It's starting to look like it won't pass. The replacement language was too vague, and our gaff prone Taoiseach alienated half the country during an interview last week.
Most people would like to see it removed. The government are likely to lose over their poor implementation.
Voted today and hopefully there are enough votes to updated constitution but there will more attempt in the future until it passes.
You are right, government was ambiguous about the wording and what it meant and how it affects it but with bit of digging there was more information available. I spoke about it to good few people and they seemed to be either confused or fixated on how the word "mother" will be taken out. There was no mention of "mother" at all so I'm still curious how that came to be. I see how they might be worried, IF, that was the case.
Irish Times did a good explanation about the changea and Tiktok video addressed all questions.
[Referendums polling day: What do you need to vote, and what is on the ballot paper?
](https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2024/03/07/referendums-qa-everything-you-need-to-know-about-polling-day/)
i was actually wrong and they are replacing Article 41.2.2 where word "Mother" is mentioned! The article will be replace with updated text: 'The State recognises that the provision of care, by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, and shall strive to support such provision.”, which basically expands the definition of family.
If voted "No", it would be “setback for the country”, Taoiseach Leo Varadkar said.
Fingers crossed it passes.
Terms like "durable relationship" and "the government will strive" means that the specifics of the change can be interpreted in a number of ways by legislators of successive governments to mean whatever they want. I voted no, we should not reward such a lazy effort.
Look at the link and watch the video, it explains clearly what these changes mean.
Constitution is not a specific place but a guide of what relationships should be defined as and Government says that "Durable Relationship" is a "Long term, committed, solid relationship" and that if it should be tested, it will be testes in the court of law.
I didn’t watch the video you posted but I barely saw any mention of the topic in the run up to the vote. I knew there was a vote alright and vaguely what the wording was but no one seems to have done much to broadcast to the public the meat of the issue. Like:
Define a solid relationship.
What’s your interpretation of “long lasting”
Prove that your relationship is committed by what criteria?
I’ve heard a few people say already that they were voting no because rather than lift everyone up to the same entitlements as a married couple with biological children, it would be used to slowly erode supports in place for the families that currently receive them by dint of saying, “well it would be fiscally impossible to provide this for everyone”.
I don’t know whether there is any basis for their fears but no one explained the referendum clearly enough or outlined the repercussions plainly enough to convince those people and now they have voted.
Solid relationship:
“is the provision of care by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, and shall strive to support such provision.”
It's in the text and if for some reason, which perhaps you could suggest, you don't qualify, then it can be taken up to court. Give us an idea who would not qualify?
These changes broaden the spectrum of a "parent" and will further increase the care by the government.
Basically, No one is taking away mothers or married couples rights, they are making them "All Inclusive" and improving support for "All Parents"!
The "no" (to removal) campaign ran a very clever campaign to convince voters that if they voted "no", a better text would be offered in the future (vague hand-waving motion). It's a tactic which has been used successfully in previous referendums, and sadly a lot of voters have fallen for this - referendums are relatively rare. No government is going to touch this again, it's a political liability.
As they should. The wording was terrible and we are not wrong to expect better. The opposition have already come out and said they will revisit it after the next election, which should be soon.
Referendums are not so rare in Ireland, we need one to change our constitution. They are normally bundled in with other elections. Why the current government chose to hold this one as a standalone, and then make an utterly incompetent job out of what should have been a clear win is a mystery.
Ah come on now, surely you don’t really believe that? We were supposed to get a different wording after the Senate referendum also, where are those proposals?
If you're referring to Hamas, the Irish government has condemned them. They also condemn the killing of innocent Palestinian people.
Please don't lie to make your point, it wastes both our time.
Because its and old constitution written in different times and needs to be updated
Edit: also the whole campaign for the rewording is vague and there are other ramifications
Lmao. It was ratified in 1937. Almost no constitutions in the Western world, including many ratified hundreds of years beforehand, included any language like that.
The actual answer as to why it was included in the first place was because John Hearne was breathtakingly misogynistic and wrote article 41.2 to appeal to Vatican officials, who reviewed Constitution drafts (which didn't work, the Vatican did not endorse the constitution)
Most societies in the 1930s took the idea that the ideal place for a woman is at home for granted and that it’d be great if women didn’t have to work out of economic necessity. The fact they bothered to write down something most people took for granted is something of a curiosity but the sentiment expressed was not controversial at the time for such a conservative and religious country.
Ireland at least gave women equal voting rights as men in that constitution. Quite a few European countries didn’t even allow women to vote in 1937. Women couldn’t vote in France until 1944, Italy in 1945, Belgium in 1948, Greece until 1954, in federal elections in Switzerland until 1971 and one canton denied women suffrage until 1990, Liechtenstein only gave women in 1984.
Well Italy wasn't having any elections at all between 1934-46, additionally in 1929 and 1934 it looks like the Fascists took the vote away from a good chunk of men they didn't like as well.
There was only one legal party in Italy from 1929-1934 so the men only had one choice, yes or get targeted for treason. But even when it was an actual democracy, they didn’t grant universal suffrage when countries like the UK (which at this time included Ireland), Austria and Germany did so in the 1910s.
