We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
A FINE GAEL TD wants any mention of women’s role within the home removed from the Irish Constitution.
Dublin Rathdown deputy Josepha Madigan wants a referendum on Article 41.2.1 of Bunreacht na hÉireann, which deals specifically with the role and rights of women.
It reads:
In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.
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.
Three different reports, as well as the 2013 Constitutional Convention, recommended the abolition or reform of the clause.
The article has been used in legal cases around gender discrimination and recognition of work done in the home.
As Gerry Whyte of the Trinity College Dublin Law School explained in a 2013 submission to the Constitutional Convention:
In L v. L (1989) Judge Barr in the High Court argued that Article 41.2 obliged the courts to have regard to work done as a home maker in calculating a wife’s share in the matrimonial home.
And:
In DT v CT, (2002) Article 41.2.1º was cited by two members of the Supreme Court, Judges Denham and Murray, in support of the view that, in deciding whether proper provision had been made for a spouse for the purposes of the divorce jurisdiction in Article 41.3.2º, regard had to be had to the work of a spouse caring for dependants, the family and the home.
Whyte adds that the article was unlikely to be used to force the state improve financial supports for women.
Given that tax and social welfare matters directly affect public expenditure, and that decisions on public expenditure are regarded as the preserve of the Oireachtas and the executive, it is unlikely that the courts would use Article 41.2.2 to impose additional financial obligations on the State to support mothers in the home.
Madigan said the clause was an anachronism that is not reflective of today’s Ireland.
Until 1973 the marriage bar restricted the employment of married women, often resulting in termination of employment. There was never an economic rationale behind the marriage bar, 1973 was far too late for its abolition- but 44 years later it is ludicrous that the backwards thinking behind the bar remains enshrined in our Constitution.
“Our Constitution should not narrowly define our roles in society. I would like to see this anachronistic Article consigned to history. Modern Irish women and modern Irish families deserve more than the archaic notions of the 1937 Constitution.”
Orla O’Connor from the National Women’s Council of Ireland (NWCI) said the clause has more symbolic power than real.
The Article is completely outdated and doesn’t reflect the society we have or want. It’s the symbolic nature of it. The Constitution should be about espousing the qualities and values we want. It is in the background on many policies and attitudes in society.
The NWCI is committed to a referendum repealing the Article, but says its priority is a referendum on the Eighth Amendment.
The UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women on Monday called for the amendment of Article 41.2 of the Constitution to remove”stereotypical language on the role of women in the home.”
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Our state pension rules discriminate against women who work in the home, would be a better job for politicians to address this blatant discrimination and injustice
I agree with you Elizabeth. All the more reason that women should be allowed their PRSI contributions notionally for the value of their work in the home. This could be a valuable test for the equality intent in the Constitution Article. As a matter of fact the Constitution should be amended to encompass house husbands thus recognising equally the husbands who also sacrifice a job in order to look after the home. It is a reality that when it comes to a choice the major wage earner works on whilst the minor wage earner ends up working in the home. This happens when the cost of childcare clearly outweighs the earnings from the minor earner. So the article should be amended to acknowledge both the men and women who work in the home and make sure they do not loose out financially particularly in the area of PRSI. Keep the article through amendment.
The State is breaking the rule everyday. Women have to work everyday due to economic necessity. It would answer Josepha better to concentrate on the issues that matter rather than worrying about the wording of a document her party ignores anyway.
As long as the woman’s place is not in a Mother and Child home , that is a start.
The Irish Constitution is a Roman Catholic Constitution. We need a secular Constitution for secular Republic free of the intrusion of the Roman Catholic Church.
Agree. Oh wait. Didn’t we have a constitutional convention?
@John Flood: chuckling. Good point, so we have!
