Women and the Irish constitution - sunlight in the Irish Times

[Styleseeker]

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If the Government or the NGOs actually cared about outdated and sexist language, they would review the Gender Recognition Act, which was implemented in 2015.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.

Her answer is correct though, isn't it?

The two options for the referendum are either (a) remove the provision entirely; or (b) reword it so that it applies equally to anyone doing work in the home and not just women.

For either of those options, the question of what is a woman is irrelevant, since under both proposals, the constitutional provision carries no reference to women.

Really?

It's pretty obvious how you could make it gender neutral.

You just replace the word woman with 'people' and mother with 'parents'.

“In particular, the State recognises that by their life within the home, people gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved”.

The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that parents shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home”.

The difference between 'have an inalienable right to do the work if they so choose' and 'expected to do the work' is vast. The constitution grants the first, and doesn't say the second.

I am loving the idea of loads of intelligent and articulate civil servants saying 'this is pants, because of these reasons, think again'. Despite having to so in one day, or similar ridiculously small turn around time - can well believe they tried that stunt, typical of bullies who don't want to face reality.

This does not serve women whatsoever....your insistence that it does is suspicious, and having looked at some of your other posts on FWR it's quite clear you have an anti women agenda to push.

It isn't just about parents, it's about anyone who has caring responsibilities - partners, siblings, children of frail parents, members of the extended family . . .

Having a public discussion around that would open such a can of worms - starting with the question of how does the state honour that constitutional right?

What family right are you talking about?

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.

You need to read that ^ section again women don't have duties only mothers do.

What duties would a mother have that other women dont have?

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.

This is the bit about "women" in the home

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.

4 2° The State shall endeavour to ensure that the strength and health of workers, men and women, and the tender age of children shall not be abused and that citizens shall not be forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their sex, age or strength.

These bits are ^ about "women" in the workforce

The Civil service (via the courts ) has seen it all
Informal intergeneration adoptions
(by mothers who were not willing to send their daughter and grandchild to a mother and baby home. Lets not mention the failure of the government in dealing with the current fall out from mother and baby homes. How it passed legislation to prevent children finding their birth history or legislation to hide government investigations into citizens rights and mother and baby homes. Ooops! almost forgot Redress is a banned topic too)
Illegal adoptions in and out of the State (there are a number of US adoptions which were not finalised and so the now adult child has to prove that they are Irish Citizens as they never became US Citizens)
Utter horrors as parents and they still got to keep and abuse their children.
(Dont mention the missing children who are in the care of the State)
Same life long same sex partners who were strangers in law for asset transfer, tax breaks etc but recognised as a social welfare couple.
(Sorted but gay men and babies lead to surrogacy and international adoptions and citizenship rights)
The issue of a marraige being between two (F/M then F/M F/F M/M ) people with Irish citizens and/or non citizens in 3+ legal marraiges.
(Most of the 3 month notice period problems were solved but has Ireland also got a hidden problem of marraige services which do not qualify as legal unions and ones which allow more than 1 spouse?)
Couples who dont want the responsibilty and duty of a legal union but want the rights.
(If, then when exactly do, you and your FWB become a family)

But lets pop in people (not citizens) to replace women.
And replace mother with parents see what meaning and duties parents have and if home is a single or multiple dwellings.
I am sure that there would be a whole lot of fathers who would vote to have a duty to home, care and school their children full time and a whole lot more who find that the government need a quiet word in their ear about how babies are made, DNA, and consequences.

If what is a woman is hard to answer lets try the answer to what is a family. Add in the PIL etc and let the fun and games begin.

"Lets fuck around and find out" said no TD running for re-election

Can you confirm why you think women, specifically, should be given greater protections in terms of their work life balances than men?

It's not anti-women to want to move away from the outmoded idea that men don't need to worry themselves with domestic duties.

A41.1, 42 and 42A might all have some relevance in your hypothetical situation.

41.2 would provide no enforceable right in that scenario.

I asked about family

What family right
Who are the parties, if any who are recognised as family (You, baby of 6 months, 7 year old, your parents, the dead fathers parents, the State, the nice rich couple who are looking to adopt the two children)

Who has what right?

If you want to understand the constitutional law around family rights, I suggest you study constitutional law.

As it goes, there is a fair bit of jurisprudence as to both the scope and nature of family rights.

You made a claim

Can you add substance to that claim?
( other than "trust me" these sections [ ] have "power" but them lot that I dont like [ ] have no "power")

Agree. The article states that women will not be prevented from taking care of children etc by economic necessity.
I became a civil servant in the UK in 1972. I was already married. This ban was removed later in Ireland, presumably.

The article probably speaks of women and mothers to make clear that that benefits are paid to the mother to be used for the children and the father has no right to that money, it is the woman's. A few generations ago working class women had no redress against a husband who spent the money they needed to feed their children on drink and gambling. All they could do was try to get their hands on his pay packet before he spent it all and if he was violent or intransigent then the woman's chances of acquiring the money she needed were poor. Legislation to pay what was called Family Allowance to mothers was pushed through in the UK (opposed by trades unions) so that a woman with children who did not work had some money that was hers by right. That's why the Irish article refers to women and mothers. The struggle has been long and now we have a new misogynistic attempt to remove hard won rights from women - it dresses in progressive clothes but is the same old story it ever was...remove women's independence. Resist it.

Interesting that sent me to the Google. Ireland introduced a children's allowance a year before the UK did (1942 vs 1943) and started paying it directly to mothers rather than fathers three years earlier than the UK (1974 vs 1977). Obviously both countries were going along with the international zeitgeist, but the timing is striking.