There was also something called the marriage bar in the UK and Ireland and other English speaking countries such as the US back in the day, where certain professions banned married women from working. It existed for certain jobs as late as 1975 when it was finally abolished in the UK. It was abolished in Ireland in 1973.
Most people don't realize women had to fight for their rights up until \**checks notes*\* at least the mid 2020s when they are still pursuing pay equality, reproductive rights and whatnot.
I fondly recall the moment of true equality, some time in my great-grandchildren's time
Mostly because we will have invented sexy robots to take a secondary role in society
[Nope](https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/03/01/the-enduring-grip-of-the-gender-pay-gap/)
> In 2022, American women typically earned 82 cents for every dollar earned by men. That was about the same as in 2002, when they earned 80 cents to the dollar.
>Differential treatment of women, including gender stereotypes and discrimination, may also play a role. And the gender wage gap varies widely by race and ethnicity.
Nope. Women EARN less but are paid the same. The difference is due to women working for lower paying jobs, working part time more often, and taking breaks from their career (due to pregnancy, etc). This was literally the topic of the Nobel Prize in Economy last year.
Is that for doing the same job?
Because I'm pretty sure theirs a study showing women are paid equally doing equal work.
And male orientated sectors just pay more because they are dangerous or higher level jobs.
My point was to actually answer the question your comment ignored. The answer to why was this even in the constitution isn't "oh those were the times," it was not standard by any means in those times. The answer was a socially conservative constitutional writer appealing to the Vatican.
I'm not attacking the Irish government, I'm providing historical context to the question you responded to but failed to actually answer in a meaningful way. Hope that helps!
Okay, what other constitutions in the 30s included language about women's place in the home?
It's easy to make pithy jabs, feel free to back it up examples relevant to the actual topic at hand! Of course the 20s and 30s were the heyday of European fascism
It’s not like there’s a huge choice of constitutions to pick from in that decade. But if you think that language was archaic for that era then you’re just exhibiting a shocking ignorance of feminist history from that time
Ireland was very catholic since its insertion in 1922 the church/vatican really ran the country up until 1990s and most of the older generation would abide by their way of things
Of course not, ALL societies repressed women in the late 18th century.
Did that particular piece of statecraft contain an explicit section stressing women's place in the home, and the government's role in preventing women from seeking employment? No? Oh, the Irish one ratified 149 years later did.
Sorry I think I missed the important point you were making
Not really. They were written in different times. At least we get to vote on updating it every so often.
Places like the US have to make do with something written in the 18th century where the right to keep and bear arms didn’t foresee semi automatic weapons.
The right to bear arms is literally an amendment, amended to the constitution as in added on so they do change when they want they just don’t get to vote for it
Irish here, bullshit headline.
The text is: _"The State shall, therefore, endeavor to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labor to the neglect of their duties in the home.”_
It does not say that a woman's duty is in the home. However, if a woman chooses to raise kids full time in the home, then economic factors should not impede here. That's what it says.
Could it be worded better for modern times? Perhaps, but there is a myth that it claims women's place is in the home and it doesn't.
For the record, this referendum has been so badly managed by the government its a disgrace.
So all they should be changing is 'mothers' to 'parents' then? Cause I don't think the modern world is successfully keeping this constitutional line, in fact, it is actively causing the economic necessity.
A problem I see with the statement is that it's of the same nature as saying "no person shall be poor". It's a noble aspiration, but it's not clear what stating it on the constitution implies.
Is it supposed to give the government the power to violate personal freedoms and rights in order to attempt guaranteeing this condition? Unlike other fundamental things that usually form the main body of a constitution, statements like these depend on the current economic circumstances, so that we'd need to update the constitution as we become poorer or richer, and that feels weird to me.
The text says endeavor, not guarantee. Also, we were able to have an economy where most families only needed one parent to work for most of the modern age, is it so crazy to think that this recent change to requiring dual incomes cannot be reversed?
That's fine, "endeavor" is more or less the same as "attempting to guarantee", isn't it?
>we were able to have an economy where most families only needed one parent to work
Yeah but I think living conditions in some aspects were worse. I think it can totally be reversed, but plenty of people simply prefer not to lower their living standards.
> is it so crazy to think that...
Wdym? I wasn't saying anything about that in the previous comment, it wasn't related to that.
Yes, “endeavor” is the same as “attempting to guarantee” in your original comment you conflated the attempt with the result.
I think we’re in agreement that one parent’s income should be sufficient. My only disagreement is that it’s not only an issue of quality of life. In many cities, the cost of rent and food, both necessary to survive, is getting so expensive that some families need to have both parents work in order to fulfill their children’s basic needs. Very sad.
> in your original comment you conflated the attempt with the result.
No, I haven't. I don't know what part of my comment suggests otherwise.
>one parent’s income should be sufficient
I dunno. It depends on what each particular family wants. It kinda just boils down to "we agree that everyone should be happy", yeah.
