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.
“IT IS TIME to separate this idea that women are inherently linked with caring and family because a woman’s place is where she wants it to be and that is not necessarily in the home.”
Those were the words of Taoiseach Leo Varadkar today as he defended the government’s decision to have a referendum on the deletion of the wording on a woman’s place in the home from the Constitution.
This is despite concerns being expressed by the Constitutional Convention and the Justice Department over the complete repeal simpliciter (simply removing the reference).
It had been suggested that the clause should be amended rather than deleted completely and that a gender-neutral clause or a reference to women caring in the home should be included.
Leo Varadkar said the government gave the issue careful consideration and took the advice of former Justice Catherine McGuinness in coming to the decision.
We decided that we should ask the people whether they want to delete that article on women in the home, which we believe is sexist and anachronistic, from our Constitution.
This should never have been put into the Constitution in the 1930s never mind being kept there now.
The Taoiseach said consideration was given to putting in new wording on caring or amending the definition of the family.
However, he said he and the government “do not believe we should tie up a decision on deleting this sexist anachronistic language from our Constitution with a debate on caring and families”.
“Caring and families deserves careful consideration in its own right, we will do that in 2019 and, if we can come up with wording that is agreeable, we will put that to the people as well.
“It is time to separate this idea that women are inherently linked with caring and family because a woman’s place is where she wants it to be and that is not necessarily in the home,” he said.
Varadkar said the definition of the family in Ireland is based on marriage.
“That is anachronistic too. The Constitution does not see one parent or lone parent families as families. These are much bigger issues and they should not be tied in with deleting this sexist and anachronistic language from the Constitution. Doing that is long overdue, so let us do that and look at the issues on the definition of the family and constitutional protections on caring, and the people they care whom we also have to bear in mind, as separate items,” he concluded.
A referendum on whether to delete the clause will be held in October, alongside a referendum of deleting references to blasphemy from the Constitution. The referenda are due to be held on the same day as the presidential election.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
If they change that it means that the government do not have to take care of the single mother who has to stay home to look after her kids because she can’t afford childcare. As it is they can’t force her out to work so she has to be looked after. This is a very sneaky way to change the law in their favor.
@T-Bone ACow:
Maybe, just maybe, the Father of the child might pay for the childcare costs, thus allowing the Mother the facility to work outside the home.
@T-Bone ACow: that is not what this means, what it’s about, or what will happen as a result.
@T-Bone ACow: Hey T-Bone. I’m not sure I understand the point you’re making.
Are you saying the government is removing the phrase so they can force single mothers into the workforce?
@T-Bone ACow: it means nothing like that – it is not about single mothers, or social welfare.
@T-Bone ACow:
That’s completely wrong.
Utter tripe.
@Bernie Roche: They already did that, They broke the law and went against the constitution and no one pulled them up about it.
Joan Burton cut the allowances a few years back ,forced single women into work, and Leo`s party were in power too,
Where is Gilmore gone??
He sold his soul out to the devil
No one talks about him anymore….
@Pixie McMullen: * single mothers before anyone pulls me up about it *
@T-Bone ACow: Absolute complete lies.
What next, the constitution to be re-written on rainbow fancy paper perhaps.
@T-Bone ACow: not just single mothers the wording of that artical suggests tax implications of couples with one income or fis payments. Removal of that artical from the constitution removes the state’s obligation to support families in that situation. Changing the wording yes, complete removal absolutely no.
@Native: As opposed to the yellow and white of The Vatican? Might make a welcome change. How are the Irish lessons coming on by the way? Are you still unable to speak your native tongue? Mo náire thú, ní fíor-Ghaeil thú ar corr ar bith.
@Colonel Grant: come on now be realistic
@T-Bone ACow: what a load of BS! If you are right then you’re saying that the government looks after these women now?
@Deborah Behan: they don’t not look after them. They could do better but there is something there for them. Would you rather nothing than be insulted by a little.
@Bernie Roche: the article in question is the reason children’s allowance is universal
@T-Bone ACow: You are totally right. They are thanking their lucky stars nobody has taken and won a case on this platform in the past. They have been shirking their responsibility to home makers for years without consequence.
It’s not sexist at all.
It reflects the society of the time when women looked after the children and the home.
Putting it into the constitution, to me, was a way of acknowledging what a hugely important role it was in society.
It seems the majority of women don’t want to do that anymore.
Don’t think it’s fair to label the writers of the constitution sexist.
