Referendums 24, a woman's place is wherever she wants it to be? (2 Viewers)

[Unicron]

I haven't engaged much with these.

On the face of them they appear to be a bit of constitutional housework to tidy up some regressive language in the constitution. I've heard that some of the nutters are opposing them, I've also heard that some disabled people and disability advocates are opposing them.

Anyone on top of this?

 

[ann post]

Not quite yet.

My current understanding is that any concerns centre around caregivers and their financial standing as the old wording was crowbarred into being part of what setup social supports for carers. So far as i've seen the yes/aye campaigners are confident the redraft keeps this in good stead.

But I do need to do a deep dive on the no/nae conversations too.

 

[therealjohnny]

Will watch this thread. the hive mind will tell me what to do

 

[ann post]

I spoke to a woman once and she didn't want to be legally tied to the home but I should wait to see what some dickheads with numbers in their internet names say first.

 

[chris d]

What are you being asked to decide on? - Electoral Commission

Doesn't appear to be too problematic to me. Unfortunate that it's come along at a time when a decent section of society seem to be anti anything/everything.

 

[chris d]

I spoke to a woman once and she didn't want to be legally tied to the home but I should wait to see what some dickheads with numbers in their internet names say first.

Speaking to a women? humblebrag.

 

[therealjohnny]

OR



The country decides

 

[ann post]

Speaking to a women? humblebrag.

WomAN.

I'm not Fr. Jose Fernandes like.

 

[Cormcolash]

Ulster Says No No

 

[Anthony]

Heard a "debate" on Radio 1 the other day. Lots of ranting and raving on the No side.

 

[rettucs]

which side are the Iona Institute on?

 

[magicbastarder]

the only reasonable criticisms i've heard was that not enough thought was given to the proposed wording.

 

[David Kronenbourg]

as an irish patriot i disagree

 

[Deadmanposting]

Listened to Brendan with two advocates at the weekend.
You'd be hard-pressed to decide what the actual ongoing problem is here in the first place with the existing clauses. I didn't feel strongly about either position afterwards.

I'm anti-marriage in the personal, but hugely pro-marriage in the macro. All of you lot married and raising your kids as best you can, are doing us all a great service. Thanks for the future pilots and plumbers. No problem at all recognising it in law.
I think we should encourage marriage for those that want it. Durable relationships are what exactly?
Not durable enough to stand in front of a registrar for 10 minutes?

And really not sure what putting this beige word salad into the constitution actually achieves
“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.”
You could drive a truck through that language. Not sure who or what it protects.

Modern irish society seems to have settled what's what as far as family and relationships go already.
I honestly don't see what these amendments get us beyond what we have already. We're ahead of the game.
I don't see what harm is being remedied by these changes.


The citizens assembly things are great, but I'd tend to be against anything that wants to pull the word woman out of the law books. But that's me.

 

[Deadmanposting]

And fwiw

It seems odd to me that people would pick various heads and decide that they are either for or against a constitutional amendment.
Like if Breda O'Brien or PantiBliss or Iona or Blindboy Vote X, then I am voting Y.
That's how the Americans do it. And they've fucked themselves.

I wouldn't be outsourcing my decisions to anyone at all, I don't care who they are.
What's the point in living an entire life and having these experiences colour it, and then just handing over your decision making?

 

[Reets]

I’ve issues with the wording of “Durable relationships” and they haven’t fully gone with what the Citizens assembly suggested. The wording is shit basically, but I’ll be voting yes.

 

[MacDara]

My current understanding is that any concerns centre around caregivers and their financial standing as the old wording was crowbarred into being part of what setup social supports for carers.

I got my polling card in the post yesterday and read the attached proposal and that’s pretty much my take on it: they’re replacing the language about ‘wimmin in the home’ with more general stuff about carers, but they haven’t echoed the ‘shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour’ outside the home part. Because that would be admitting the State has to pay carers a living wage at the very minimum.

 

[egg_]

And fwiw

It seems odd to me that people would pick various heads and decide that they are either for or against a constitutional amendment.
Like if Breda O'Brien or PantiBliss or Iona or Blindboy Vote X, then I am voting Y.
That's how the Americans do it. And they've fucked themselves.

Fucking +1 on this

I don't see that the clauses in current constitution that we're voting on changing really mean all that much in a concrete sense, one way or the other. Like - what on earth is an attack on marriage?

Also to me existing clause "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" means something like "the state will endeavour to ensure that a woman doesn't need to work outside the home unless she wants to" ... but, like, if it's supposed to be doing that right now it's utterly failing, and therefore I suppose it'll fail with the new wording too

Anyway - I've no objection to the new wordings that I can think of so far

 

[Deadmanposting]

Also to me existing clause "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" means something like "the state will endeavour to ensure that a woman doesn't need to work outside the home unless she wants to" ... but, like, if it's supposed to be doing that right now it's utterly failing, and therefore I suppose it'll fail with the new wording too

Well, exactly. The constitutional wording is not the problem here. It's the state not stepping up to the plate.
And that new wording isn't going to do anything for anyone, on the face of it.
I'm all for change. Just not change for change's sake.


This thing is about 3 weeks away and it's hard to see if anyone gives a fuck about it.
There's no compelling wrong to be righted here, that I can see.
Anyways.
My gut tells me the old school mammies win this one. Fuck knows though.

 

[egg_]

Well, exactly. The constitutional wording is not the problem here. It's the state not stepping up to the plate.

Well, if a genie got elected Taoiseach then under the constitution he could decide that whatever salary a woman with kids made would be taxed at 100% in order to pay a carer to mind her kids while she was at work. That way women would be free to choose between the home and a career without any financial implications, hooray!

So maybe it is a good idea to change the wording, just in case