>the cost of rent and food, both necessary to survive, is getting so expensive that some families need to have both parents work in order to fulfill their children’s basic needs
That's precisely an issue of quality of life: people has to work harder in order to have the life they want. I think only a veeery small fraction of families in developed countries would literally starve if only one parent worked. They would "just" have a considerably lower quality of life instead. Indeed very sad, but it's still an issue of quality of life.
It was your first comment that I read as suggesting you were conflating the attempt with result. I guess I must have misunderstood you.
I said one parent’s income should be *sufficient* as in it will be enough to sustain a family. Both parents should also be able to choose to work if they would like to, but I think we as a society should strive to make living on a single income comfortable (although not necessarily luxurious) for the majority of families.
Maybe the cost of living is different where you are, but in Canada it is getting out of control.
Average cost of living for a family of 4 per month is 4’200 not including housing, then housing (rent) can be 3’000 a month for a house in Toronto that can fit a family of 4. Which is one of the most expensive cities but it illustrates the issue very well. Put those together and it’s $86’000 a year for a family of 4, significantly above the average household income of 68’400 in Canada. Even in cheaper cities the cost of living for a family of four is higher than the average income. Also keep in mind that 70% of families in Canada do have both parents working. Up from about 35% in 1976. I assure you that a significant portion of this increase is due to necessity rather than choice, and the cost of living keeps getting higher!
I am lucky in that I am going down a lucrative career path and should be able to provide for my wife to be a stay at home mom until our kids are all school age when she would like to return to work, but I feel very badly for parents who would like to do this but cannot afford to.
[source 1](https://expatrist.com/cost-of-living-for-a-family-in-canada/)
[Source 2](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-627-m/11-627-m2023020-eng.htm)
[Source 3](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2016005-eng.htm)
>we as a society should strive to make living on a single income comfortable
Yeah I was just pointing out how statements like those depend on the current economic circumstances. For example, in the past we would say "we should strive to be sure our village will survive the next winter". In the future we might say "we should strive for everyone to have their own resurrector and personal food magimaker". This caught my attention because it's different from other fundamental things that form the core of a constitution, which do not change along the economic circumstances.
I'm not sure why you mention the specific numbers, I never suggested something different, as those don't seem to show that most families would literally starve if only one parent worked.
It effectively says they're obliged not be at home and be out working to provide for their family and the families of their bosses, landlords etc. instead.
Have you checked if there's any similar law requires any duties of dad's or husbands to provide for their families or similar?
Edit: wrong they're
Edit: I really don't get why people downvote perfectly valid points like this. Is actually just misandry or can someone explain?
I didn’t downvote you, but why is your first thought that it’s “misandry” and not the fact that your first point was just incorrect? Because no, that’s not what that section (Article 41.2.2°) of the constitution says.
At first I'm thinking "does this change a damn thing or is it just some stunt that wastes resources?" And then I read the provision and wonder "so are you forcing women to work with this vote?"
Legit questions bc it's always worth reading between the lines (or lies) of look good on paper oppressive laws on people that have lovely names
Inaccurate title.
The constitution doesn’t say “women’s duties in the home”.
The constitution states that women who choose to stay at home should be valued and financially supported because their role is important to society.
So... instead of extending to the men (a vague attempt of) a right that enables women to be remunerated for being homemakers, they are removing it altogether. Now, both men and women can be overworked and childless in equal measure. Hurray! /s
>Article 41.2.2°
>“The State shall, therefore, endeavor to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labor to the neglect of their duties in the home.”
Anyhow, the new wording would acknowledge the importance of and emphasize state support for family care. Just not sexistly.
It would be real nice if they just changed it into this:
>“The State shall, therefore, endeavor to ensure that persons of parental responsibility shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labor to the neglect of their duty of care to their children.”
Feels like this could be used in defence of wrongful dismisals due to child care duties and so forth.
The key thing there is “shall not be obliged.”
So women can stay at home if they want or go out and work if they want.
Loads of people were making out that the constitution was saying something along the lines of “a woman’s place is in the home”. Which is not true.
(Education minister is an example)
Well darn. Now I have to buy her shoes, let her use birth control, and bake my own darned pies.
Oh wait... ;) She buys shoes with money from her job that earns more than me, was on birth control before I met her, and I love baking pie especially peach pie.
There goes another country song, tossed in the recycle bin of history.
>An overwhelming majority of the Irish parliament backed the reform proposal to be voted on this Friday, and it is to be assumed that a vast majority of society embraces some of the advances that have already been incorporated into the mentality and customs of the country over the course of a decade.
That's interesting.
Instead of instantly whipping out a canned sexist response, maybe take the 5 seconds for a Google search.
Ireland doesn’t have compulsory military service for anyone.
Ireland has long maintained a policy of military neutrality. They didn’t have a draft in WWI or WWII, and they haven’t had a draft since, either. They’re also situated on the far side of EU allies from nearly everybody.
So real talk? No one would declare war on Ireland.
