The night before the referendums polls opened, a nephew in South Africa sent a screenshot of a television news report that Ireland was about to vote on a proposal to delete mothers’ “duties in the home” from its Constitution. “Interesting that it would say that in your Constitution in 2024,” said he, a father and exponent of understatement.
Interesting too that people nearly 9,000 miles away on another continent had a better grasp of what Ireland was purporting to do than had our own Government. After three decades of talking about removing the Constitution’s language pigeonholing women, the Government gave us not one but two referendums. They branded them the “family” and “care” referendums. In keeping with the history of this State, the word “woman” – the original raison d’être for change – proved too hard to mention. There followed a come-all-ye campaign of issues about durable relationships, throuples, polygamists, polyamory, infidelity, disability rights, so-called “disability enablers”, self-agency, immigration, farmers’ inheritance, gold-digging mistresses, transgender rights and the price of tea in China. It was about anything but what it was supposed to have been about in the first place.
Amid the head-scratching that has ensued since the massive rejection of the proposals, one question has been posed to the point of exhaustion: Where did the Government go wrong? As the brazen kids in the ‘70s liked to retort when chided for back cheek, ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer. Had voters been asked if we wished to simply repeal article 41.2.1 – woman’s “life within the home” – instead of only being given the option of amending it, the outcome could have been different.
By disguising the seminal motivation for the referendums and failing to advocate convincingly for them, the Government handed No campaigners a shovel to more deeply entrench woman inside the home so that many of us are now more likely to live to see a united Ireland with a DUP taoiseach than to be treated by our constitution as anything other than her indoors. One of the rare times the sexist stereotyping was raised, it was heart-scalding to hear it being claimed, without challenge, on the national airwaves that the Constitution does not say a woman’s place is in the home “or anything whatsoever like it” and to see that become an undisputed refrain of resistance.
One lesson these referendums have taught us is that, as citizens, we should all read the Constitution for ourselves and not rely on others to tell us what is in it because, as sure as doctors differ and patients die, lawyers differ and legal interpretations squeeze all other considerations – psychological, sociological and plain logical – out of the reckoning. One No campaigner, Senator Rónán Mullen, wants the Government to “pay back” the estimated €20 million the referendums cost. A wise investment would be to supply every home in the country with a copy of the Constitution so that voters can read it for ourselves rather than risk it being lost in translation.
Do you know there are 98 mentions of man, men, he, his and him in Bunreacht na hÉireann? These do not include its numerous references to “chairman” or to God, who is, but of course, a divine man. The exclusionary patriarchal language starts on page one where the preamble eulogises “our fathers [for] their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our nation”. I guess Constance, Kathleen, Sheila, Elizabeth and Cumann na mBan were at home baking apple tarts for article 43.1 “man [who], in virtue of his rational being” has a right to own property.
The Constitution ascribes male pronouns to Ireland’s most powerful and nation-shaping roles. Thus the jobs for the boys include the president, the taoiseach, all government ministers, the ceann comhairle, all TDs and senators, judges, the attorney general, the president of the High Court, all members of the Council of State and the comptroller & auditor general. Just two jobs are specifically reserved for the girls – housewife and mammy. After the count declaration on Saturday, there were triumphant declamations that the results were a victory for mothers. As a mother, it felt to me more like a victory for some mothers and some mammies’ boys. It certainly was no great day for single mothers, for mothers in non-marital relationships, for many widows, for mothers suffering coercive control, for mothers who have lost their children or mothers who have no homes.
Flushed with triumph, some No voters have taken to attacking feminism for foisting the failed referendums upon us. Apparently, it was all the fault of modern women with their “progressive” and “woke” notions but, mercifully, Ireland was saved by good mothers who insisted on retaining their singular constitutional name-check. As a feminist, I believe the failure to include fathers’ duties is anti-man and deplorably unequal. The simple solution would have been to amend 41.2.2 to oblige the State to ensure that parents would not have to neglect their duties to their children due to economic necessity.
During the referendums campaign, Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald said that if the proposals were defeated her party, if in government, would put them to the people again but in the wording recommended by the Citizens’ Assembly. That is a very bad idea and, besides, after the clobbering voters have given to opposition parties – bar Aontú – along with the Government, it would be political hara-kiri. It was the assembly, after all, that recommended inserting the care ideal into article 41.2.1 despite the foreseeable complexity it would cause. Family and care are separate issues and should be addressed separately.
If McDonald is sincerely committed to equality and if she has the courage to attempt to unstitch the gender imbalance that was sewn into Bunreacht na hÉireann 87 years ago, she would be better advised to hold an omnibus referendum to rid the entire document of gender preferences, so that no roles are delineated as belonging to him or her. Contrary to some campaigners’ claims, the wish to remove the words “woman” and “mother” has nothing to do with the linguistic neutering of females. It is about being fair to everybody. Our constitution is supposed to serve us, but how can it if we cannot find ourselves in it?
We may see a united Ireland with a DUP taoiseach sooner than a Constitution free of sexist language
9
1
15.03.2024
The night before the referendums polls opened, a nephew in South Africa sent a screenshot of a television news report that Ireland was about to vote on a proposal to delete mothers’ “duties in the home” from its Constitution. “Interesting that it would say that in your Constitution in 2024,” said he, a father and exponent of understatement.
Interesting too that people nearly 9,000 miles away on another continent had a better grasp of what Ireland was purporting to do than had our own Government. After three decades of talking about removing the Constitution’s language pigeonholing women, the Government gave us not one but two referendums. They branded them the “family” and “care” referendums. In keeping with the history of this State, the word “woman” – the original raison d’être for change – proved too hard to mention. There followed a come-all-ye campaign of issues about durable relationships, throuples, polygamists, polyamory, infidelity, disability rights, so-called “disability enablers”, self-agency, immigration, farmers’ inheritance, gold-digging mistresses, transgender rights and the price of tea in China. It was about anything but what it was supposed to have been about in the first place.
Amid the head-scratching that has ensued since the massive rejection of the proposals, one question has been posed to the point of exhaustion: Where did the Government go wrong? As the brazen kids in the ‘70s liked to retort when chided for back cheek, ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer. Had voters been asked if we wished to simply........
© The Irish Times
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Mort Laitner
Rami G Khouri
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
