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

Voting intentions

  • Yes Yes

    Votes: 6 37.5%
  • Yes No

    Votes: 4 25.0%
  • No Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No No

    Votes: 1 6.3%
  • There’s no limits.

    Votes: 5 31.3%

  • Total voters
    16
Are they all on a whip with this?

Not a whip so much as, toeing the party line? Short leash more than a whip.

Surely there's some FFers not fully down with Yes Yes?
Yep whip system in place as far as I know.
There's still not 100% support as the wording is utter shite. Labour were the main party that were vocal about being hessitant but they're sorted out whatever their grivences were and pushing for a Yes.
 
I’m going Yes Yes because I have zero faith in a rejection being seen as anything other than a vote for the status quo.
 
yeah, look what happened with the seanad reform one. people voted against it because the option being offered was 'do nothing, or do something shite' and FG took the result as 'well, people want us to do nothing about it'.
 
Ah here, that's really not what the constitution says, and I think it's disingenuous to frame it that way. There's no "should", just a recognition of what is, or what was at the time it was written. It's a less accurate description now, but when you look at studies of division of labour within homes there's still a lot of truth in it.

I'm half-considering not voting at all, cos I think fiddling about with words like this is just a waste of everyone's time. If I do vote though it'll probably be yes/yes - I've no actual objection to the new wording, and if people's dire predictions about the risks associated with it come true well then we can just change it again

Obviously, I thought, my post was somewhat hyperbolic, but on the last point it took decades to sort out the 8th, I doubt we'll ever undo the racist 27th.

All depends on the motivation of the government at the time, they've shown they'll rerun a refendum with altered language if they don't get the result they want.

I saw some of the no-noers arguing that a yes on care will remove the only reference to women in the constitution while there'll remain references to men, e.g. article 12.3 on the president always refers to the theoretical holder of the office as "he" and there is similar language for parliamentarians. If we're doing any kind of linguistic housekeeping on the constitution maybe we should have a referendum on replacing usage of the word "he" with "they."
 
My fears hang around being

A: life slowly become that of carer
B: having a disability and the erosion of protections for people in that position where I might need a carer in a few years
C: The green paper on disability is looking at sort of ranking disabilities, so from my corner this looks like a dual pronged pincer movement on state responibility

prove me wrong counter in the yard...
 
My fears hang around being

A: life slowly become that of carer
B: having a disability and the erosion of protections for people in that position where I might need a carer in a few years
C: The green paper on disability is looking at sort of ranking disabilities, so from my corner this looks like a dual pronged pincer movement on state responibility

prove me wrong counter in the yard...
FLACs statement on it is causing me to think No on that one to be fair.
 
I've changed from yes/yes to no/no

It seems to be deliberately written so normal people can't understand it.
 
Ladies talking about this in work.... "if a man leaves his wife and gets a new girlfriend, the girlfriend will be able to take the wife's house" etc
What do you think Anto?
" I can't vote in a referendum".
phew.
 
Ladies talking about this in work.... "if a man leaves his wife and gets a new girlfriend, the girlfriend will be able to take the wife's house" etc
What do you think Anto?
" I can't vote in a referendum".
phew.
You’re still allowed to tell people they’re wrong though.
 
Like this

Equality Not Care says the wording which recognises care between family members, overlooks the rights of adults with disabilities to have independent lives.


At a press conference this morning the group said the government's proposed wording to remove language in the constitution around women's life in the home and replace it with a recognition of care between family members to one another - is ablest and ageist.

How on earth is this
“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.”
... ablest and ageist?
 
... ablest and ageist?

The FLAC statement explains it better than those people -

The amendment would give constitutional expression to harmful stereotypes such as the concept that the provision of care, including the care of older adults and adults with disabilities, is the private responsibility of unpaid family members without any guarantee of State support. Like the explicitly sexist ‘women in the home’ provision, the proposed Article 42B endorses a status quo where women undertake the bulk of unpaid care work and places no obligation whatsoever on the State to redress this gender imbalance – rendering it an implicitly sexist amendment.

...............

It also would give constitutional expression to the harmful stereotype of people with disabilities as the subjects of family care rather than autonomous individuals and rights-holders. The proposed new wording does nothing to enhance (and potentially compromises) the rights of people with disabilities as set out in the UNCRPD.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Activity
So far there's no one here

Support thumped.com

Support thumped.com and upgrade your account

Upgrade your account now to disable all ads... If we had any... Which we don't right now.

Upgrade now

Latest threads

Latest Activity

Loading…
Back
Top