AIBU to be shocked by the Irish referendum?

[Yetmorebeanstocount]

I'm not from the Irish Republic. I just read what the ballot was about. I am shocked at what their constitution contained:

Article 41.2.1° “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.”
Article 41.2.2° “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.”

I'm even more shocked that early results suggest the Irish have voted to KEEP this dire crap in their constitution.

Am I missing something?

My understanding is that in practice this means that mothers of school age children can't be forced into work by the welfare system, and CMS is a much better reflection of actual costs and better enforced

The piece on the bbc explains why the wording they want is controversial.

But fathers of school aged children can be forced into work by the welfare system?
Up to what age does this apply?

There’s been a discussion in the feminism section for a few weeks:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4999605-march-8th-irish-referendum-on-mothers-in-the-home

From what I gather, the change worried a lot of people that it would simply mean more pressure on women for a “second shift” and would not improve their lives. That society hadn’t changed enough and become equal enough to remove wording that specifically protected women.

Thanks for pointing me to the other thread - I'll go there.

If only the English would come and write our constitution for us.

😁

It’s seriously complicated and very badly explained. I listened to all the arguments and I’m the most feminist person I know but couldn’t have known the right thing to do on this one. The risk of putting women more in the shitter was too high based on what I could find out. There were also no clear parameters on the meaning of durable relationship though I would be hugely in support of durable partners, especially with kids, being given more rights.

They made it impossible to vote.

You have to think of it as a carer rather than mother, so if they were planning on changing just the mother of it all people would be thrilled. It's the changes to the caring aspect that was the issue. The most campaigning I've seen on it is to vote no from disability groups. The language is obviously horrific, written in the 30's by a politician and an arch bishop. So as a woman although I'd like the language gone I appreciate the benefit of including the idea that the government would protect carers in the home to avoid having to neglect their duties at home from economic necessity. The other issue was the definition of a durable relationship.

You're missing quite a bit tbh and understandably so. The constitution is from the 40s and tbh was progressive enough in mentioning women and their work at all at that time. There is disagreement now over the removal of women Vs wanting to get rid of the 'housewifey' feeling part. It's all multi faceted and requires considerable consideration, which the government didn't afford us time for. So the ref is going up in flames as we speak.

Durable relationship 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔

@Yetmorebeanstocount why not read this article by a disabled woman about what the proposed changes to the constitution were and why it would have been terrible for disabled people before you declare your outrage https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/orla-tinsley-care-referendum-vote-no-6318809-Mar2024/

So in conclusion the no vote was rejecting the new language rather than because we're all mad to be barefoot housewives and glued to a stove.

Can you please tweet that into the RTE news 😂

You are missing a lot.

The majority of people don't like the existing wording but we aren't fools who would just accept a change for the sake of it.

There are many problems with the proposal but at it's simpliest

1. The use of the words "strive to support" is subjective, what exactly does it mean - we'll try but can't commit to? and it was unclear how that would be interpretation in the courts
2. The advice of the Attorney General wasn't shared with the general public and was only leaked last week - it calls out the problematic nature of the clause
3. It also ignores carers or other people in caring situations
4. It gives no new legal rights to anyone but it may potentially dilute them

Trust us, we are fine over here and know what we are doing. We also thought Brexit was stupid but we didn't tell you how to vote.

Yes, you are missing something.

It was not a simple deletion, which probably would have carried. The replacement text included a clause that was vague and had the potential for pushing care back on to the family.

Unlike the British who voted for brexit despite not knowing what that actually meant, Irish people tend not to vote for constitutional changes that are not clear in advance of voting.

To be honest, if there was uncertainty or ambiguity about potential unintended consequences of these amendments then the right thing to do was to vote no. I mean there's nothing wrong with sticking with the current status quo until the government can propose something much clearer and better thought through. It's a sensible outcome and signals that there was much confusion amongst the electorate. I'm glad we voted no because the whole thing was rushed and poorly drafted. I agreed in principle with most of it and I really hope we'll get another vote when the dust has settled and the lessons have been learned.
By the way there are some shockingly ignorant and downright racist posts on this thread....

The language is of its time, it recognises the importance that women in the home make to society.

It gives protection, and recognition to a woman's choice. In many ways it was ahead of its time.

To the ignorant comments, I would strongly suggest you look in your own back yard first, we will sort it ourselves.

We have led the world in so many incidents and I am confident we can manage without an ex invaders help, cheers.

This with bells on it.

Everyone I know that voted NO did so on this basis.

Off ye hop

If you're going to go with ignorant insults, at least get the grammar right. The poor grammar simply emphasises your ignorance.

Tugs forelock at our colonial overlords.

You don't run us anyone