Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Referendum on "Women in the Home" clause in the Constitution not forthcoming

2

Comments

  • #32
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,017 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »
    I dont see anything wrong with a society where the woman stays at home to look after the kids. If that's what they feel like doing...

    Or the Father ?


  • #33
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    Or the Father ?


    And the son, and the holy spirit, all men.


    *tumbleweed*


  • #34
    Sh1tbag OToole
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭Sh1tbag OToole


    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    Or the Father ?

    Its bad form to send the women off to work while the lad stays at home. Chivalry isnt dead.


  • #35
    Almaviva
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,490 ✭✭✭Almaviva


    Skid X wrote: »
    Seems perfectly sensible to tread carefully before changing the Constitution. As we have seen before, any amendment can have unforeseen consequences.

    Agreed. If this were not handled carefully, you could end up with women working even after they get married, or worse, being paid the same wages as men, or thinking they could have 'careers'. Dangerous stuff to be meddling with.


  • #36
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »
    It would actually be a nice idea to think that the women can just stay at home but in todays rat race its hard to make ends meet that way. Now everyone has to work to keep the banks, the insurance industry and the resellers of Chinese rubbish and other economic parasites going.

    I dont see anything wrong with a society where the woman stays at home to look after the kids. If that's what they feel like doing...

    You've hit the nail right on the head! All this talk of equality between the sexes has effectively more than halved the value of mens' labour!!

    And why are some folk on here "Fukin Cringing" at the mention of god or divinity or jesus in the pre-amble to the constitution: it is laughable that people can make such uninformed and maladjusted and uncouth criticisms of a document that was written by some of the finest legal minds that the country had to offer, and was based on other existing constitutions around the globe; it would be sad if the criticism was coming from legitimate sources but the critics on-thread are the same ones who offer the lamest critiques of organised religion; the types whose atheism would last about half an hour in a blackout.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    Trigger Happy wrote: »
    He wrote it in 1937....but it feels like it was written in 1837.

    In a way, the 1937 constitution was progressive for it's time - democracy was in full retreat all around Europe and most countries were drifting into authoritarian rule if they weren't there already.

    That said, I'd be in favour of a new constitution. The economic crisis provided an opportunity to reassess where this country was going and what our values are. This convention is at best a second rate alternative.


  • #38
    tritium
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,793 ✭✭✭tritium


    Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »
    Its bad form to send the women off to work while the lad stays at home. Chivalry isnt dead.

    That's not chivalry, that's just antiquated. Absolutely no reason a couple shouldn't decide for themselves which if any of them stay at home


  • #39
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    Benny_Cake wrote: »
    In a way, the 1937 constitution was progressive for it's time - democracy was in full retreat all around Europe and most countries were drifting into authoritarian rule if they weren't there already.
    Very true.

    There are plenty of claims that our constitution was inspired by the Weimar constitution and the older continental constitutions that preceded Fascism. DeV isn't given enough credit for avoiding the totalitarian paradigm that was all around him when he decided to develop Our constitution.

    And for another thing. It was common for European constitutions to refer to God and women in the home. The Weimar constitution had the same thing, but guess what, they didn't interpret it so as to hide their women under a rock for 50 years like we did. Don't blame our constitution for that, blame the courts and the society that chose to interpret it in the spirit of intolerant dogma.


  • #40
    dj jarvis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,485 ✭✭✭dj jarvis


    so if they take it out of the constitution does that mean women will be allowed out of the home ?
    jasus - they will give them equal rights and the vote next ;)


  • #41
    returnNull
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,235 ✭✭✭returnNull


    dj jarvis wrote: »
    so if they take it out of the constitution does that mean women will be allowed out of the home ?
    jasus - they will give them equal rights and the vote next ;)
    and some fukwit gave them internet access in the meantime :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Menas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,318 ✭✭✭✭Menas


    returnNull wrote: »
    and some fukwit gave them internet access in the meantime :pac:

    Its the week arsed dumnwit who thought them to speak that I blame.


  • #43
    Sh1tbag OToole
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭Sh1tbag OToole


    tritium wrote: »
    That's not chivalry, that's just antiquated. Absolutely no reason a couple shouldn't decide for themselves which if any of them stay at home

    I think very few couples who either own or rent a house these days can afford the luxury of one of them staying at home. Unfortunately when out of necessity nearly all men and women are forced to find a job the house prices also creep up towards the maximum of what yer average couple can afford when both are working.