This has reminded me of a very committed FG-er I used to get a lift to college with back in the 80s, ranting about the disgrace of women meeting their pals on the day the children's allowance was paid (monthly not weekly iirc) and having a drink together. My suggestion that anything that cheered the mothers up, got them talking to each other, and gave them a break might ultimately be good for their children got a very disapproving glare. That was back when feminism was about supporting women.

I wonder what that bloke's view is on changing the constitution?

First of all the article is about women. It was put in there to demonstrate the place of women was in the home. The female sex should be housewives and should not have to work.

Secondly the article is untrue and gives no rights or benefits. Despite suggesting it does.

Thirdly most believe it should be taken out of the constitution as it’s a paternalistic view of women.

10 years ago there would be no issue.

But now it’s 2023 and Ireland brought in the Gender Act secretly after the referendum on gay marriage.

All Irish referendums become massive, and I mean massive battlefields. Over what is proposed, what it means, what words mean. This will be discussed day in day out in the newspapers, on radio, I cannot emphasis how big this will be.

You will have sane people discussing insane points of view. It is legally mandated that “both” sides get equal airtime. So if 99% of people are for something you still must hear only 50% of views pro that. Every lunatic person or group will be hauled in to give their view,

One example, the EU Nice referendum failed, the 1st time, because even though it had zero to do with abortion, someone brought it up.

This time feminists like me, who want the article out, will vote against it. Because the government are stupidly tying this referendum in with gender.

Nope. I studied constitutional law. Modern interpretation of the Constitution is never allowed. Supreme Court judges have to interpret what is written in the way DeValera would have intended it. It's why, for example, we had to have a constitutional referendum on marriage equality. The Constitution never specifically states marriage is between a man and a woman only. But if the government had just legislated for same sex marriage, it would either have had to have been referred to the Supreme Court by the president or it could have been challenged to the Supreme Court by any citizen. And the judges would have had to conclude that DeValera only didn't specify that marriage was for 2 people of the opposite sex because it would never have occurred to him that he needed to.

Most people haven't the first fucking clue about how constitutional law actually works. It should really be taught in secondary school as opposed to only to people who are studying that area of law at 3rd level.

If it was only about how the female sex should be housewives why did it split the wording between women and mothers?

At the time mothers had no access to birth control and without the ability to control fertility a baby was on the hip was the natural outcome of any woman having sex. So even if she wanted to work she would have to organise a wet nurse or bring the baby with her. And there was no social welfare or OAP homes or care packages who ended up providing the State with free labour when caring for those not in primary school?

Women unless birthing "bastards" were still not seen as having an automatic right to custody of their children and husbands were still seen as having property rights over a wifes personal assets.

Even today with all the labour saving devices in the home working in the home is not seen as "work". And research still say women still do a bulk of the household work as a couple and that once children arrive women end up doing more not less.
So why is recognising that a woman contributes to society just by doing all the mundane day to day tasks need to live such a bad thing?

And here is a question the Citizens of Ireland voted to allow the State to break the blood family bond between mother and her child why also vote to remove a failsafe which obliges the State to support a mother carrying out her mothering duties before the State can break that bond and hand her child over to a new family?

The State has been there, printed the report and hidden that history away once already.

None of this matters though. And your post is an example of the level of discussion that would be happening if the referendum were going ahead.

On your main point, the constitution on the women in the home is aspirational, it has never ever given women a legal right to anything. In practical terms a woman cannot say she should be paid by the state to stay at home and look after home and children.

Can you confirm why you think women, specifically, should be given greater protections in terms of their work life balances than men?

Because women bear the physical and emotional burden of their reproductive role, in any society, in a way that men do not. No political stance or ideological position can wish that away.

The good news on here and in Ireland is this referendum is as good as dead in the water. The government are terrified of it. Because they would have to define two things.

1 Woman
2 The Family

Woman

They know full well about the mess with gender, so now the politicians are incapable, some of them, particularly the Greens, of stating what a woman is. In these full on woke days do they dare say we are 'adult human female' or a 'biological female'.

The Family

This too is a minefield. Nobody is going to dare say it's a mum, dad and kids.

So when you read the article in The Irish Times, this is the government quietly telling the public we are putting this referendum in the long grass.

re point 1, it's not just the Greens. Leo and Micheal both get very shifty when asked to define women.

Recognising work in the home forms a social contract between women and the State. The Courts can rule that unpaid work within the home has little or no financial equivelant value (no need to pay them) but can not rule that women are not active participants in creating a society as they are not generating measurable economic value (getting paid).

A mother may not be able to claim a payment but can she use the provision to prevent the State from removing her child as her "first" duty as a mother is to not neglect her child. Can the State can claim neglect arising out of economic circumstances as a rational to break the family tie.

Children have a "right" be placed in "a family" as determined by the State. So in each delivery room there are 3 "parents" who duties to a child.

Anyway if none of the words have any real life implications for rights and duties why should the Citizens be asked to vote to remove the words.

But that is not what is being asked.
Citizens are expected to remove the words saying that work within the home creates a good society and a good family structure and that the State has a duty to mothers to endeavour to ensure the mother has the financial resources needed to not neglect her child.

Instead Citizens are to vote to replace this with fluffy power words a sensitive recognition of all the current permutation of a family which will be expected to give enforcable rights on how family ties should be recognised and the duty of care and protection the State owes to the listed groups.

I for one can not see the Irish government being able to formulate wording which works

Why would someone say the family is 'mum, dad and kids'?

That debate was had eight years ago and voters decided pretty decisively that that was not the only definition of family they wanted to see protected in the constitution.

Two dads and their kids or two mums and their kids can be every bit as much a family, in constitutional terms, as a mum, dad and their kids.