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

BlueSkyDreams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121586667#Comment_121586667

I have tried, but I honestly cant find anything. Hence the question.

Peter Flynt

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

I don't see what's broken at all. It seems to me that economic neo-liberalism combined with feminazis want change.

What exactly is wrong with the state supporting women raising their children at home?

Peter Flynt

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

This referendum will not remove gender inequality.

whisky_galore

Feel good vibes to distract from the dumpster fire that is housing, health and immigration.

Government are of the opinion it's an easy win, hi fives all around Leinster House. Window dressing for the world on how modern and progressive we are.

Personally I don't care one way or the other, so I'll probably not bother voting.

irelandrover

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121586699#Comment_121586699

Would you add this line to the constitution if you were writing it today?

Ezeoul

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121586708#Comment_121586708

Not all of it, no. There will always be more work to be done. But it will remove this part of it.

As was said earlier in the thread, there should be no distinctions made between men/fathers and women/mothers within the Constitution.

So I'll be voting yes to update it to reflect the times we live in now, and not what it was like 87 years ago.

Tow

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

I think you are confused. At present women have more rights to childrens allowance and the family home. When there is Gender Equality men and women will have equal rights. For men to have equal rights, women have to lose rights. It is balancing a mathematically equation.

Ezeoul

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121586799#Comment_121586799

No, I think you are. Rights are not a mathematical equation.

Both men and women having equal rights does not reduce anyone's rights. it means they have the same rights.

But, I take from this that you're opposed to gender equality?

Good to know where you stand.

Witcher

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121586535#Comment_121586535

It's not a vote against the government, that's an idiotic point of view.

Furze99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121586884#Comment_121586884

Bit strong to say it's idiotic. Lots of voters choose public votes like this to give the government a bit of a kick. That's a deliberate choice on their part. And likely they're every bit as intelligent as most voters.

AyeGer

It’ll be an embarrassment for the country if this is voted against. International media could spin it as a vote against women.

I’ll probably vote for but it seems to be a distraction with all going on in Ireland atm.

whatisayis

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

"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."

No inequality currently exists. According to the courts, the Constitution is already read as gender neutral i.e. the rights accruing to a man also accrue to a woman and vice versa. Deleting the articles will remove the right for both women and men.

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

It's no longer called the gender equality referendum. As explained by Varadkar the planned Amendment to Article 40.1 to refer to gender equality will not proceed. Article 40.1 already states that all citizens are equal (which is why the Constitution is already read as gender neutral.)

There were originally three proposed amendments to the Constitution to be decided by referendum:

Gender Equality - to amend Article 40.1 - which will not now proceed as it is already enshrined in Article 40.1. So we will have:

Amendment 39: The Family - to amend Article 41 - to expand the meaning of family. This will now include a (as yet undefined) durable relationship.

Amendment 40: Care - to delete Article 41.2.1 and 41.2.2 - to remove the right of either a man or women to choose not have to go out to work but to instead look after their family and this will therefore remove the state's obligation to uphold that right.

Ezeoul

I think it is very debatable that it is read equally already, I don't believe it is.

And given how this article has somehow been dragged into the middle of every referenda I can think of within my memory, it needs to be settled once and for all.

The language is unquestionably outdated and sexist and shouldn't exist within our Constitution. End of.

Peter Flynt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121586731#Comment_121586731

Women should be encouraged to have babies and there's nothing wrong with the state offering support via the constitution.

whatisayis

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121587621#Comment_121587621

"I think it is very debatable that it is read equally already, I don't believe it is."

It is. There is only three mentions of the word "woman" in the Constitution. If it was not read equally, women would have little to no Constitutional rights as all other references are to "He". An example would be the article on the President where it only refers to "he" or "him". We have had two female presidents therefore "he" also refers to "her".

"And given how this article has somehow been dragged into the middle of every referenda I can think of within my memory, it needs to be settled once and for all."

Has it?

"The language is unquestionably outdated and sexist and shouldn't exist within our Constitution. End of."

So you want to extinguish a right because you don't like the language it is written in. Why not change the language instead and retain the right?

whatisayis

I forgot to mention that Amendment 40 also includes the insertion of a new Article 42B:

The State recognises that the provision of care, by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, and shall strive to support such provision.