What we need is a new constitution altogether. From the preamble, to the interference in the family, home and repeated references to women as different classes of people, the whole document is like you took a modern constitution (from the 1700s) and deliberately took out any equality principles and replaced it with fumbling theocratic nonsense (I mean, the blasphemy section as an obvious add on to negate the whole chapter above it). Even after the special place of the church was removed, the whole document looks like someone just handed a legal document over to the church and said: do your worst. We don’t need a convention, we need a replacement.
Would it be unconventional for the convention to do away with some of the more unconventional conventions in our Constitution?
Typically a constitutional convention is convened to reform or re-write an existing Constitution. I agree we need a new constitution but we lack the political will to undertake such an action. With a corps of professional politicians they have no motive to engage in progressive actions.
Of course FG would propose this one. While people have been, rightly, arguing about rights, feminism and social equality for the last number of years.
The managed economy has evolved to the point where it takes now two struggling workers working a full week to earn enough for buying a home and raising a family, where in the past the system could only extract one worker’s labour for the same provision. Little unused constitutional provisions like this present a trip hazard to that process.
The traditional (functional) family unit has been fundamentally dismantled all over the western world. The Irish constitution would perhaps be one of the last that still recognises the importance of women in the household.
@aoife✨:@aoife✨Plenty of families function very well without a woman in the home. Many parents share care for children, many men care for children in the home, many children are very well looked after in childcare and many single parents do an amazing job. An article stating that my place as a woman is in the home is downright insulting as it should be up to my family how care is organised not some outdated idea of a woman’s and a mans role.
Lucy, this may come as a shock to you but throughout history women have traditionally remained in the home while the men work or in tribal times gathered food. It’s not sexism, it’s just how human societies have functioned for tens of thousands of years. The section of the Constitution that mentions this has almost no legal influence in this day and age anyway so holding a referendum for its removal would be an expensive vanity project.
My Mom gave up her job when she first became pregnant with her first child. She felt strongly that her place was in the home raising and nurturing her family. I’m a great supporter of choice ! If women want to stay in the workplace then by all means. However the state should continue to recognise the important role women can also be in the home.
@aoife.I agree with you.I believe that the warehousing of children in creches and childcare facilities from when they are toddlers has had a detrimental effect on our society.Two parents working and paying one of their wages out in childcare fees never made sense to me.
Great comment Aoife. I am all for women choosing careers outside the home but this section of our constitution recognises the importance of a womans role in the home as a mother and caregiver etc. How some could see this is as belittling of women is beyond me. I gave up a career to stay at home and be a full time mother to my 2 small children and I have never been busier but also have never felt more fulfilled and happy. I know thats not very trendy or not very feminist of me but I know Ill never regret it.
Feminism is about choice Christchurch, whether that’s to continue working or to stay at home & raise your children. Not everyone is interested in smashing the proverbial glass ceiling.
That was meant to just say Chris. Predictive text drives me mad.
I absolutely agree Trisha. There are some feminists though who feel you are letting the side down by not choosing to have a career outside the home. Acknowledging the importance of women in the home in our constitution does not take away a womans choice to have a career.
…and by implication or omission does not recognise the importance of men in the home!
@chris Martin is that why coldplay haven’t released an album in the last while?
Don’t worry about those “feminists’ Chris. Just live your life as you want to. You don’t have to explain your choices to anyone. As long as you & your partner are happy that’s all that matters
You see, I don’t understand this. There is an economic necessity for both parents to work outside the home for many couples. Your belief that kiddies in Creche have had a detrimental effect on society is based on what, Teddy?
There are pros and cons to both being at home and working outside the home. But for some there’s no choice. And there’s also the view that both parents working outside the home gives a sense of achievement and accomplishment. So long as children are loved and nurtured by their parents the balance is there.This constitutional ” protection” is nothing other than outdated lip service. There’s no real protection in it.
@Aoife True but not much point in our Constitution agreeing with it the Government doesn’t. They are not bothered with the Constitution unless it serves their purpose!!!
