislation in place at the moment calls for the person (no matter the gender) who remains in the house, buys out the person who leaves their share of the home. If there are no children involved, in most cases the main home is just sold and the assets split. If there are children involved, the court can decide to put a hold on the selling of the house until children in the home reach a certain age. Then the house is sold and assets split. You can check the citizens' information website for more information on this. The belief that all women get everything in a divorce is a fallacy.

BattleCorp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120342604#Comment_120342604

I was willing to give women fair play and treat them with respect until I read the constitution and discovered that their place is in the home and now I can be a misogynist. Isn't life great.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120352947#Comment_120352947

Not sure what the unnecessary snark is about? Do you think there is no one in Ireland, never mind elsewhere, who thinks this way?

BattleCorp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120353054#Comment_120353054

Undoubtedly there are misogynists in Ireland but it isn't because the Constitution says a woman's place is in the home. That's a ridiculous suggestion.

I don't agree that a woman's place is in the home by the way. But that idea was there long before the Constitution was thought of so suggesting that people are latching on to the wording of the Constitution to be misogynistic is a stretch to say the least.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120353798#Comment_120353798

That’s irrelevant it’s an absolute shocking line in what is probably the most important text in our nation.

Our constitution is of the upmost importance and irrelevant text & out of date things like that should be changed without delay imo.

It’s not a matter of whether it leads to more misogyny it’s about being misogynistic in the first place and requiring urgent correction. i haven’t asked but I’d be fairly confident any woman in this country wouldn’t want it left there.

BattleCorp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120353831#Comment_120353831

Take a chill pill there.

Yes, it's outdated language that wasn't thought to be misogynistic at the time it was written. That was the way things were back then. It wasn't shocking language for the times. Clearly times have changed. I'm not arguing about the language and I'd have no problem with that section being removed from the Constitution. I'm arguing that nobody wakes up in the morning, reads the Constitution and decides to be misogynistic because it says that a woman's place is in the home. That's the point I am making.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120353908#Comment_120353908

There’s undoubtedly crazy people who will absolutely. such is the import of the constitution.

archermoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120353949#Comment_120353949

While it might not convince people to be misogynists, it will certainly be used to justify that misogyny.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120353970#Comment_120353970

Absolutely.

Flaneur OBrien

I don't see how people are saying they'll vote this way or that way before the replacement wording has been unveiled.

Celmullet

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120353908#Comment_120353908

It was absolutely seen as misogynistic when it was included, all the women who had been elected to the Dail up to that point were vocally against it as they saw where it would place women in Irish society. They were right too, it ushered the way for the marriage ban (In 1941 the Local Government Act gave the Minister for Local Government the power to make regulations disqualifying married woman from applying for vacancies in local authority services that lasted until 1973). Although we have come out the other side of it now doesn't mean that we couldn't go back there.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120353831#Comment_120353831

This is it. The integrity of the constitution is really important. Some people will say 'we don't enact laws base on that clause so what harm is it doing?'. But I think it's important to take the constitution seriously by rooting out parts that you don't enact because times have changed.

Otherwise you end up with a constitution that you pick and choose which bits to take seriously and which bits are just there for the sake of decoration.

BattleCorp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120354477#Comment_120354477

You seriously think we could go back there? Really?

I'm in favour of changing the wording, but there's no way we'd be going back to the way things were in the 30's even if the wording was left in.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120353831#Comment_120353831

i haven’t asked but I’d be fairly confident any woman in this country wouldn’t want it left there.

I have asked women, and there’s been many women I know who have brought it up because they see it as the only bit of recognition in the Constitution for women in their circumstances, and there’s quite a few women in those circumstances - nearly half a million going by the figures from the last census! And more to the point - 98% of people working in the home, are women. On that basis, the provision is neither irrelevant, nor is it out of date.

It’s an unintentional misinterpretation to suggest that the provision is suggesting a woman’s place is in the home, and then to campaign for recognition of carers working in the home in the name of gender equality! The provision has always referred to women who are working in the home, not to suggest that is a woman’s place, but to recognise women working in the home, and recognising her contribution to Irish society, without which the common good cannot be achieved.

That was the whole point and purpose of the provision that women would not have to engage in labour outside of the home due to economic necessity and so on. But Governments have never done anything to ensure protection of women in the home, and I don’t see any evidence that the Government will do anything if the wording is simply switched from recognition of women in the home, to carers in the home, in the name of gender equality. It won’t make a blind bit of difference to the fact that 98% of people working in the home, are women… just fudges the numbers a bit is all 😒

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120354477#Comment_120354477

It was only seen as misogynistic by the same people then as the same people who see it as misogynistic today. Nothings changed there either.

It didn’t usher the way for the marriage ban, which was already popular across Europe and the US when it was brought in, which affected mostly middle-class white women, as opposed to the idea that it had any bearing or effect on women as a social class. There was a bit more nuance to it that I think you’re missing. We couldn’t go back there because it would impede our economic prosperity, which is the very reason why recognition of women who worked within the home and recognition of their contribution to society was always nothing more than a tokenism - Government never actually did anything to ensure that women would not have to work outside the home due to economic necessity. Fact is historically speaking they made it that much more difficult to be able to afford to sustain a family on one income, and came to regard everyone in society as economic units, their value being in not what they contribute to society, but rather what they could contribute to the economy. It’s one of the reasons why childcare for example became so eye-wateringly expensive, as did caring for the elderly. Non-productive units are costly to maintain, and require everyone in employment to be able to sustain the way we have structured our economy.

The referendum is less about any social change or any actual movement towards gender equality, and more about the necessary economic growth and development which needs to happen if we are to maintain our economy into the future.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120355593#Comment_120355593

If you look at things broadly human rights laws can go backwards; introducing the 8th amendment was a backwards step, and lots of other international examples like rowing back on Roe V Wade, lgbt rights in Eastern Europe hugely gone backwards in last 20 years too.

Celmullet

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120355593#Comment_120355593

I don't think we could go back there, but not naive enough to think that there couldn't be any possible change in governance in the future lifetime of the Irish constitution in which the wording of it could be used to subjugate sections of society.

See:

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120356260#Comment_120356260

donaghs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120356431#Comment_120356431

The devil is in the detail. Can't see if the change is worth making, if the new wording doesn't improve the situation. e.g. inserting "gender" ideology into the constitution. As mentioned earlier, it seems simplest to remove Article 4.12.

Please explain how things can go backward? The only realistic way I could imagine this happening, from the perspective of women's rights, is from continued immigration from more socially conservative countries, e.g. Islam or African Christianity, and a socially conservative political movement developing out of this. but I dont see this happening. As things are now, a few oddballs lke John Waters don't make a difference.

Roe v. Wade isn't a good example. There was always some significant opposition to abortion in the U.S.. So, with the exception of evangelical Christians getting into politics in the late 70s, there was no real "change".

Also, even pro-choice activists were unhappy with the legal technicalities of that decision:

The uncomfortable problem with the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade - Vox

Colby Cosh: Roe v. Wade is flawed, but its downfall would have huge implications — for the U.S. and Canada | National Post

Roe v. Wade Is a Bad Decision That Ought to Stand - Bloomberg

deirdremf

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120342570#Comment_120342570

My apologies, it wasn't the CA, it was the Constitutional Convention. A variation on the theme. 3 of 66 "randomly chosen citizen members" were discovered to have been Labour Party members, and one a FGer. And this is on top of the 33 professional pols on the show. And yes, it was widely reported at the time. There was a lively thread on the matter on politics.ie at the time, and I believe Marc Coleman discused it on his show.

FG pitch to get re elected. That's all.