Why are we having a referendum on Women in the Home?

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121584507#Comment_121584507

 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.

This is very much broken.

thomas 123

It will make a lovely news segment for a week or so.

there’s the lads now smiling, Leo and Micheal, some lads. What an achievement.

there’s the token working class female there now - this changes everything.

ah and heres Micheal D, poetic.

chrisd2019

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058330100/why-are-we-having-a-referendum-on-women-in-the-home

To deflect the gullible media and the public away from real issues. And to pass the time in the lead up to the next General Election.

hotmail.com

No idea why it couldn't be held on the same day of the Local and European Elections in June.

Turnout will be shocking and a no vote is likely given the current anti government sentiment.

They should have held it in June when a higher turnout will surely mean a Yes vote.

beggars_bush

Women and men shouldn't be distinguished between in the constitution

Furze99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121584536#Comment_121584536

 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.

I see absolutely no problem with above, this is credit where credit is due. It does not exclude women who have a work and a home life. It does exclude men who have a work and a home life and work also to the common good. I think men can live with that, though the phrase 'In particular' implies that others are also valued for their work towards the common good.

The second part is aspirational 'endeavour to ensure' and has always been interpreted as aspirational.

Ezeoul

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121584582#Comment_121584582

Or mothers and fathers.

beggars_bush

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121584634#Comment_121584634

Agreed

PeadarCo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121584163#Comment_121584163

But property rights don't favour landlords. It can take 2 plus years for a landlord to get a property back from a tenant that doesn't obey the rules. Governments can legislate for eviction bans in certain instances for at least a limited period of time. That's not favouring landlords.

While tenants can only be evicted under certain criteria they have defacto a lease of unlimited duration and also in practice can have up to 2 years notice to leave if they dig their heals in. That incredibly generous given that they don't own the property. All this is even before we talk about rent caps.

What they don't have is certainty of when their lease ends but that's due to the nature of the law around residential tenancies in Ireland. Anyone who has had to deal with business/corporate leases will know the law is very different precisely because companies lease building for long periods and moving a companys operations of any size to a different location is a very big deal. For better or worse the residential tenancies market hasn't faced these same issues until recent years. There is nothing in the constitution stopping this government or any future government bringing the laws around residential tenancies more in line with the leases of other assets. The issue is a lack of political will and putting something into the constitution won't change that.

And you also have to consider what happens if your plan backfires and leads to less landlords and therefore less places to rent and an even worse rental crisis. You would suddenly need a referendum to reverse it. The current proposed referendum shows exactly the dangers of putting hobby horses into the constitution. As another poster has said this is just a tidy up exercise however because it's the constitution it requires a referendum.

Sam Russell

The property rights that favour landlords in the constitution is cited as the reasons for the inability to prevent evictions.

The reason this has occurred is the failure of successive governments to build social houses since the 1980s. It is reckoned that 30% of houses need to be social. Fix that, and the problem goes away.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121584156#Comment_121584156

To be fair, (and playing a bit of devil's advocate) some people want to vote no because they don't want the wording changed but they don't want to publicly say that so are using the "government" as an excuse.

Are any parties campaigning against the amendment? Most political debate has been about making it more specific and forceful language, but I haven't seen any party say it should stay as is (and a future government could hold a referendum if they want to change it further).

foxsake

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121584536#Comment_121584536

how is it broken? only mothers (only women are mothers) have kids and the state recognises their contribution. And says they shouldn't be forced to work at the detriment to working in the work

Seems fair to me .

If anything the current and most recent government(s) - since maybe Year 2000- have failed in this as many women who would like to work in the home are forced to seek paid employment elsewhere out of economic necessity.

I cant see anything wrong in that wording. No coercion just recognition of those that chose a path in life.

you'd need major mental gymnastics to find offence in that wording.

Sleepy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121583509#Comment_121583509

You say that like it's a bad thing. Child Benefit is a total waste of time and money: replacing it with equivalent tax credits and increases to dependent child welfare rates would save millions in administrative costs. The only argument made in favour of keeping it is that those administrative costs are largely staff wages and the office is based in Donegal which is a bit of an employment black spot.

hamburgham

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121583623#Comment_121583623

I know the max. no. of constituents is already in the Constitution. My point is that a referendum on increasing this so that we could have fewer TDs would be meaningful. This number was set before the days of electronic communication. Instead we have a virtue signalling, waste of time and money referendum which no one wanted.

Jizique

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121585707#Comment_121585707

Child benefit is paid to the mother - this was, i understand, to ensure the mother had money for the kids if her hubby was too busy down the pub or with other interests.