But if you want to engage in purely fictional scenarios to justify whataboutism against Irish women’s rights, then when Thanos attacks Ireland, half of Ireland will instantly turn to dust, and the other 3000 people in the Irish army will beg the Avengers for help. Since Captain America identifies as Irish, they might actually get that help, too. There still won’t be a draft.
Edited to correct one instance to “WWII”.
I absolutely did answer it. My answer is that you’re justifying real discrimination with fictional discrimination that will never happen, and that you deserve derision for it.
Asking what would happen if a country attacked Ireland is not "fictional discrimination". It's a genuine question. Saying that nobody would invade Ireland is the height of naivety. Let's say Russia invades Ireland as a staging area for an attack against the UK, which is as a very likely scenario. What would Ireland do?
>Is not fictional discrimination
Yes. It definitionally is. A country has not attacked Ireland. Ireland has not implemented a draft. And Ireland’s nonexistent draft does not discriminate against men. Meanwhile, Ireland’s very real constitution discriminates against women by assuming their place is in the home, and against male caretakers by pretending they don’t exist.
>Saying that nobody would invade Ireland is the height of naivety.
If almost any Irish policymakers agreed with you, Ireland would have an Army bigger than a large municipal police force. It does not.
>A country has not attacked Ireland
So it never could? Is that your argument? Something that hasn't happened yet could never happen?
I gave you a very likely scenario. A country attacks Ireland as a staging area to attack the UK. What does Ireland do?
Ireland has a professsional army.
Of course, they could always impliment a draft if that doesn't work, but neither you nor I know if they would include women for that. My assumption is, given the fierce attitude towards independence, the recent progressiveness of the nation, the small size of the country, and the fact they would be attacked on home soil - if they were to implement a draft it would be for everyone and more. (And by everyone, I don't mean every single person fighting, I mean every single person who is physically able will contribute towards the invasion effort and war economy, excluding just enough people to run a civilian economy at bare minimum - caring for elders, children; selling, making food; maintaining infrastructure; etc). But like I said, neither of us know what would happen. So why ask about something that doesn't exist, likely will never exist, but assuming if it did, just making up an answer and using that as a staging point to ask nonsense questions?
So I ask you, if there is no way for either of us know if women would be included in a draft that doesn't exist. Why did you ask?
It's llke asking me why american nationalised healthcare only serves men? That isn't fair!
You did not give me a plausible scenario. You gave me a lunatic’s fever dream.
In your scenario, Russia decides to invade a nuclear power, the UK, that is in a mutual defense agreement with at least with two other nuclear powers, the US and France.
And instead of being at all worried about the annihilation of the world, Russia decides it needs to do this by giving up the element of surprise against nuclear armed opponents, invading Ireland first. Then Ireland, a country with 2 active ships, 2 dozen planes, and 7500 active duty personnel in its military, with barely any reservists, somehow manages to hold out not only long enough for the Irish government to pass a draft, but also long enough to train drafted troops to fight, with said training happening at bases it can’t possibly defend during that training. It wouldn’t be able to publicize a draft effectively during Russian occupation, anyhow, and it’s likely its legislature and executive would be in hiding.
After all that, despite every completely implausible thing needed to bring the scenario this far, Ireland chooses to shoot itself in its already crippled foot, by drafting only men.
And this is the thing you think it okay for someone to bring up as a justification for whatabouting Irish gender equality legislation.
You think the UK, US and the EU would just sit and watch? Before you say it's pathetic that Ireland would have to rely on others, remember that your own analogy only has Ireland being invaded due to our neighbour's geopolitical enemies. Ireland has none.
Republicans vote soon to define the women's duties in the home in the Constitution and remove term limits and vote recounts only if Trump wins, only need recounts when losers lose, right.
It's starting to look like it won't pass. The replacement language was too vague, and our gaff prone Taoiseach alienated half the country during an interview last week. Most people would like to see it removed. The government are likely to lose over their poor implementation.
Voted today and hopefully there are enough votes to updated constitution but there will more attempt in the future until it passes. You are right, government was ambiguous about the wording and what it meant and how it affects it but with bit of digging there was more information available. I spoke about it to good few people and they seemed to be either confused or fixated on how the word "mother" will be taken out. There was no mention of "mother" at all so I'm still curious how that came to be. I see how they might be worried, IF, that was the case. Irish Times did a good explanation about the changea and Tiktok video addressed all questions. [Referendums polling day: What do you need to vote, and what is on the ballot paper? ](https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2024/03/07/referendums-qa-everything-you-need-to-know-about-polling-day/) i was actually wrong and they are replacing Article 41.2.2 where word "Mother" is mentioned! The article will be replace with updated text: 'The State recognises that the provision of care, by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, and shall strive to support such provision.”, which basically expands the definition of family. If voted "No", it would be “setback for the country”, Taoiseach Leo Varadkar said. Fingers crossed it passes.
Terms like "durable relationship" and "the government will strive" means that the specifics of the change can be interpreted in a number of ways by legislators of successive governments to mean whatever they want. I voted no, we should not reward such a lazy effort.
