TERFs and the Irish referendum

Yes I know some men do childcare , housework etc. Brain fog this am. Stephanie put it better.

Not to derail but as a man I don't think I should have a vote anyway , on this issue.

The new Article looks like a dog's breakfast however.

That is very bad news. Also wrong in principle, I think.

Simple majority.

I'm rooting for you, Irish women. I hope you can get the word out quickly enough about the potential implications. Do the constitutional changes need a simple majority or a super-majority?

It's like something Helen Joyce once said, when someone has a trans child or there's a trans person on the board,the whole organisation turns into one for promoting their interests. Just like the NWCI, which now acts against the interests of women at the behest of one individual.

The National Womens Council recognises people who can get other people pregnant as 'women' equally with people can be pregnant.

I do not trust any member of that organisation to represent my interests.

Well, given what McDowell writes today about being refused access to departmental discussions on the basis that the information could influence the referendum, do you think anyone really understands the intention? I personally don't, which makes me suspicious. If the women in the home part was a straight deletion, I would vote for that. But I think the proposed wording is a bit of a mess.

I'm a sahm and a carer and I'm voting no and so are all women I know who are in similar circumstances

Such un-historic nonsense. The marriage bar was removed in the public sector early in 1973 and became illegal in the private sector in 1977. And existed in many countries long before Ireland existed, never mind had a constitution.

I'm voting no. I want to retain a recognition of the fact that women have needs, particularly relating to pregnancy, that are different from those of men. And that people's life and work in the home is important for society - it is not all about the financial bottom line - Yeats's 'greasy till'.

If the proposed wording was adding a recognition of men there I'd be voting yes, but writing our (all citizens, here represented by women) right to home life out of the constitution is wrong.

Our right to go out to work and earn our living is, and always has been, protected by 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.

I am open to learning. Can anyone tell me any tangible positives that women have from the current wording? What will we miss out if the referendum on women's place is passed? Am asking as genuinely confused as feminists why so many are against it (and disliking Roderic O Gorman isn't enough) . I can't ever imagine voting the same way as the Iona Institute.

2 different referenda . The one relating to Women's special place in the home was inserted by Irelands arch feminist Bishop Quaid.

Orla O’Connor, Director of National Wonens Council said,

“We welcome the announcement of this referendum which women have campaigned for since the insertion of the wording on ‘women in the home’ in the Constitution. This referendum is our opportunity to remove limits on women’s role from our Constitution and close this dark chapter of our past. The current wording never led to any positive supports for women and was at the heart of cruel, discriminatory policies such as the marriage bar which forced women out of their careers once they got married. As a result, women missed out on opportunities. They had to curtail their dreams and ambitions and many are still facing inadequate pensions and income in older age because of it.”

I will be voting yes to get rid of it as archaic B.S. there are feck all additional supports for Women in the home, simply a mechanism to keep women in their place.

Recent Poll on the likely results

Right now it looks like Yes will win overwhelmingly, but this Irish Times poll [conducted between February 2nd and February 6th] also indicated that those who were more informed on the referendum tended to be on the No side. Which is a damning statistic.

At the outset of the campaign the Yes side has established a strong lead. In the referendum on changing the constitutional provisions relating to the definition of the family, over half of all voters (52 per cent) say they will vote in favour, with just 15 per cent against, while 27 per cent say they don’t know. A further 5 per cent say they will not vote.

On the “care” referendum, which proposes to recognise the value of care and remove the text which recognises women’s role in the home, the Yes lead is even larger – 59 per cent say they will vote in favour. Just 12 per cent say they will vote against the proposal and 23 per cent are undecided. Again 5 per cent say they will not vote.

So NO just need to get the public to study the issues and they would win, but can they do that in under a month?

Clear majority of voters intend to vote Yes in both referendums, poll shows Better-informed voters more likely to vote No, suggesting the lead for the Yes side may shrink as polling day nears
<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240210012430/www.irishtimes.com/politics/2024/02/09/yes-campaign-in-the-lead-but-signs-referendum-campaign-likely-to-tighten" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20240210012430/www.irishtimes.com/politics/2024/02/09/yes-campaign-in-the-lead-but-signs-referendum-campaign-likely-to-tighten/

I'm moving south so 😁.

