Article 41.2 of the Constitution prioritises a woman’s domestic role over work
Proposed new wording
Conor Mulvagh writes:
Now that we’ve Repealed the Eighth, can I propose we Amend 41.2? There is a positive right there which I feel should be preserved but its deeply gendered language has to go.
My dad minded us while my mum went out to work so this has alway been something I’ve felt strongly about.
Sponsored Link
Do Mothers get more money than Fathers, all things being equal?
do all fathers consistently pay maintenance for their children on time? all things being equal
Or, does the absent parent earning more than the other pay maintenance?
A woman’s place is not in the home, it’s at work, just like a man’s. That’s what was fought for.
The woman does not always get the kids. They get them majority of the time because everyone knows the family courts have a preference, for the mother, before even hearing a case.
We need to address that too so that fathers are seen equal to mothers in child rearing before they enter the courts, unlike the current situation where the mother is assumed to be the “best” option.
But yeah, any parent who should be paying maintenance should be forced to.
It’s not bias, it’s due to the fact that in the vast majority of cases [a] the mother has had most charge of day-to-day care of the child and [b] statistically speaking few father contest that at family court.
A result of the traditional division of labour in the home.
If you want ‘Father’s Rights’, fathers need to step up in that regard, not nurse paranoid grievances about their victimhood. You have a very obvious bias in all of your comments that is at odds with the facts/statistics shown in family court.
No, it is a fact that the family courts biased. Look it up!
Here’s a few to start….
http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/a-dads-experience-of-irelands-family-courts-3206776-Jan2017/
https://amp.independent.ie/opinion/comment/men-will-only-get-equality-in-custody-cases-when-women-face-some-hard-truths-34996925.html
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/doctoral-thesis-confirms-poor-outcomes-produced-by-our-family-court-system-1.1625873?mode=amp
This one is written by John Waters… I know >_< …. but read it, it's discussing a PhD thesis by Roisin O'Shea on family court bias
And finally, to answer your last bit…. it is clear you are the blinkered one suffering from bias.
+2018
I have my daughter at least 50% of the time. I don’t get the child benefit, and I have to pay maintenance. her mother earns more than me.
Child benefit (Children’s allowance) gets paid into the mother’s account by default – not the fathers.
This one should be a no-brainer. It is something that could be passed alongside any other upcoming vote.
Would love to see who would come out in support of maintaining the wording as is.
I’m pretty sure that if not in this election FG manifesto (depending on the polls) then certainly in the next will be a proposal to re do the entire..
Agreed. Bundle it together with some other non-controversial changes and it will reinforce voting as a positive power for change as well as accomplish some housecleaning.
I’d prefer if the whole article was simply deleted.
I’m in favour of getting rid of the gender specific language but would support something that tries to emphasise work-life-balance and (somehow) reduce the negative consequences where two parents may be forced to work outside the home as a matter of economic necessity…at the expense of quality of life and family life.
+1
No, Justin. Oh, hang on. It’s over. YES, Justin.
Fair enough, but don’t think the suggested wording achieves this.
You’d be better off starting from fresh than trying to polish an existing turd that had a totally different aim.
Genuine question here.
Do we need a referendum for every single change to the constitution?
Can some changes not be just passed by the Oireachtas?
The only way to change the Constitution is by referendum. The Constitution was enacted by referendum and can only be changed in that way.
Yes. No.
Article 47 refers.
Yes.
No.
Yes, there must be a referendum in order to change the Constitution.
Interestingly that’s really the main reason the 1922 Constitution was replaced in 1937. It contained a provision that, within the first 8 years, it could be amended by an Act of the Oireachtas (designed so that the Oireachtas could correct minor errors without the need for a full blown referendum). It was determined by the courts that this power to amend included the power to amend the 8 year limit itself. In 1929, the Oireachtas extended the period to 16 years. It could have gone on extending the period indefinitely, essentially rendering any Constitutionally guaranteed rights totally worthless.