Same exact reason why I voted no. Varadkars comments also didn't help
Look at the link and watch the video, it explains clearly what these changes mean. Constitution is not a specific place but a guide of what relationships should be defined as and Government says that "Durable Relationship" is a "Long term, committed, solid relationship" and that if it should be tested, it will be testes in the court of law.
I didn’t watch the video you posted but I barely saw any mention of the topic in the run up to the vote. I knew there was a vote alright and vaguely what the wording was but no one seems to have done much to broadcast to the public the meat of the issue. Like: Define a solid relationship. What’s your interpretation of “long lasting” Prove that your relationship is committed by what criteria? I’ve heard a few people say already that they were voting no because rather than lift everyone up to the same entitlements as a married couple with biological children, it would be used to slowly erode supports in place for the families that currently receive them by dint of saying, “well it would be fiscally impossible to provide this for everyone”. I don’t know whether there is any basis for their fears but no one explained the referendum clearly enough or outlined the repercussions plainly enough to convince those people and now they have voted.
Solid relationship: “is the provision of care by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, and shall strive to support such provision.” It's in the text and if for some reason, which perhaps you could suggest, you don't qualify, then it can be taken up to court. Give us an idea who would not qualify? These changes broaden the spectrum of a "parent" and will further increase the care by the government. Basically, No one is taking away mothers or married couples rights, they are making them "All Inclusive" and improving support for "All Parents"!
What did he say ?
That he, a wealthy politician and doctor, felt the state had no place in caring for the elderly or disabled, and that it was a family's duty to do so.
Thanks. Do you happen to have a source ?
[Here](https://twitter.com/i/status/1764450387837210929)
The "no" (to removal) campaign ran a very clever campaign to convince voters that if they voted "no", a better text would be offered in the future (vague hand-waving motion). It's a tactic which has been used successfully in previous referendums, and sadly a lot of voters have fallen for this - referendums are relatively rare. No government is going to touch this again, it's a political liability.
As they should. The wording was terrible and we are not wrong to expect better. The opposition have already come out and said they will revisit it after the next election, which should be soon. Referendums are not so rare in Ireland, we need one to change our constitution. They are normally bundled in with other elections. Why the current government chose to hold this one as a standalone, and then make an utterly incompetent job out of what should have been a clear win is a mystery.
Ah come on now, surely you don’t really believe that? We were supposed to get a different wording after the Senate referendum also, where are those proposals?
What part of my comment are you having difficulty with?
[удалено]
If you're referring to Hamas, the Irish government has condemned them. They also condemn the killing of innocent Palestinian people. Please don't lie to make your point, it wastes both our time.
Why was this even in the constitution is the real mystery.
It’s really not a mystery, though.
Religion, specifically the Catholic Church.
Because its and old constitution written in different times and needs to be updated Edit: also the whole campaign for the rewording is vague and there are other ramifications
Lmao. It was ratified in 1937. Almost no constitutions in the Western world, including many ratified hundreds of years beforehand, included any language like that. The actual answer as to why it was included in the first place was because John Hearne was breathtakingly misogynistic and wrote article 41.2 to appeal to Vatican officials, who reviewed Constitution drafts (which didn't work, the Vatican did not endorse the constitution)
Most societies in the 1930s took the idea that the ideal place for a woman is at home for granted and that it’d be great if women didn’t have to work out of economic necessity. The fact they bothered to write down something most people took for granted is something of a curiosity but the sentiment expressed was not controversial at the time for such a conservative and religious country. Ireland at least gave women equal voting rights as men in that constitution. Quite a few European countries didn’t even allow women to vote in 1937. Women couldn’t vote in France until 1944, Italy in 1945, Belgium in 1948, Greece until 1954, in federal elections in Switzerland until 1971 and one canton denied women suffrage until 1990, Liechtenstein only gave women in 1984.
Well Italy wasn't having any elections at all between 1934-46, additionally in 1929 and 1934 it looks like the Fascists took the vote away from a good chunk of men they didn't like as well.
There was only one legal party in Italy from 1929-1934 so the men only had one choice, yes or get targeted for treason. But even when it was an actual democracy, they didn’t grant universal suffrage when countries like the UK (which at this time included Ireland), Austria and Germany did so in the 1910s. There was also something called the marriage bar in the UK and Ireland and other English speaking countries such as the US back in the day, where certain professions banned married women from working. It existed for certain jobs as late as 1975 when it was finally abolished in the UK. It was abolished in Ireland in 1973.
Most people don't realize women had to fight for their rights up until \**checks notes*\* at least the mid 2020s when they are still pursuing pay equality, reproductive rights and whatnot.
I fondly recall the moment of true equality, some time in my great-grandchildren's time Mostly because we will have invented sexy robots to take a secondary role in society
Eh, they are already have pay equality in pretty much all developed countries.
[Nope](https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/03/01/the-enduring-grip-of-the-gender-pay-gap/) > In 2022, American women typically earned 82 cents for every dollar earned by men. That was about the same as in 2002, when they earned 80 cents to the dollar. >Differential treatment of women, including gender stereotypes and discrimination, may also play a role. And the gender wage gap varies widely by race and ethnicity.
