March 8th Irish referendum on mothers in the home

[fromorbit]

Updating sexist language or removing the concept of motherhood from the Constitution so women's and mother's rights can be more easily crushed ?

The case for:
https://theconversation.com/according-to-irelands-constitution-a-womans-duties-are-in-the-home-but-a-referendum-could-be-about-to-change-its-sexist-wording-222477

The case against:
https://thecountess.ie/a-personal-account-of-why-i-will-be-voting-no-in-the-upcoming-constitutional-referendum-on-8th-march-2024/

The Countess and other groups are arguing for a no vote. Big No march today in Dublin.

What do people think? One thing is certain Irish women should be encouraged to discuss and debate this using their hard won freedoms and not tolerate anyone telling them to keep quiet.

What woman would not be appreciated by the country in which she lives for the caring role that by and large, falls in her lap, and being appropriately recognised and compensated for it?

"It gives constitutional expression to an ableist view that disabled citizens must rely on family members for care — and deliberately excludes the right to an independent, autonomous life in the community."

Quote from Senator Tom Clonan who is a disability rights campaigner. The article also recounts the many times he has tried to secure better support for disabled people and the many times the current government has rejected his proposals.
www.irishexaminer.com/news/politics/arid-41349317.html

No because by and large, if women don't account for their comfort they eff off. Like the man who, when his wife died (people my mum knows) got on a boat with his two sons and dumped them in Barnardos in London. They weren't orphans, but the man "couldn't cope". Couldn't cope my arse, got remarried a year later. Couldn't be arsed more like.

If you say accepting this is mysogyny then it is mysogyny, but women have waited millennia for "equality" and time and again it never happens, so most women realise sitting around waiting for an ideal just wastes time, and should take what's there, but women are born disadvantaged and spend their time working their way out of disadvantage. Most know that they need to vote for whatever is available at the time because it might not come round again. It may not be "fair" but it is realistic. And in today's world that might be the best we've got.

Though it's extremely obvious it's a father Ted thing:

Ah, so voting "no" kept the disabled in the care of family members?

No - Clonan was advocating a No vote on the care amendment.

Below is a screen shot from lawyers for no in ireland. A womans place is in the home isint anywhere in the constitition. The Govt rushed through a referendum no one saw the need for but they effectively wanted to erase women from our constitution and put in some ideological BS. The non explanation of what is a durable relationships sent alarm bells to any sane person. No way to interpret that in the courts. Flood gates of claims for citizenship . More immigration. The dismantling of the family basically no one trusts the govt to do whats in the interests of the irish people. So i as a woman am very happy woman is still in there and if you read the screen shot. It s inclusion was inspired by a US feminist . The rationale behind it was to not force women to work for pittance but protects their rights to do either ! Massive FU to this shambles of a govt. 23 million euro on this referendum and hospital The elderly. Child care is a shambles
Good on the intelligent electorate

But that’s how constitutional change via referenda (which are essentially negotiations between government and people) work.
People may be unhappy with the wording/implications/perceived intent of a particular question, and vote no. Changes are made, or perceptions change, they agree and vote Yes.
It’s a pity this grown up approach isn’t available here in the UK.

If the Irish government focussed on bringing genuine sex equality, at is at that point the constitution would be outdated.

Claims that is is outdated are based on 'thinking' not what is happening in homes across the country (aka reality).

The rise of social media and the online world has created the impression that words and ideas are what matters, rather than material reality.

If the material reality changes for Irish women, and they read the constitution and think 'we really don't need this any more' then they are unlikely to object to the change.

So, he was voting to keep the clause that disabled people should be cared for at home?

Exactly

Referenda are too divisive, in my opinion. Vote one way - you are extreme right wing, vote the other, you are extreme left wing. Please justify why you think referenda are "grown up" especially if not all of the population vote.