This further removes the obligation of the state towards stay at home parents or any other family carers by removing the previous wording in 41.2.1 which says "...gives to the state a support..." and replaces it with "gives to society a support".

"by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them" What bonds? Will my fourth cousin looking after his daughters partners aunt living in her step brothers house have a supportable bond? Again completely undefined and potentially years of court cases and solicitors fees being paid by the tax payer in the attempt to define.

Ezeoul

"So you want to extinguish a right because you don't like the language it is written in. Why not change the language instead and retain the right?"

I am quite happy to change the language. To non-gender specific language.

Where have I said anything about extinguishing anyone's rights? Don't put your words in my mouth.

You're barking up the wrong tree here if you're trying to twist this around and insinuate that I'm the one here who wants anyone's rights extinguished.

What I want is for rights to be equal, irrespective of the gender of the person they apply to, and to be written that way in our Constitution.

Now, if you want to get into a discussion on what constitutes a family and "durable relationships" you should go over to the already existing thread on the matter. I haven't said anything about it on this thread.

But for the record, I'm quite happy for un-married and other families, including single parents and their children, to be given the same recognition and protection as a family under the Constitution, as is given to those formed through marriage, and will also be voting for those changes as well.

whatisayis

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121588170#Comment_121588170

I agree with you absolutely. The problem is that the government have gone against the wording proposed by the referendum commission and what they have ended up with serves nobody.

By deleting Articles 41.2.1. and 41.2.2 the right for a mother or father to state support in order to stay at home and care for the family is extinguished. Nothing is being twisted it is a self obvious fact.

I would think you would find very, very few people who would disagree with you that the definition of family needs to be updated. But, again, the government has come up with a term that is undefined- durable relationship - and no one in government has attempted to explain how that definition could possibly include single parents.

Ezeoul

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121588652#Comment_121588652

There has never been a guaranteed right to state support for a mother (or father) to stay at home. So no rights are being extinguished.

Article 41.2.2. states:

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.

"Endeavour" is an important qualification here, because it basically meant,"we'll do our best" but it is not a guarantee, and it certainly did not bestow a right.

It's always been a common misconception that mothers had some kind of right to stay at home because of Article 41.2.2. - but they never did.

As it was, Children's Allowance was not introduced until 1944 and at the time it was paid to fathers with more than 3 children, as an anti-poverty measure. Not mothers.

As for single parents being defined as families, in my opinion, there is no more "durable relationship" than the one that exists between a parent and a child.

MatildasMammy

I will be voting YES to change this archaic wording and downright sexist language in the constitution.

Feets

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121588924#Comment_121588924

Women in the civil service and some private companies DID require that women gave up work after being married /becoming mothers. About 80% of my friends grew up with mothers in this category...

Ezeoul

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121589141#Comment_121589141

And their husbands were expected to support them, not the State.

whatisayis

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121588924#Comment_121588924

The article was used in a challenge by a deserted husband who wanted to receive a similar payment as the deserted wives payment. The state argued against claiming that Article 41.2 only referred to mothers, not to fathers, so the state had no obligation to support him and therefore he lost his case.

Some time after that a deserted husband allowance was legislated for but I'm not sure if it was ever introduced as the following year the Lone Parent's allowance came into being and applied equally for both women and men and the deserted wives allowance was discontinued.

A parent/child relationship begins the moment the child is born therefore the time limit for the length of time for a relationship to exist before it can be considered durable is effectively zero. Every European country (that has defined it) consider a durable relationship to be between two adults and similar to marriage with various conditions regarding the length spent together from 2 to 5 years. Not one of them defines it as a parent/child relationship.

Ezeoul

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121589365#Comment_121589365

If anything, that case demonstrates the inequality that exists between mothers and fathers due to the Article, 60 years after the Constitution was written, and will exist until it is changed. It should have been amended then. - not have taken nearly another 30 years to do it! (eta- interestingly, that case was in 1998, after the introduction of OPFP).

I find it hard to understand why some people would still prefer to leave this unchanged, rather than updated to reflect current times and gender equality.

Social welfare matters are legislated for within the various Social Welfare Acts, (of which there are a multitude) and not the Constitution.