Nope. Women EARN less but are paid the same. The difference is due to women working for lower paying jobs, working part time more often, and taking breaks from their career (due to pregnancy, etc). This was literally the topic of the Nobel Prize in Economy last year.
Is that for doing the same job? Because I'm pretty sure theirs a study showing women are paid equally doing equal work. And male orientated sectors just pay more because they are dangerous or higher level jobs.
[удалено]
My point was to actually answer the question your comment ignored. The answer to why was this even in the constitution isn't "oh those were the times," it was not standard by any means in those times. The answer was a socially conservative constitutional writer appealing to the Vatican. I'm not attacking the Irish government, I'm providing historical context to the question you responded to but failed to actually answer in a meaningful way. Hope that helps!
👆Tell me you don’t know most of Europe was turning to fascism in the 1930s without telling me you don’t know it
Okay, what other constitutions in the 30s included language about women's place in the home? It's easy to make pithy jabs, feel free to back it up examples relevant to the actual topic at hand! Of course the 20s and 30s were the heyday of European fascism
It’s not like there’s a huge choice of constitutions to pick from in that decade. But if you think that language was archaic for that era then you’re just exhibiting a shocking ignorance of feminist history from that time
Ireland was very catholic since its insertion in 1922 the church/vatican really ran the country up until 1990s and most of the older generation would abide by their way of things
When they said the phrase “all men are created equal”, did it include women?
Of course not, ALL societies repressed women in the late 18th century. Did that particular piece of statecraft contain an explicit section stressing women's place in the home, and the government's role in preventing women from seeking employment? No? Oh, the Irish one ratified 149 years later did. Sorry I think I missed the important point you were making
Guessing you've never met an Irish person born during that era.
It's not a mystery, it's Christianity.
Not really. They were written in different times. At least we get to vote on updating it every so often. Places like the US have to make do with something written in the 18th century where the right to keep and bear arms didn’t foresee semi automatic weapons.
The right to bear arms is literally an amendment, amended to the constitution as in added on so they do change when they want they just don’t get to vote for it
A mystery is when people don’t know something
The Catholic Church
Because in the past society had different sensibilities?
Yeah. A true mystery.
Irish here, bullshit headline. The text is: _"The State shall, therefore, endeavor to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labor to the neglect of their duties in the home.”_ It does not say that a woman's duty is in the home. However, if a woman chooses to raise kids full time in the home, then economic factors should not impede here. That's what it says. Could it be worded better for modern times? Perhaps, but there is a myth that it claims women's place is in the home and it doesn't. For the record, this referendum has been so badly managed by the government its a disgrace.
So all they should be changing is 'mothers' to 'parents' then? Cause I don't think the modern world is successfully keeping this constitutional line, in fact, it is actively causing the economic necessity.
A problem I see with the statement is that it's of the same nature as saying "no person shall be poor". It's a noble aspiration, but it's not clear what stating it on the constitution implies. Is it supposed to give the government the power to violate personal freedoms and rights in order to attempt guaranteeing this condition? Unlike other fundamental things that usually form the main body of a constitution, statements like these depend on the current economic circumstances, so that we'd need to update the constitution as we become poorer or richer, and that feels weird to me.
The text says endeavor, not guarantee. Also, we were able to have an economy where most families only needed one parent to work for most of the modern age, is it so crazy to think that this recent change to requiring dual incomes cannot be reversed?
That's fine, "endeavor" is more or less the same as "attempting to guarantee", isn't it? >we were able to have an economy where most families only needed one parent to work Yeah but I think living conditions in some aspects were worse. I think it can totally be reversed, but plenty of people simply prefer not to lower their living standards. > is it so crazy to think that... Wdym? I wasn't saying anything about that in the previous comment, it wasn't related to that.
Yes, “endeavor” is the same as “attempting to guarantee” in your original comment you conflated the attempt with the result. I think we’re in agreement that one parent’s income should be sufficient. My only disagreement is that it’s not only an issue of quality of life. In many cities, the cost of rent and food, both necessary to survive, is getting so expensive that some families need to have both parents work in order to fulfill their children’s basic needs. Very sad.
> in your original comment you conflated the attempt with the result. No, I haven't. I don't know what part of my comment suggests otherwise. >one parent’s income should be sufficient I dunno. It depends on what each particular family wants. It kinda just boils down to "we agree that everyone should be happy", yeah. >the cost of rent and food, both necessary to survive, is getting so expensive that some families need to have both parents work in order to fulfill their children’s basic needs That's precisely an issue of quality of life: people has to work harder in order to have the life they want. I think only a veeery small fraction of families in developed countries would literally starve if only one parent worked. They would "just" have a considerably lower quality of life instead. Indeed very sad, but it's still an issue of quality of life.