Decouple church and state from our schools and make Irish an optional subject post primary and no longer a state job requirement.
+1
+1
This amendment (41.2) is already due to be put before the people by the end of the year, along with one to repeal the blasphemy article.
The Article as it stands is aspirational i.e. “the state shall endeavour to ensure” [it doesn’t have to succeed in the endeavour] that mothers will be compelled by economic necessity to leave the family home and work [in low-paid jobs] to help make ends meet.
The writer’s proposed amendment is also aspirational. It’s as aspirational as several other Articles on social policy guidance for governments.
The only evidence of that endeavor was banning married women from some jobs. Forcing women to be held ransom by financial abusers.
We vote to remove that in October
Now ladies you shouldn’t be complaining, remember the old saying: You sink into his arms and end up with your arms in the sink .?.
Seriously, how many families can afford one parent not to work these days? There are creches at every street corner or crossroads.
yeah, but a creche for a couple of kids costs the guts of a month’s wages. if one parent stays at home the working parent can at least avail of the other’s tax credit and you know the kids are getting the best care possible.
Just delete it. No point in trying to polish a turd.
The Article was intended to recognize the contribution to the social good of women who stayed at home to look after their children. It was the 1930s when working class men’s salaries were too low to make ends meet, and wives had to get jobs as cleaners, shop assistants and light factory work etc. It was an aspirational Article hinting at the idea of a Just Wage mentioned in Rerum Novarum and subsequent papal documents dealing with capitalist developments and the welfare of salaried workers. The writer above is suggesting that we reword an aspirational Article to encompass househusbands who serve the common good. Human rights are rights, but aspirations are simply aspirations.
As a male who works full time, and does majority of parenting due to shift work and partner working 9 to 5, I’d prefer more emphasis on work life balance, and more recognition of all parenting that’s done. Work isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. Despite being in a health care profession, I get more satisfaction from parenting, in my life. Nobody ever lay on their death bed saying “I wish I hadn’t spent so much time with the kids.”
Depends on the kids Friscondo…. joking :) I think everyone’s life is different and there is no place in a constitution for something like this. Just take it out and let everyone figure out how to run their lives themselves.
Agree, just saying life is not one size fits all. It’s no sin not to be particularly careerist whether you’re male or female. Some of the biggest asshats I’ve met are the careerist, unprincipled, back stabbers, who you dread sitting beside at the Xmas party. Painful! That’s all!
hear, hear!
+1
+1
Totally agree. It’s all about give and take.
Myself and mr meadowlark support each other as parents, and divide it between us – we both work 40 hours a week, and we both have to parent at the end of the day. There’d be a lot of resentment there on both sides without it. I’d much our constitution reflected the reality of our society, rather than the Catholic utopia of Dev’s dreams.
Again.
We don’t mention HIM.
Sorry darling x
This brings me to a comment I made yesterday, about the ‘low hanging fruit’ of referendums being jumped on by political parties, when they should really focus on progressive governance and update aspects of the constitution without referendums.
Its a dated document. It still calls the president ‘he’, which hardly needs a referendum to change.
It’s already planned.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/referendum-fatigue-we-can-expect-two-more-before-the-end-of-the-year-36938136.html
The government should probably delete it, with an ageing population and declining birthrate every body is going to have work to fund the state pension
I wouldn’t expect FG to touch this with a bargepole. It will force them to answer difficult questions about cuts and about what they’ve actually done to help stay at home parents and those who have been forced to go to work out of economic necessity.
The aspirational values of this article of the constitution have not been lived up to, truthfully we’ve utterly failed to uphold it. As such some will call for it to be removed completely. The government don’t like to lose so will be tempted to choose to frame the question so it is easier to win.
Personally I’d be in favour of making it gender neutral along the lines suggested but as I said in a recent discussion I expect we will only be asked to remove it and not given any chance to amend it. It will very much depend on the question we are asked.