IIRC, One Parent Family Payment came into existence in January 1997 and became an umbrella payment while other payments (e.g. Unmarried Mothers, Prisoners Wives, Deserted Wives - note the sexist names) were closed to new applications and phased out. OPFP was open to men, and also included widowed people (male and female) under the age of 66. (still does, afaik).

As far as I'm concerned, any definition of a durable relationship should include a child being raised by either a single parent, or their grandparent, step-parent, or another legal guardian etc.

Families are not one-size fits all, and come in more shapes and sizes than 2 adults + child(ren) nowadays.

smokingman

Have to laugh at the "ima gunna protest dem gobernments" types. They're either think as shyte, really hate women and want to keep them in their place or just russian hate fermenters in the kremlin doing their jobs.

If anyone actually is Irish or decent on this thread, have a think about your Mam and imagine what she would have felt about her "place being in the home" written into our actual constitution.

To all the others, feck off.

whatisayis

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121589571#Comment_121589571

It demonstrated exactly the inequality that existed at that time. The case I was referring do was Dennehy vs Minister for Social Welfare in 1984.

"I find it hard to understand why some people would still prefer to leave this unchanged, rather than updated to reflect current times and gender equality."

And that is the point you are missing. How do the proposed amendments reflect gender equality? It would have been very simple for the government to retain the articles but change women/mother to the terminology used by the insurance industry - homemaker - which is gender neutral.

"IIRC, One Parent Family Payment came into existence in January 1997 and became an umbrella payment while other payments (e.g. Unmarried Mothers, Prisoners Wives, Deserted Wives - note the sexist names)"

The sexist names were because the government were constitutionally obliged under Article 41.2 to provide for women whether they had children or not. I'm not sure if it was due to an appeal to the courts or because the deserted husband payment never came in but Lone Parents Allowance was subsequently introduced which then became the One Parent Family allowance for which both men and women are equally eligible.

"As far as I'm concerned, any definition of a durable relationship should include a child being raised by either a single parent, or their grandparent, step-parent, or another legal guardian etc.

Families are not one-size fits all, and come in more shapes and sizes than 2 adults + child(ren) nowadays."

And again this is the problem with the proposed amendments. No one can define durable relationships. Minister O'Gorman has said the courts will interpret it later when nearly every single female TD questioned him on it. Ivana Bacik has said the Labour Party are reserving their position on whether to support the referendum due to the choice of language.

MrMusician18

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121589723#Comment_121589723

Who are you quoting when you say "place being in the home", because that's not in the Constitution.

I'm voting against this because the wording is flawed and I'd rather keep the meaningless but well understood text than introduce some new wooly amendment that is open to interpretation by the SC.

Giving the sponsoring minister a slap down is a happy bonus.

whatisayis

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121589723#Comment_121589723

"If anyone actually is Irish or decent on this thread, have a think about your Mam and imagine what she would have felt about her "place being in the home" written into our actual constitution."

Most people don't realise it but nowhere in the Constitution does it say that a woman's place is in the home! The word women is mentioned three times in the Constitution. Twice in Article 45 regarding the right to work and the right to safe work and once in Article 41 where the state acknowledges and pledges to support the decision if some women choose to not go out to work but to care for their family.

Article 45.2

the state shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing:–

i that the citizens (all of whom, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood) may through their occupations find the means of making reasonable provision for their domestic needs.

and also Article 45.4

the state shall endeavour to ensure that the strength and health of workers, men and women, and the tender age of children shall not be abused and that citizens shall not be forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their sex, age or strength.

That the state has not yet honoured this Article is not a reason to get rid of it.

MrMusician18

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121586741#Comment_121586741

You'll be able to tell us what a durable relationship is so, because the sponsoring minister doesn't know.

Ezeoul

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121589979#Comment_121589979

The sexist titles for these payments were there, because sexism was acceptable at the time.

Not because of any constitutional obligation to support women.

I see you are choosing to completely ignore the impact of the use of the word endeavour in the Article, so I'm not going to waste any more effort in going back and forth on this with you.

(eta) the case I referred to had a different plaintiff (different surname) but the same outcome. The court found a deserted husband and his two children were not entitled to the same support as a deserted wife and her children.