Gender Critical in Ireland Part 3

[VaddaABeetch]

I’m watching RTE news. They mentioned the Garda representatives organisation are concerned about Gender Identity in the workplace. It’s been brought in without consultation & without training.

the Garda Commissioner has said that Garda may be disciplined for misgendering.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Hey, all good news lately. The Referendum is the next problem. Keeping the word Woman in the Constitution.

It's funny, I was chatting to my Mam about the referendum. She is very interested in the news and I would see her as very interested in feminist issues. As a younger woman, she was in women's groups and all that kind of thing. So I was surprised when her whole analysis of the topic was "what are the women's council saying? I'm voting no, so, they're some shower". So they've lost the older women's vote.

And older women - and men - do actually turn out to vote. It's younger ppl who will look at this very simplistically and say ' oh we're voting to get women out of the kitchen, cool.'

Indeed. However, I can't imagine the blue haired will turn out to vote about women in massive numbers so it may be OK.

Came across this article in The Critic about our lovely friends in BelongTo, it's infuriating to think about the damage they have done and the influence they have.

https://thecritic.co.uk/irelands-gender-jesuits/

First discussion of the upcoming referendums. Michael McDowell seemed to come across as rational, but then in this instance, if not in others, I would say that wouldn't I?. Neasa Hourigan came across as a true believer who doesn't want or need pesky facts.

https://www.rte.ie/radio/radio1/clips/22341277/

Heard that this morning. Felt Claire was maybe slightly biased towards Neasa, who was very passionate about "women's experience" and that that part of the constitution had done nothing for women anyway so why not take it out sort of thing 🙄 i thought Michael made a lot of sense but then as you said Dean, we would think that anyway!

I felt Michael McDowell was at a disadvantage for not being a woman. There were a few points where he said the present constitution doesn’t negatively affect women's experience (or some such) and there was a vibe of 'well, how would you know, you're not in a position to say that' from Neasa. Didn't she say something like 'thank you for telling me my experience' at one stage? (Sorry, it's late and I'm not up to listening again now to check. But something like that anyway.)

She came across well I think and could convince people who didn't see the danger in changing it.

Neasa really annoyed me, making pronouncements about things she didn't live through and knows nothing about. I would suggest for example that M McD understands more about how different life for women was before the availability of barrier contraception (any contraception before the pill or if you weren't lucky enough to have a GP who would prescribe it). All those fmailies of seven and eight meant that women did have a different experience of family and home life than men had. Even now, women are the only ones who get pregnant - in countries where women still exist of course, not in Ireland where we've been abolished.

I remember the day it was established that people could import contraceptives for their own use, the day women could legally separate and be supported, because my mother emphasised to me how important it was and what a change it would make in women's lives (I was in my teens, old enough to understand but not personally affected at that stage).

I remember my mother being paid less that worse qualified male colleagues (the EEC stopped that nonsense). I worked with women whose lives had been affected by the fact that they had to choose between being expert professionals or being married. I remember men (specifically FG men, a particular kind of middle class respectability didn't like it) getting outraged because the children's allowance money was being paid to women.

All that happened before N H was an adult, some of it before she was born, and she spins it in ways that do not ref.

I know how important all the gains women have made in the last half century are, and that we made them with the Constitution as it is doing nothing to prevent them. And I see the huge loss women have experienced since we were abolished in 2015, by the same people who now want us to let them change the Constitution.

Something that I don't get about her argument there is - if that part of the constitution is supposedly something innocuous that hasn't done much for women anyway, why all this big fuss to remove it?

They are trying to play down it's importance so that it's just not a big deal to take it out. But if it's not a big deal why all the expense and effort to get rid of it?

What actual benefit would it be to women to remove it? None. Which is why I'm suspicious of the whole thing/

Is Neasa on board with TWAW does anyone know?

Neasa really annoyed me, making pronouncements about things she didn't live through and knows nothing about.

I absolutely agree, but I worry you have to be of a certain age or experience to realise that. To see the flaws in what she said.

She kept mentioning things like the marriage bar. I mean the Constitution wasn't changed and that was done away with, so why is it relevant to this discussion now?
She implied that the Constitution is a barrier to women going out to work - and that this impacted her for a time too. Michael McDowell had to point out it's the lack of reasonably priced childcare provision that's the issue, not the wording of the Constitution. But I worry people will listen to her and believe her assertion that the present wording is impacting their lives negatively and will vote to change it.

Did Michael McDowell say something about the Constitution's wording having no psychological impact on today's women in the IT? (haven't read it). Claire picked him up on that a little and again there was a suggestion of 'how would you know'? I do think a woman saying exactly what he's saying would be in a stronger position with Claire and Neasa at least.

I completely agree with him that it's madness to be asked to vote in something that has not even been defined. What exactly is a durable relationship for example?
There'll be more mutterings and excuses about unforseen consequences in a few years if this change is voted in.

Unforeseen

I don't know if I can link tweets here or if it'll disappear but her comments on X would suggest she is (retweets of T**i on Trans day of Visibility etc
If her tweets leave you in any doubt you can try this: https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2022-03-29/661/

https://twitter.com/neasa_neasa/status/1377326732102012931?)

Example of related tweeting.

Isn't it nearly a given that a Greens will be full-on indoctrinated?

Hi, just wanted to add a warning to all Craicnetters : none of us will be able to vote unless you update your PPS and DOB on the Voter Register asap, as the regulations were changed recently. It feels a bit sinister to me, there was meant to be a booklet sent to every household at this stage, there hasn't. So as it stands, a change in voter registration and lack of offical information on the proposed changes could mean the very voters who would vote no (a lot on this thread, including myself) could lose out. Update your voter details!

Just did it, hadn't heard anything about it and I'm not happy giving so much info (I think the Department said you are only supposed to be encouraged to but there was no option but to add PPS,. Don't have to give your phone number though!

Checktheregister.ie says it's only new voters or those who wish to change their info who need to do that. Does encourage others to hit you don't have to...yet!

I did it last year sometime after they first announced it, prompted by that vague feeling that I wouldn't trust this lot as far as I'd kick them.

I don't buy papers often, but was interested to see that the readers' letters in the Irish Times on Saturday were all anti constitutional change except one. I'd expect the IT to be fairly 'on trend'. Though I suppose anyone reading a newspaper regularly these days is old. And rich.

I checked and apparently I am not registered. I have voted multiple times from this address over the years. Not sure what is going on.

I actually bought a newspaper. Well a magazine I suppose, Phoenix , recently.

There's actually a lot of stuff there you'll never see online. Phoenix is very gossipy but I wouldn't call it woke. Might be a good outlet for the GC view in time?

I've just gone into check the register to find that me, my husband & our parents aren't to be found on the register! I'm getting suspicious 🤨

I’m in a GC womens group, many of the women have found that their names are not in the register but their husband’s is.

When is the closing date for registration? This clearly needs a lot of publicity.

otoh, if there was meant to be a booklet level information campaign and it didn't happen, there'll be lots of scope for legal action by the disenfranchised.

Including me. Being extra paranoid, I went back and checked - it seemed to have me registered to vote in presidential elections only, whatever that means, so I reluctantly added my PPS, DoB and email and await developments.

Oh, and filled out a captcha thing that wanted me to click on 'bridges', but only showed very ambiguous overpasses, that might or might not be legitimately described as bridges.

Did I mention my paranoia?

At best, I think they are screwing this up.