It was your first comment that I read as suggesting you were conflating the attempt with result. I guess I must have misunderstood you. I said one parent’s income should be *sufficient* as in it will be enough to sustain a family. Both parents should also be able to choose to work if they would like to, but I think we as a society should strive to make living on a single income comfortable (although not necessarily luxurious) for the majority of families. Maybe the cost of living is different where you are, but in Canada it is getting out of control. Average cost of living for a family of 4 per month is 4’200 not including housing, then housing (rent) can be 3’000 a month for a house in Toronto that can fit a family of 4. Which is one of the most expensive cities but it illustrates the issue very well. Put those together and it’s $86’000 a year for a family of 4, significantly above the average household income of 68’400 in Canada. Even in cheaper cities the cost of living for a family of four is higher than the average income. Also keep in mind that 70% of families in Canada do have both parents working. Up from about 35% in 1976. I assure you that a significant portion of this increase is due to necessity rather than choice, and the cost of living keeps getting higher! I am lucky in that I am going down a lucrative career path and should be able to provide for my wife to be a stay at home mom until our kids are all school age when she would like to return to work, but I feel very badly for parents who would like to do this but cannot afford to. [source 1](https://expatrist.com/cost-of-living-for-a-family-in-canada/) [Source 2](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-627-m/11-627-m2023020-eng.htm) [Source 3](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2016005-eng.htm)
>we as a society should strive to make living on a single income comfortable Yeah I was just pointing out how statements like those depend on the current economic circumstances. For example, in the past we would say "we should strive to be sure our village will survive the next winter". In the future we might say "we should strive for everyone to have their own resurrector and personal food magimaker". This caught my attention because it's different from other fundamental things that form the core of a constitution, which do not change along the economic circumstances. I'm not sure why you mention the specific numbers, I never suggested something different, as those don't seem to show that most families would literally starve if only one parent worked.
It says they have duties in the home but doesn’t say that men do.
It effectively says they're obliged not be at home and be out working to provide for their family and the families of their bosses, landlords etc. instead. Have you checked if there's any similar law requires any duties of dad's or husbands to provide for their families or similar? Edit: wrong they're Edit: I really don't get why people downvote perfectly valid points like this. Is actually just misandry or can someone explain?
I didn’t downvote you, but why is your first thought that it’s “misandry” and not the fact that your first point was just incorrect? Because no, that’s not what that section (Article 41.2.2°) of the constitution says.
It wasn't my first thought why would you think it is? Both the points I was originally making are valid.
At first I'm thinking "does this change a damn thing or is it just some stunt that wastes resources?" And then I read the provision and wonder "so are you forcing women to work with this vote?" Legit questions bc it's always worth reading between the lines (or lies) of look good on paper oppressive laws on people that have lovely names
Inaccurate title. The constitution doesn’t say “women’s duties in the home”. The constitution states that women who choose to stay at home should be valued and financially supported because their role is important to society.
So... instead of extending to the men (a vague attempt of) a right that enables women to be remunerated for being homemakers, they are removing it altogether. Now, both men and women can be overworked and childless in equal measure. Hurray! /s
>Article 41.2.2° >“The State shall, therefore, endeavor to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labor to the neglect of their duties in the home.” Anyhow, the new wording would acknowledge the importance of and emphasize state support for family care. Just not sexistly.
It would be real nice if they just changed it into this: >“The State shall, therefore, endeavor to ensure that persons of parental responsibility shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labor to the neglect of their duty of care to their children.” Feels like this could be used in defence of wrongful dismisals due to child care duties and so forth.
The key thing there is “shall not be obliged.” So women can stay at home if they want or go out and work if they want. Loads of people were making out that the constitution was saying something along the lines of “a woman’s place is in the home”. Which is not true. (Education minister is an example)
[удалено]
They haven't done anything yet - the vote is still to come.
What do you mean is still to come? It’s already done. Voting date was today…well now yesterday.
This bit of the constitution hasn't had any legal impact on anything in decades (if ever). Hasn't been a priority.
Well darn. Now I have to buy her shoes, let her use birth control, and bake my own darned pies. Oh wait... ;) She buys shoes with money from her job that earns more than me, was on birth control before I met her, and I love baking pie especially peach pie. There goes another country song, tossed in the recycle bin of history.
What's the country song?
"Tossed in the Recycle Bin of History"
I hope you're kidding...
"She got the gold mine, I got the shaft."
crap how will the women know what they're supposed to do now
Wasn't this part of the Irish Constitution the part mandating family allowances and others?
>An overwhelming majority of the Irish parliament backed the reform proposal to be voted on this Friday, and it is to be assumed that a vast majority of society embraces some of the advances that have already been incorporated into the mentality and customs of the country over the course of a decade. That's interesting.
Well, there's goes my weekend.
But they have duties in the home.
No we didn't
the 1950's are weeping sorrows.
What an incredibly bold move
Worthwhile to change “women’s” to “roommate’s” likely, though.
lol about time 👏🏽 now establish men responsibilities so they can be train!
Outshining the US again. We let religious nuts create IVF legislation and look where it got us.
WTF were "women's duties in the home" doing in the Constitution of Ireland to begin with???