    The Antiquated boys definitely have one over on us moderners with this. The kids were better looked after then, men had a warm dinner waiting for them when they got home and the women had more time to relax and socialise. Really what it says in the constitution is something we should strive for again even though there aren't massive gains for the men.


  • #44
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »
    The Antiquated boys definitely have one over on us moderners with this. The kids were better looked after then, men had a warm dinner waiting for them when they got home and the women had more time to relax and socialise. Really what it says in the constitution is something we should strive for again even though there aren't massive gains for the men.


    You need to stop watching The Waltons ffs! Living up to your username at least - Shìtetalk O' Tool.


  • #45
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    Hey he's making a very good point! I think it would re-centralise the notion of family units and raise the living standard and value of everyone's labour!


  • #46
    jill_valentine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »
    The Antiquated boys definitely have one over on us moderners with this. The kids were better looked after then, men had a warm dinner waiting for them when they got home and the women had more time to relax and socialise. Really what it says in the constitution is something we should strive for again even though there aren't massive gains for the men.

    Legitimately unsure if you're intentionally trolling or not.

    You're jading me, boards.


  • #47
    Sh1tbag OToole
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭Sh1tbag OToole


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    You need to stop watching The Waltons ffs! Living up to your username at least - Shìtetalk O' Tool.

    Never watched it. I don't know how the common way of doing things now with both parents working their arse off to pay some massive mortgage and rip off child care, property tax and every other kind of tax or fee that is solely designed to rip off the average family, is in any way better than back in the day when most women didn't have a proper job.


  • #48
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »
    Never watched it. I don't know how the common way of doing things now with both parents working their arse off to pay some massive mortgage and rip off child care, property tax and every other kind of tax or fee that is solely designed to rip off the average family, is in any way better than back in the day when most women didn't have a proper job.

    Managing a home and bringing up kids wasn't a proper job?! Keep digging!


  • #49
    Sh1tbag OToole
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭Sh1tbag OToole


    jill_valentine wrote: »
    Legitimately unsure if you're intentionally trolling or not.

    You're jading me, boards.

    What is so bad about it? Just becaue I'm not sold on the modern way of 100% of the population joining the rat race doesn't mean I'm trolling.

    I know that taking any gender specific mention out of the constitution is the atheistic, modern, "progress" and politically correct thing to do (and therefore popular on AH) but the other way of doing things has its advantages too.


  • #50
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    catallus wrote: »
    Hey he's making a very good point! I think it would re-centralise the notion of family units and raise the living standard and value of everyone's labour!


    except women's labour, you mean?


  • #51
    Sh1tbag OToole
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭Sh1tbag OToole


    Benny_Cake wrote: »
    Managing a home and bringing up kids wasn't a proper job?! Keep digging!

    Not a paid one with boss, income tax and a commute anyway, apologies if I said that the wrong way


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    catallus wrote: »
    Hey he's making a very good point! I think it would re-centralise the notion of family units and raise the living standard and value of everyone's labour!


    He makes a good point if you forget about the levels of sexual abuse and domestic violence that was par for the course at the time, largely ignored, often excused.

    He makes a good point if society hadn't evolved to a point beyond where "the family unit" is no longer "father, mother, and thirteen children" living in squalor and disease, living hand to mouth barely able to feed themselves.

    He makes a good point if labour was ever valued beyond just above slave labour levels in the first place. Women had to go out to work back then too when men deserted their families or were down the pub drinking every penny they earned.


    In short - be careful those rose tinted specs don't fall off the end of your nose.


  • #53
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    bodice ripper wrote: »
    except women's labour, you mean?

    You are kidding, I'm sure. Women's labour is undervalued massively as it is! They don't even get paid the same as men for the same job, oh I'm sure the capitalist swine were rubbing their hands together when they fooled everyone into thinking that a massively expanded labour force would enhance equality: all it did was drag down the value of the work done by men and women. And the way things are now is that raising a family isn't even classed as real work by employers!


  • #54
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    He makes a good point if you forget about the levels of sexual abuse and domestic violence that was par for the course at the time, largely ignored, often excused.

    He makes a good point if society hadn't evolved to a point beyond where "the family unit" is no longer "father, mother, and thirteen children" living in squalor and disease, living hand to mouth barely able to feed themselves.

    He makes a good point if labour was ever valued beyond just above slave labour levels in the first place. Women had to go out to work back then too when men deserted their families or were down the pub drinking every penny they earned.


