Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Women and the Irish constitution - sunlight in the Irish Times

85 replies

Styleseeker · 29/08/2023 09:58

These letters to the editor were published in today’s Irish Times:

Women and the Constitution
What is a woman?

Sir, – Your article “Doubts grow over ‘women in the home’ referendum – concern in Government that campaign could lead to divisive debates” (News, August 28th) provides some hope that the politicians are starting to actually “read the room” rather than simply do the bidding of the NGOs they fund so well.
If the Government or the NGOs actually cared about outdated and sexist language, they would review the Gender Recognition Act, which was implemented in 2015. This Act affords a man a female birth certificate if he promises to “live as” a woman. Nothing could be more offensive.
Having asked many politicians and the National Women’s Council of Ireland, for three years now, how one “lives as” a woman, without any reply, my conclusion is that the way to live as a woman is to be born female. – Yours, etc,
SARAH HOLMES

Sir, – Your article delivers very disappointing news. I am one of thousands of women and men who were looking forward to asking those in favour of making constitutional changes the following question: what is a woman?
The terror that this question generates is astonishing. Politicians are so afraid of it they’ll cancel a referendum to avoid being asked it.
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned but it is nothing in comparison to the fury of women who understand the biological reality of being female is being erased via legislation. The question remains, and it will be asked in the local and general elections. The answer is simple. A woman is an adult human female. – Yours, etc,
SANDRA ADAMS,

Some background:
Ireland's constitution currently states the following:
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.

A recent citizens’ assembly recommended the article be changed to reflect modern life and the government duly agreed to hold a referendum this November. But insiders are now saying that won’t happen as they haven’t even agreed on wording to replace it because it’s a shitshow nobody wants to touch. It seems the government is only now realising that rather than being an easy win (it is after all a ridiculous article that doesn’t even have any positive impact in the real world) they‘ve accidentally brought the issue of gender and women’s rights to the fore.

OP posts:
Puppalicious · 29/08/2023 12:27

Sorry, that should be I’m NOT sure an amendment will pass.

Puppalicious · 29/08/2023 12:26

I’m sure an amendment will pass, as pp said it will be opposed by SAHM and their partners. Any proposal to increase the lot of working mothers (eg subsidised childcare) receives objection as do measures, such as tax individualisation, which could be seen as in any way one salary families.

PlanetJanette · 29/08/2023 12:19

DeanElderberry · 29/08/2023 11:55

But there is support for carers (not enough, but it's there - carers' allowance, access grants, respite care, home help), and property rights have moved on a lot since 1992, not least because there is nor provision for divorce. Fact remains trying to remove that article would not go smoothly.

But none of that support exists because of Article 41.2. It exists because of choices made by Governments, and it can be altered or removed by a future Government.

DeanElderberry · 29/08/2023 11:57

The reference to 'women' is irrelevant, since any adult human can be a 'woman' if they want to be. Another thing the politicians will not want debated in any detail.

DeanElderberry · 29/08/2023 11:55

But there is support for carers (not enough, but it's there - carers' allowance, access grants, respite care, home help), and property rights have moved on a lot since 1992, not least because there is nor provision for divorce. Fact remains trying to remove that article would not go smoothly.

PlanetJanette · 29/08/2023 11:45

DeanElderberry · 29/08/2023 11:06

They can't remove the article without public consent, and no-one who has benefited from any of the supports that enable people to provide the state with that service by caring in the home will vote for that consent. And they'll be very vocal about why not.

Extend the supports to everyone if that seems desirable, but don't take them away.

The politicians don't give a damn about women, they just want to save money and pull the rug away from under the most dependent and defenceless.

Of course you couldn't remove it without public consent.

But it is simply not the case that Article 41.2 provides any benefits at all for women.

It has been relied upon fairly rarely, and there are no examples of women successfully using it to enforce rights. There was an attempt in 1992, in BL v ML, to ensure women had a right to a share in the family home after a marriage breakdown, but that was rejected by the Supreme Court.

There is simply no financial support currently provided to mothers or female carers which is constitutionally mandated.

DeanElderberry · 29/08/2023 11:06

They can't remove the article without public consent, and no-one who has benefited from any of the supports that enable people to provide the state with that service by caring in the home will vote for that consent. And they'll be very vocal about why not.

Extend the supports to everyone if that seems desirable, but don't take them away.

The politicians don't give a damn about women, they just want to save money and pull the rug away from under the most dependent and defenceless.

PlanetJanette · 29/08/2023 10:51

The ironic thing here is that any putative new wording would not need to grapple with issues around gender. That's the entire point. You could scrap the wording entirely, or amend it to reflect that the contribution to the common good spoken about in the Article arises from all of those who work in the home (i.e. not just women).

So regardless, any new wording would not necessarily require any definitional debates around the definition of a woman or a man etc.

The far thornier issue is that the article has never had any practical real world impact (to the benefit at least) - mothers are obliged by economic necessity to work outside the home. And the Government was never going to change the article from an aspirational and unenforceable one to one which gives parents some enforceable right to economic conditions that allow them to be stay at home parents.

So simply removing the Article as an outdated relic would be the best option.

Abhannmor · 29/08/2023 10:28

Bit of a sea change at the Irish Times then. Such letters would never have been published in 2017. If they do put the Referendum on the long finger indefinitely it will save the blushes of the useless opposition as well as the governing coalition.

Thelnebriati · 29/08/2023 10:24

I always thought that politicians were supposed to understand the new laws they introduce, and how they interact with existing laws. With any other job you have to demonstrate a basic level of competence, how have they been getting away with this for so long?

Swipe left for the next trending thread