"'@Redpencil99 · Today 08:40

In the Treaty of Lisbon the Irish government made them vote again on the same question...sorry if you didn't know that

In the Treaty of Lisbon the Irish electorate made the Irish government and the EU change the wording and include guarantees on the issues that they were unhappy about, and they voted again on that different question.

Sorry if you didn't know that.

I love that picture of pouty poshboy upthread. Very tempted to paint it on an egg for Easter.

No.

he advocated against the care clause

No, the opposite. He argued repeatedly that disabled people entitled to family and state support to live independent lives in the community and pushing care into the realm of families only would remove the obligation on the state to support disabled people to direct their own futures.

A person with a disability who is living independently should be supported.

They are mothers who raise children, workers who pay taxes.

This referendum was imv dismissing them as nothing more than a disability.

Yes there are many who will around the clock care but are just as many who don't just real tangible support to keep living their lives their way.

I have a family member who falls in that category. They deserve equality and for society with state support to allow them to live their best lives

Who'd thought?

The Irish public like clear legal definitions and don't like fuzzy ill defined, open to interpretation political gobbledegook which hands the government power against the public and public scrutiny.

I can’t help but feel really sad today that the sexist language is still in the Constitution, but at the same time I didn’t vote so have no right - the last minute articles by the disability campaigners made me pause for thought so couldn’t bring myself to in the end.
i definitely take issue with the inference in the Constitution that women have duties in the home and men don’t. It’s not true to say there’s been no progress in this area - I see massive differences between my life and my mums life for example, my dad still expects her to wait on him (and she worked full time out of the home!). I worry that this result will entrench attitudes that a woman has more home duties than a man, and there’s no point denying it. sometimes I feel like I’m the only one fighting this, and it has more potential to adversely affect my life, and my daughters life, than anything to do with, for example, trans rights. There are a lot of quite unpleasant people celebrating this result on X. Still, the suggested wording was terrible - but definitely I’m depressed.

In the UK, with its unwritten constitution, increasingly polarised politics and largely politically naive population, referenda are not a good way of going about change.
The situation in Ireland is somewhat different. You can find out about it for yourself.
https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government-in-ireland/elections-and-referenda/types-of-elections-and-referendums/constitutional-referendum-in-ireland/#:~:text=Constitutional%20referendum,-Bunreacht%20na%20hÉireann&text=The%20Constitution%20can%20only%20be,and%2032%20have%20been%20approved.

@Puppalicious I agree that it would have been good if they'd changed 'women' to 'women and men' and extended the right to a life in the home and an acknowledgement that that is important to society to everyone. It would have balanced out the article that states that men and women equally have a right to take paid employment.

That said, mothers have a particular role and it's not a bad thing to see that reflected. We are all influenced by our own childhood experiences, and the author of the constitution possibly felt the lack of his own single mother, unable, for economic reasons, to care for him herself, and forced to send him abroad to his grandmother, than he did the lack of a father.

Then one person's view should not be used to coerce a change in constitution and cost 23 million.

"In my life, X happened, so that is my reason for proposing this as a referendum question"??? X could be anything; you wouldn't accept one person's personal experience to be the driving factor

So two different political systems, so you are saying, while it works in Ireland it should be done in Britain more, even though Britain has a different system? Makes no sense.

It's a pity you didn't polish up your reading comprehension while you were throwing your shackles off though. Because the constitution doesn't mean anything even close to what you think it does. Try reading what the words actually say and then maybe apologise for what's actually a kind of racist knee-jerk reaction to the Irish constitution. Because a blinding starting position of bias is honestly the only reason someone would look at what's actually written there and read the meaning that you are taking from it.

1. You know they are unpleasant on X? Or you disagree with them?

1. See the marvellous post above that says it stops the exploitation of women in the workplace and puts raising children first above slave labour working out of the home at the expense of raising her children.

1. What was stopping your father helping your mother in the home?

1. Are you assuming your daughter's will marry and repeat your mother's and your own experience?

I see it as sex selective language that protects women.