    In short - be careful those rose tinted specs don't fall off the end of your nose.

    Please be joking.

    Sexual abuse and domestic violence isn't still rampant?

    As for the rest of your post, please put down your copy of Angela's Ashes.


  • #55
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    catallus wrote: »
    You are kidding, I'm sure. Women's labour is undervalued massively as it is! They don't even get paid the same as men for the same job, oh I'm sure the capitalist swine were rubbing their hands together when they fooled everyone into thinking that a massively expanded labour force would enhance equality: all it did was drag down the value of the work done by men and women. And the way things are now is that raising a family isn't even classed as real work by employers!



    and so the constitution should say my place is in the home? I would be more valued?


  • #56
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    I have to agree I can see the value of *one parent* staying at home to raise the children. It's quite a sacrifice though, and no way should it be done on grounds of gender.

    Overall, what has the western world gained from double incomes? Hasn't the extra supply of labour just weakened demand, hasn't the cost of living just increased to meet higher incomes? All the while, the quality of family time has arguably diminished, or at least i way below its ideal potential for many families.


  • #57
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    catallus wrote: »
    Please be joking.

    Sexual abuse and domestic violence isn't still rampant?


    Please point out where I said it wasn't? I was countering points made by shìtebag that children were better taken care of and women had more time to relax.

    As for the rest of your post, please put down your copy of Angela's Ashes.


    Please put down your copy of Downton Abbey.


  • #58
    Femme_Fatale
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,628 ✭✭✭Femme_Fatale


    Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »
    I dont see anything wrong with a society where the woman stays at home to look after the kids. If that's what they feel like doing...
    Anecdotally anyway, the ideal for the vast majority of (as in, pretty much all) mothers is working two full days or three shorter days per week. Working full-time with child(ren) is shattering and parents would prefer that both of them aren't away from the children all week. But staying at home all day every day with the children is very tough-going mentally.
    However, some mothers can't afford not to work full-time, or it's not always easy to find part-time jobs they're qualified for.
    Nothing wrong whatsoever with a mother being full-time stay-at-home if that's what she wants though.

    IMO the main problem with this constitutional clause is its basis on the premise that the mother is naturally the main care-giver to the children, and the man doesn't get a look-in.
    Sadly, we've seen high-profile cases where the mother is NOT the parent the children should be in the care of.


  • #59
    Sh1tbag OToole
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭Sh1tbag OToole


    Femme_Fatale wrote: »
    Anecdotally anyway, the ideal for the vast majority of (as in, pretty much all) mothers is working two full days or three shorter days per week. Working full-time with child(ren) is shattering and parents would prefer that both of them aren't away from the children all week. But staying at home all day every day with the children is very tough-going mentally.
    However, some mothers can't afford not to work full-time, or it's not always easy to find part-time jobs they're qualified for.
    Nothing wrong whatsoever with a mother being full-time stay-at-home if that's what she wants though.

    IMO the main problem with this constitutional clause is its basis on the premise that the mother is naturally the main care-giver to the children, and the man doesn't get a look-in.
    Sadly, we've seen high-profile cases where the mother is NOT the parent the children should be in the care of.

    At least you would have a bit of spending money that way and you'd have a backup supply of cash if the lad done a runner. Things are definitely a bit biased in favour of the mother in this country but I don't think removing this particular part of the constitution would change it.

    Back in the day there were an awful lot of 'decent folk' as there are today who lived comfortably enough but weren't rolling in it. Just their lives weren't as interesting to document as that of the lad in the tenement building with 15 kids half of them dieing or the lad with the mansion and a newly invented steam powered car. It's hard to find a good pair of glasses to look at the past with, they are all either rose-tinted or sh1t-tinted


  • #60
    Uriel.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,059 ✭✭✭Uriel.


    Amending any part of our constitution should only be done with careful and measured consideration. I can't fathom anyone being outraged by time and consultation being put into analysis of the consequences of an amendment and developing the appropriate reform of words therein.

    I could see significant consequences to, for example, our welfare system, if we were to just gender neutralise or worse add words such as carer, guardian etc. Some consequences might be positive, others negative, I would have thought that after the abortion referenda, the banking guarantee and other expedited legislative executions, that we would have Morebm sense to realise the importance of greater impact analysis, particularly when it involves such a fundamental legislative foundation as our constitution


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    ygolometsipe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 882 ✭✭✭ygolometsipe


    what about the women in the bedroom clause!


Advertisement
Advertisement