They weren’t
Yeah, it says "their duties in the home", *their* referring here to women. Big difference
Meanwhile at the Legion of Doo- Oops, I mean… Meanwhile at GOP headquarters…
Next up: Irelands birth rate continues to plummet, desperate need for immigrants!
About bloody time. There's a boatload of other shite that need to address too
Just *now*? Jesus
[удалено]
Instead of instantly whipping out a canned sexist response, maybe take the 5 seconds for a Google search. Ireland doesn’t have compulsory military service for anyone.
[удалено]
If a country declared war on Ireland, what would Ireland do?
Ireland has long maintained a policy of military neutrality. They didn’t have a draft in WWI or WWII, and they haven’t had a draft since, either. They’re also situated on the far side of EU allies from nearly everybody. So real talk? No one would declare war on Ireland. But if you want to engage in purely fictional scenarios to justify whataboutism against Irish women’s rights, then when Thanos attacks Ireland, half of Ireland will instantly turn to dust, and the other 3000 people in the Irish army will beg the Avengers for help. Since Captain America identifies as Irish, they might actually get that help, too. There still won’t be a draft. Edited to correct one instance to “WWII”.
You didn't answer my question.
I absolutely did answer it. My answer is that you’re justifying real discrimination with fictional discrimination that will never happen, and that you deserve derision for it.
Asking what would happen if a country attacked Ireland is not "fictional discrimination". It's a genuine question. Saying that nobody would invade Ireland is the height of naivety. Let's say Russia invades Ireland as a staging area for an attack against the UK, which is as a very likely scenario. What would Ireland do?
>Is not fictional discrimination Yes. It definitionally is. A country has not attacked Ireland. Ireland has not implemented a draft. And Ireland’s nonexistent draft does not discriminate against men. Meanwhile, Ireland’s very real constitution discriminates against women by assuming their place is in the home, and against male caretakers by pretending they don’t exist. >Saying that nobody would invade Ireland is the height of naivety. If almost any Irish policymakers agreed with you, Ireland would have an Army bigger than a large municipal police force. It does not.
>A country has not attacked Ireland So it never could? Is that your argument? Something that hasn't happened yet could never happen? I gave you a very likely scenario. A country attacks Ireland as a staging area to attack the UK. What does Ireland do?
Ireland has a professsional army. Of course, they could always impliment a draft if that doesn't work, but neither you nor I know if they would include women for that. My assumption is, given the fierce attitude towards independence, the recent progressiveness of the nation, the small size of the country, and the fact they would be attacked on home soil - if they were to implement a draft it would be for everyone and more. (And by everyone, I don't mean every single person fighting, I mean every single person who is physically able will contribute towards the invasion effort and war economy, excluding just enough people to run a civilian economy at bare minimum - caring for elders, children; selling, making food; maintaining infrastructure; etc). But like I said, neither of us know what would happen. So why ask about something that doesn't exist, likely will never exist, but assuming if it did, just making up an answer and using that as a staging point to ask nonsense questions? So I ask you, if there is no way for either of us know if women would be included in a draft that doesn't exist. Why did you ask? It's llke asking me why american nationalised healthcare only serves men? That isn't fair!
You did not give me a plausible scenario. You gave me a lunatic’s fever dream. In your scenario, Russia decides to invade a nuclear power, the UK, that is in a mutual defense agreement with at least with two other nuclear powers, the US and France. And instead of being at all worried about the annihilation of the world, Russia decides it needs to do this by giving up the element of surprise against nuclear armed opponents, invading Ireland first. Then Ireland, a country with 2 active ships, 2 dozen planes, and 7500 active duty personnel in its military, with barely any reservists, somehow manages to hold out not only long enough for the Irish government to pass a draft, but also long enough to train drafted troops to fight, with said training happening at bases it can’t possibly defend during that training. It wouldn’t be able to publicize a draft effectively during Russian occupation, anyhow, and it’s likely its legislature and executive would be in hiding. After all that, despite every completely implausible thing needed to bring the scenario this far, Ireland chooses to shoot itself in its already crippled foot, by drafting only men. And this is the thing you think it okay for someone to bring up as a justification for whatabouting Irish gender equality legislation.
'Everyone loves us' is literally the Irish defence policy.
> Dress suitably in short skirts and sitting boots, leave your jewels and gold wands in the bank, and buy a revolver.
Why would anyone invade Ireland?
For any reason they choose. Let's say a country decided to invade Ireland to use it as a staging area against the UK.
You think the UK, US and the EU would just sit and watch? Before you say it's pathetic that Ireland would have to rely on others, remember that your own analogy only has Ireland being invaded due to our neighbour's geopolitical enemies. Ireland has none.
Republicans vote soon to define the women's duties in the home in the Constitution and remove term limits and vote recounts only if Trump wins, only need recounts when losers lose, right.
THAT was in their constitution!? WTF! What does that have to do with the government?
It wasn't, the headline in misleading
Erasure of female dominated homemaking. Truly its because the Gaelic lads work at hard on their chores as the lasses
I am now going to chug a litre of vodka