We have corned beef in Scotland. At least we do where I am (central belt)

I can claim citizenship - I wonder if I can get it done before 8th March? Bet I would have had to have registered before then.

@TheLongRider
The marriage bar was in existence in Ireland for many years before the Constitution came into being, and was removed without any change to the Constitution. One has nothing to do with the other.
It would be a mistake to vote yes on this basis.

I am here for a factual discussion about the actual proposed Amendments, not scaremongering

if that’s true then you’d probably do better without the insults and hyperbole 🤷‍♀️

You have had the legal right to use and to import barrier contraception and spermicide since 1973, fifty years ago, the right to be prescribed the pill since the 1960s, sixty years ago, and openly available contraception everywhere since the mid 1980s, forty years ago. Under the present constitution.

The marriage bar was lifted in 1973 in the public sector, and became illegal in the private sector in 1977.

I do not doubt your mother's, or my mother's, or your, or my, lived experience, but the constitution was not in any way responsible for it.

The deluded and dangerous introduction of the issue of abortion into the constitution in 1983 was the result of a public campaign as dishonest, sentimental, waffly and impractical as that being waged by proponents of a 'yes' vote this time.

My reference to the marriage bar was not a red-herring. It was an example of the historic wrongs committed against women under the guise of the Article. Wrongs which women protested and attempted to litigate against but to no avail. Are you denying my mother's lived experience under the Constitution? My own life has been lived with no access to contraception and no access to abortion. I recently had to explain to my own teenage daughter about the Abortion referendum that happened in her lifetime. This has all happened within my mother's lifetime, she was born in 1938, one year after the Constitution came into force.

My example does not reek of desperation, if we do not know our history we will repeat it. I will definitely be voting NO to the 39th Amendment.

I am personally undecided as yet about the 40th Amendment. I am here for a factual discussion about the actual proposed Amendments, not scaremongering about the motivations of any future government. I have absolutely no love for Roderic O'Gorman.

I would prefer that there was an option for a complete deletion of Article 41.2.1 & 41.2.2. A complete removal was proposed by the Citizen's Assembly and was rejected by the Government.

As a woman and a carer I am voting No and No. As previous posters have pointed out anything that has Roderick O’G’s fingerprints on it is not anything good for women.

Again, for those of the hard of understanding, the proposed amendments do not remove all references to women in the Constitution.

Again for the terminally hard of understanding the proposed amendments ABSOLUTELY DO remove reference to women as a discrete category.

I wonder why a misogynistic prick like ROG would think that was a good thing?

I think your meaning of robust is as flimsy as a wisp of straw

@TheLongRider

I said “less robust” and have made it clear that I agree that the current Article is NOT fit for purpose. However the proposed Article is even worse.

it exchanges

the state shall “endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity [to work outside of the home]” for

the state shall “strive to support such provision [of care].”

If the original is useless then the proposed is worse than useless

Well said @DeanElderberry . References to the marriage bar in this context are a sign of desperation almost. We have had two women Presidents and many Cabinet Ministers despite this Article being in the Constitution.

I don't have a massive issue with the proposed wording to replace the woman in the home wording. However, I will be voting no for a number of reasons. The wording, as it stands, has been of no benefit to women. The proposed wording will be of no benefit to carers. Voting yes would imply support to the government's attempts to pretend it will. I will not vote to replace one piece of wooly nonsense to another piece of wooly nonsense. I would, however, vote yes if it was simply to remove the articles and not replace.

The enduring relationship one is a definite no. It is an undefined term that could be interpreted in a myriad of ways with God knows what consequences. I voted against the 8th Amendment in 1983 for two reasons - I'm pro-choice and the wording was vague and could be interpreted by the courts in a myriad of ways with God knows what consequences.

The fact Roderic O'Gorman has anything to do with the wording also has me worried. He is an out and out misogynist and I fear anything he has a hand in cannot be good for women.

Oh, and I'm a feminist.