Another repeal or reform question. The article is well meaning. The social impacts of both parents working and loss of guidance to the child will be seen shortly
Well if mothers were allowed to work since the 70′s then clearly what we have now is the results and clearly life in Ireland is better now than it was in the 70′s
It should stay but for men and women equally. It was put in to protect women so they could not be forced out of economic necessity to go out to work and it ensured they could mind their own children. It is an enlightened and noble concept.
In Lithuania Women get paid 100% of their wages in first year of motherhood, 80% in second year and 60% in third year if they wish to stay at home minding their children. We could take an example of that in Ireland.
@Teresa Scanlon: Or give stay at home parents tax breaks, and give none to working parents to encourage more people to raise their own kids.
@Teresa Scanlon: Parents should be supported not just mothers. It would be wonderful if the government supported parents more.
Should we have a provision in the Constitution prohibiting the operation of abusive baby farms?
Include sterilisation as a considered cure in that ammendment
FG should worry about real issues and not this sort of nonsense
@Peter Buchanan: it’s a distraction.
FG the socially progressive progressive and humane party, ahem.
The journal too should worry about proper issues
I think it should be removed, but replaced with a gender neutral clause and not binned.
Our Constitution is no longer fit for purpose.
Thats is hugely insulting and narrow minded. We expect better from our “modern” politicians. Women are asking for change and choice. A womens right to choose to be at home or choose to be at work is upheld in the Irish constitution an amendment to add men and an economic incentive calculated on a percentage of the amount of money these women and men currently and historically save the government by choosing to take care of the home and children. Working men and women with children are already crying out for assistance with child care costs image how bad it would get it this safe heaven is taken away for the people who stay at home or offer assistance to those that work. I am hugely insulted and shocked at this small minded request. The women who choose to working within the home see the current wording as a point of pride and acknowledgement of their current duties. Saying that it is outdated is saying that women who choose this life are outdated. Campaign for fairness and equality not for forcing women into work they cant afford or belittling them for the work that they do. Looking to modernise this would be to envelop men into the same rule and to create the tax rebate and pension that would then be offered to all (with proof obviously that only one peraon is at home) and give then security in their raising of future tax paying adults.
Epo, it is narrow minded in that it zones in one one gender in society.
In our post modern affluent society we shouldn’t be dependant on a dual income framwork for family life to exist as it detracts from the social natural nurturing of our future young. That said hour of work/life should be more balanced and less intensive to live at a stable standard of comfortable living if it is to exist.
Serious question if this is removed does it equate to equal rights for unmarried fathers etc?
No. It takes rights away but does not provide rights to either men or women. Currently unmarried fathers who work in the home or married fathers who work in the home are not recognised under this constitution so their rights are not recognised. To make it equal you would have to offer the party who is being negatively effected the same as the the party who is positively effected. The positive is that their position and right to look after their children and home is recognised by the law. In this case men would need to be encompassed under the law to availing of this right (which they currently are not). In this case the equal right to work in the home would mean that if a man worked in the home for 30 years not building up saving or have any finances beyond his partner if they divorced he could not site the financial provision on the partner under law in order to divide assets equally, but could use it as a example. There would be no legal foundation for the argument. If you think it is unfair you eould be correct. Taking it away would result in women across ireland who have been living this life for decades to be put in a very scary position. If men wanted to avail of this law they should be paying attention to this requested amendment and jump on the opportunity for change and equal rights. This is bigger than people assume.
It’s not really sexist given the context within which it was written, but certainly has no real meaning in modern society and should be removed.
So you don’t see a parent dedicating him or herself as something that should be protected and incentivised? Two parents working for 30 years to pay for a roof over their head isn’t a good place
But it’s not incentivised!
Where stands Josepha Madigan on the 8th Amendment, the wretched Article 40.3.3 introduced in 1983?
Dear Irish Constitution,
What’s you opinion on same lesbian couples? Should they both stay in the house?
have your say