@Bernie Roche: It did indeed reflect the society of the time. That society was sexist even if not consciously so. That is exactly why the wording is anachronistic and no longer appropriate to retain.
@Bernie Roche: Or a way to bar married women from employment. It’s origins are religious misogynistic dogma!
@David McDermott: you don’t even know what the wording of the artical is you clown. Maybe read it first and quote it correctly. Show us the religious bits and misogynistic bits, educate us all.
@Terry McClatchey:
It’s not sexism.
It’s traditional gender roles and was like that for thousands of years
@David McDermott: I’m a married woman and personally I’d love to be barred from working so I could stay home and raise my child while my husband works…he would like that too. But we can’t afford it so this constitutional promise was not delivered on. I’ll be voting to keep it to see if there’s anything they could do to actually deliver on it.
@Brendan Hughes: what are you on about? Of course I know the wording it’s written in the constitution. Do you even know what we are talking about.
@Chipstix: would you really like to be barred from working? And do you really believe that is better than having a choice? I went to college, I have a career, and am glad of both. I have children. And have chosen NOT to be financially dependant on on my husband.
I don’t have to work. I’d have less money, but we wouldn’t starve. If the cost of childcare is more than your income, why are you working?
@David McDermott:
Women were statutorily barred from work, nothing to do with the constitution.
Are you saying the constitution is based on religious dogma?
It is based on Republican ideals
@EvieXVI: If ye are married isn’t what’s your’s his and what’s his your’s?
@David McDermott: read the article of the constitution. It says that a woman shouldn’t be forced out to work through economic necessity. It is the reason children’s allowance is universal.
@Bernie Roche:
“In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
We, the people of Éire,
Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ,”
A wee bit of Catholic dogma
@David McDermott: please show me one single woman who is ” barred from working” as a result of our constitution
@Brian Conway: Both my mother and mother-in-law had to give up work in civil service jobs when they married the 50s. It was called the ‘marriage bar’ and stemmed from the Constitution.
@Bernie Roche: Did you know that married couples are entitled to the separate bank accounts, and to own their own stuff? It’s not 1960, which is the point of making this change.
@Sergio Gutiérrez: ya there is that bit alright. All states invoke god in their constitutions though, to give them some validity. Ours invoked the Catholic god as we were a Catholic country. The rights involved in the constitution are inspired by republicanism
@Squiddley Diddley: No it stemed from policy and legislation, not the Constitution. There is and never has been a bar to anybody working in the Constitution – you will note we did not have a referndum an allowing married women to work…
@Squiddley Diddley: thats incredible. My mother and grandmothers took career breaks by choice when they had kids. How is it yours were forced to quit. Is it civil sercice policy? I can say with certainty nope. So why was your people victimised. The only women i know forced to stop worl were bictims of joan brutal and the rest of this corrupt government gor the bankers by the bankers
@Bernie Roche: You’re right. But they want it removed as they have not honoured that commitment to homemakers the constitution states the Government should. They want rid of it before someone takes a case and calls them out for their short comings.
Is it really that important in the grand scale of things? Like what difference will removing it make? In fact I’d imagine the average person on the street had no idea that was even there in the first place….
@Cheryl Mellett: the average person, no, but fathers dealing with the courts are acutely aware of this.
@Patrick Swan: I don’t see how that paragraph would have any baring on that. By the way I am fully aware that many father’s get a very raw deal in family court. It is one area that really needs an overhaul and equal rights for both parents. I totally support that.
@Cheryl Mellett: if they remove it children’s allowance will not be a universal payment for starters.
Can we please stop with this virtue signalling and get on with addressing the real issues of the day, homelessness, ridiculous judiciary, corruption. More bread and circuses.
@Gordon Murphy: It’s neither bread nor circuses. Probably best not to use phrases you don’t understand.
@Derek Walsh Ⓥ: maybe fiddling while Rome burns would have been more appropriate…
@Gordon Murphy: heres an issue for him. Heather Humphries is approving whats basically an attack on whistleblowers or rather a detterant from future whistleblowers. Fine Gael showing their blueshirt colour. https://www.broadsheet.ie/2018/07/06/the-most-significant-setback-for-the-fight-against-white-collar-crime-in-a-decade/
@Gordon Murphy: can you lads shut up with the “virtue signalling”? It’s the new “snowflake”. Gowl carry on.
@Conor Paddington: says the incessantly virtue signalling snowflake. Gowl..