Not 100% sure what happens when a mother passes away, how the transfer to paying the father works.

Sleepy

Yes, CB is usually paid to the mother but not always and not trusting fathers to support their children, or mothers to ensure the tax credits/increased welfare is used for the benefit of the kids rather than to support an imagined alcohol problem is no justification for the waste of millions of euros of taxpayers money.

The Constitution no longer reflects the status quo of the majority of the citizens. It certainly needs the citizens to have a reconsideration of the relevant aspects of it.

hamburgham

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121585816#Comment_121585816

I see there is no campaign to change the fact that CB is generally paid to the mothers. This reflects the reality that it is mothers who do most of the heavy lifting in looking after children. Another reason not to change the constitution. If we're pretending tha child care is split equally between the mother and father, shouldn't there also be a debate on who should receive the CB.

Furze99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121585911#Comment_121585911

Lord no, you won't find any enthusiasm for that idea here!

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121585698#Comment_121585698

It is not true that only mothers "have kids". Nor does a woman have any particular "duties in her home". Suggesting the common good can not be achieved without women essentially being housewives is both ridiculous and implies those that do not so are somehow failing to contribute to the "common good".

It's an utterly ridiculous clause.

foxsake

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121586020#Comment_121586020

you want to include all aspects of parenting then I'd agree , add a word for guardians etc.. but the referendum isn't doing that.

well the common good is made up of many aspect of contribution(s) to society one of which is the mothers role - all aspect need to contribution to achieve "the common good" that is just one -an important one. So I'd suggest you are wrong.

It doesn't suggest that those who have chosen a different path in life are failing anything.

To place emphasis on one thing is not to denigrate another. There is no implication of anything else.

Any implication is merely a rush to find offence with a pretty decent clause in the constitution.

Its odd that you (and others) find this clause "ridiculous" but nothing said on the states failing to support the women who chose to stay at home.

So many are forced into the workforce cos the lack of sufficient state support in breach of the constitution.

Furze99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121586177#Comment_121586177

"It doesn't suggest that those who have chosen a different path in life are failing anything.

To place emphasis on one thing is not to denigrate another. There is no implication of anything else.

Any implication is merely a rush to find offence with a pretty decent clause in the constitution."

Agreed - it's perfectly reasonable as it is and no change needed.

Tow

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121584582#Comment_121584582

That maybe, but it will reduce woman's rights to childrens allowance and the family home etc.

FrancieBrady

I'll be voting for the referendum, only issue is that it should have been held alongside other plebiscites. Seems crazy to hold it as a stand alone referendum if you genuinely want a good turnout.

Ezeoul

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121586370#Comment_121586370

That's absolutely untrue.

This referendum has NOTHING to do with Childrens Allowance, or with family homes, or with immigrants and family reunification, or with gender identity, or any of the other red herrings that are being given as reasons to vote NO.

All this referendum will do, is remove an inequality which exists between men/fathers and women/mothers in the Constitution. It will not remove or reduce any rights for women.

It's about gender equality. The hint is in the name.

And I find it extremely ironic - that given how frequently some posters here regularly complain that they believe the pendulum of equality these days has swung too far in favour of women, you'd think they'd only be too happy to get out and vote Yes to remove an actual inequality that exists against men that is enshrined in the Constitution.

But no. Instead they'll engage in irrelevant whataboutery, misinformation, and suddenly become extremely concerned about "protecting women's and mother's rights".

MrMusician18

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121584156#Comment_121584156

I couldn't get a **** what way it makes the country look internationally. This is a huge problem Ireland has had for decades, "what will the Vatican think?", now it's worrying what various left leaning international organisations think. The old international slap on the back and the validation... 🙄

I will vote against it because the wording is awkward and flawed. The fact that it is also a vote against the Government, and in particular Roderick O'Gorman - who seems to be the only minister enthusiastic about it - is just a happy coincidence.

A very happy one.

BlueSkyDreams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121586482#Comment_121586482

Whit is the inequality that will be removed, as a result of the Referendum succeding?

Ezeoul

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121586588#Comment_121586588

The inequality that the State does not give men/fathers who provide care in the home the same recognition for it as women/mothers.

Our Constitution should not be perpetuating gender stereotypes in 2024. It's been 87 years since the Constitution was written, and times have changed.

The Constitution should too.

BlueSkyDreams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121586630#Comment_121586630

Thanks, but what recognition and financial benefits do mothers recieve than men do not?

Ezeoul

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121586639#Comment_121586639

Do your own research.

I'm not here for those "just asking questions".