@Daffy the Bear: who am I trying to impress down in these depths with you awful people under a semi-anonymous name?
Hey Leo!
Didn`t Joan Burton break the law when she cut single parents allowances?
The constitution says
“The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to neglect of their duties in the home.”
Weren`t Fine Gael in power too?
@Pixie McMullen:
Why don’t you take a case to the Supreme Court to find out?
Oh yeah, it’s because your point is utter drivel.
@Brinster: it’s a fact that many women have to work outside the home to keep the family afloat economically a lot of women that I know would rather be at home and raise they’re children but can’t afford to.
@Brinster: So. you are saying the constitution as it stands is utter drivel..
why am i not surprised?
@Pixie McMullen: this is why they pay children’s allowance
@Tricia Lowry: they can afford to. But there are a lot of sacrifices they would rather not make.
a referendum on our water and not to allow gruggy corporations and greedy politicians get the hands on it!
@Charliegrl80: EU unlikely to allow it.
@Paul Fahey: Nothing to do with the EU. Jesus do you just sit around finding a way to drag them into every story so you can have a pop?
@Ricky Spanish: Hi Ricky,
This is just a guess, but I’m sure you’re anti-Brexit.
Anyway, the setting up of Irish water was a requirement to secure a bailout from the Troika, for which if you remember, consisted of EU bodies with the IMF.
Ergo, the EU would have a lot to say about any proposed referendum on the sovereignty of Irish water.
Any-who, you just stay living inside your ill informed little bubble and have a nice day.
I’d have to see the wording of changing this, might not be in everyone’s interests.Our government looks after itself first and the people second.You can be sure they won’t loose out on it.
@dar: There is no alternative wording, the proposal is deletion. I will be voting yes.
@dar: they will gain from it. The real target here is children’s allowance. Every time someone said to cut children’s allowance during the crash they were told they couldn’t because it would be unconstitutional. This article is why.
@David McDermott: why will you vote yes to let them take the children’s allowance?
The sheep will fall for it. Takes people minds off the important things, makes this p.ick and his buddy look like they are doing something good while it’s will make no different. But I do think the majority knows what’s going on so let them at it.
I think people need to read what it says, carefully, before they seek it’s removal. The only change I’d make is perhaps to change mother to parent. Please don’t fall for the women’s place is in the home bull that’s being peddled. What this article does is recognise the considerable service to society stay at home mothers do, and also states that the government should enact no law that forces, by economic necessity, the mother to leave the home for work.
“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.”
Why successive governments have not been challenged on this is beyond me. My parents were able to raise 4 kids and by a home on a single wage, now, even with two parents in relatively good jobs many are close to, or beyond the poverty line. This article could have been cited to encourage rent control, affordable homes, council houses, health care and so many other things. Instead we want to let a man who believes that nothing should be provided by the state, everything by private business and at large profits?
We are long past the time when a mother cannot choose to work if she wants to, we now need to ask why one parent can’t choose not to if they believe it is better for their children.
Lastly, why is it considered sexist to recognise the valuable contribution to society mothers make?
Leo made it clear in the quotes above that he does not want to replace this with anything. Ask why?
@Michael Wall: Income tax implications, pension entitlements of stay at home mothers, family support payments, children’s allowances all of these are directly linked to this part of the constitution. The social justice warriors are so blinded by their mission they can’t see the wood for the trees.
I don’t think it is sexist, I think it is recognition for women who do stay at home mind the kids, when the constiution was written maybe the men who fought for independence valued the work of women who stayed at home and looked after their children, they men who wrote the constition felt that it was important to recognise the role of a stay at home mom,why would women want to remove this???
@Lisa Byrne: Nothing to do with the architect of the constitution being an archbishop of the misogynistic Catholic Church?
@David McDermott: I hope you wash your mouth tonight before bed with all the bull you are spouting today
@Brendan Hughes: Brendan you are taking out your arse. Are you even commenting on the same topic.
@Lisa Byrne: Mom?? Jesus can we stop copying the yanks FFS.
This could have major implications for family law. True equality would be Mothers AND Fathers entering the family law courts on an equal footing.
@Frank Dubogovik: this is an economic thing nothing to do with family courts.
Any excuse for the Taoiseach to divert attention from his failure to solve the housing crisis and the infrastructure crisis! The Irish people should not buy this nonsense from him and the current government, the people should see through his efforts to spend taxpayers’ money to gut the Irish Constitution in order to cynically attention from his failures.
@J. Reid: *divert attention
@J. Reid: How many emails which take 2 minutes to send have you sent to your local councillor or TD about the housing crisis? Zero? Oh, ok.
Varadkar said the definition of the family in Ireland is based on marriage. This is anachronistic. If it’s anachronistic, then why does he take a partners salary into account if someone is claiming benefits, in most cases reducing it, but if they want to give their partner their tax credits, like a married couple, it’s not allowed.
It protects women who choose to stay at home,government agencys cannot force them out to work and that is whats behind this.do not believe these lying government politicians.
@@mdmak33: Any evidence to back that up?
@David McDermott: The Constitution says :
“The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to neglect of their duties in the home.”
Will that do?
@David McDermott: They want to obliterate this
@David McDermott: Evidence that this government is full to the brim with rotten lying corrupt individuals?How about heir leo this week over seeing the moving of health from hawkins house to a building owned by larry tribunals goodman? Or maybe him using known criminal frank panama papers flannery as his campaign manager as he stabbed covney in the back? Or maybe his continued close ties to dob as his gang suppress the Moriarty report? Wasnt another gang member just found to have been passing sensitive information to the same dob? Hows that for a start lad?
@Pixie McMullen: yes they do as this provision is not backed by legislation. It gives women no extra rights. It’s purpose was to bar married women from employment not give them money.
@David McDermott: read the constitution it’s there in plain English.
@David McDermott: Jesus can you read? It has nothing to do with the marriage ban that is long gone. It puts an onus on the government to try make it possible for mothers to stay home (by making a payment)if they want it’s not compulsory.
Mna na hEireann are coming for you Leo
FG should just call it the ‘we’re refusing to give you a referendum on your water’ referendum.
Change the wording to fathers and grandparents who look after children and then it’s not sexist anymore.
This piece of legislation protects children and families. It can’t be removed just because someone thinks it’s sexist
This is a natural law , ask any mother, this guy Leo is about as natural as Trumps hair
How about the Referendum re water 2/3rds of voters in GE 2016 mandate to Dail,that 2 Oireachtas Committees specially set up re water issues recommended & which vast majority of Dail voted for?
There is definitely a hidden agenda here… My money is on the obliteration of the children’s allowance!!!
FG really hate the working class and down!!!
@Marc Quinn: Hi Marc,
The children’s allowance is a dividend paid to the mother for registering her child with the state.
Removing this phrase will not affect it in any way
@Bernie Roche: this article is the sole reason the children’s allowance is universal. Take this article out and the payment will dwindle away to nothing. Any other law can be changed by the politicians at will not the constitution though.
@Stephen Brady: spot on Stephen
So is a lot of the Constitution
WOW isn’t Leo a genius ….NOT
Important issues affecting women in Ireland (men & children too)needing urgent attention are those caused by undeclared National emergencies& scandals in Homelessness, Housing & Health, carers of spouses,children,etc under considerable strain and stress needing adequate housing and supports,women suffering abuse/rape needing safe refuges/supports, deprivation/consistent poverty,workers earning under €30,000& other workers earning over €30,000 with high childcare costs,facing high rents with no prospect of ever affording to buy a home,etc,etc etc.
This is reality for people including women in 2018 Ireland & I don’t care how emotive it sounds…this should not be accepted as normal & those who experience any of above is not to blame.They are the issues that need URGENT attention!
Leo is a Pound shop Trudeau!!
Go away Justin or i mean Leo.
We’ll have to wait awhile to see does Leo propose to Delete it or replace it with another wording to reflect some other agenda.
@Gerry Ryan: the quotes above make it quite clear he intends to delete it.
“It Is time to separate this idea that women are inherently linked with caring…”.
If this is a correct quote, then they are the cruelest words I have ever heard from any public official.
Surely our teesock must them agree that those shouting out loudly against equality and gay rights are homophobic? Hmmmmm Not fit to lead a merry dance this lad
The right of women to housing or to hribg up their own children doesnt bother this right wing trumper
Surely our unelected teesock must then agree that those who shouted loudly against equality and gay rights are homophobic. Not fit to lead a merry dance this concieted sham
well if we are to have a referendum lets get rid of all the crap like, sexism voting on our president by popular vote his age 27 or over , save money do them together
Our biggest trading partner is leaving the EU Varadkar needs to prioritize. Fine Gael are the masters of deflecting attention from the real issues to the non issues
have your say