The mania in Ireland for believing that everything that happened before yesterday was old, archaic, tainted with Catholic values and therefore must be ditched in the nearest dumpster continues apace.
It has been announced that next year Ireland will mark International Women’s Day with a referendum proposing to erase the word “woman” from the Irish Constitution. All in the name of “progress”, as usual.
I, however—along with many others—happen to believe that some things that are old continue to have value, and that change should be both slow and subject to careful scrutiny. So I’m out on a limb as usual in relation to the current zeitgeist in Ireland.
The country is also due a second referendum on the concept of the family, but let’s deal with one progressive indoctrination at a time.
Article 41.1 of the Irish Constitution states: “In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, [a] 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.”
One politician introduced the referendum proposal with admonishment for the current article by saying a woman’s place is wherever she wants it to be. But the current constitutional article does not say a woman must stay at home, nor does it say a woman should be at home. What it does is recognise that the common good cannot be achieved without the support of women.
What is wrong with that as a declaration? And why would any woman vote to remove constitutional recognition of the work she does at home, especially given how such work is often undervalued if not ignored by the current state of free market ideology.
Even though the Constitution was written by very conservative men at a very conservative time, the article does not suggest that only wives or mothers serve the common good. It is only the second part of the article that uses the word mother and which does so by putting an obligation on the State that she should not be forced into paid work by reason of economic necessity.
Given such terms, the article has aged well, despite what the politicians would have you believe. This is evidenced by how nowadays many mothers are “obliged by economic necessity” to turn away from home. That is a problem for the State to fix—which is perhaps one of the reasons why they want to change the article’s current phrasing.
Those proposing the referendum also fail to recognise how the current article actually manages to be inclusive. The current wording allows for single women and how they are responsible for homes: this could be their own, or they may support elderly parents in family homes. They may also give support to a brother and sister and to his or her children (nieces and nephews). All these roles contribute to the common good.
The article’s current constitutional phrasing also allows for married women who do not have children – they are still recognised by its language as furthering the common good. After all, they still run a home, and work to support husbands. And, again, they often care for households including parents, siblings, nieces and nephews. All of this is worthy of constitutional recognition.
A woman’s life within the home may have changed over time—the importance of it has not. It does not matter that many women now work outside the home. They still run the show inside it.
The current Constitution allows for this. It doesn’t care if you are a farmer’s wife, running the domestic show while organising the work on the farm. It doesn’t care if a woman is a member of the upper classes and must organise endless dinners to keep her husband connected and supported at work, or a suburban housewife who looks after eight children and a husband.
The specifics of the woman’s role at home do not matter; the Constitution in its present form recognises that a woman’s role in the home, whatever the home might look like or whatever the woman might do, is something that is important, unpaid, and worthy of recognition.
But it appears that for some Irish politicians the constitutional recognition of the value of a woman’s life in the home is sexist. It’s all a bit old-fashioned. So let’s replace it with the following:
“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.”
The above attempts to recognise unpaid care in a gender-neutral way. Which is fine. You can add that into the Constitution if you want. But that is not what we are being offered in the referendum. What we are being offered is an outright attack on women and the private sphere—a repeal-and-replace referendum.
It should not surprise us that the people who want to attack the private sphere—the home—spend all their time in the public sphere. Politicians and mainstream media spend their time slugging it out in the public gaze, and typically feel mighty important and validated by it. So they can’t be having the word “woman” and the word “home”—with all its supposed far less exciting connotations—in the same sentence. It irks them. It’s embarrassing and so restrictive. So they want to get rid of it.
But it is the current Constitution that is fluid and accommodating, and not the phoney gender-fluid mantra that causes so much confusion these days, by recognising the significance of the role as a woman in areas such as, but not limited to, her careful supervision of children, her consideration of others, her watchful eye upon the household to make sure it runs smoothly.
Maybe she is CEO of a company also, but that woman will still know when the cheese runs out, as well as knowing so much more. It is that blend of female privilege, burden, wisdom, compassion and steadfastness when necessary that the Constitution is talking about.
So add to the Constitution a vague “inclusive” phrase alongside the current article, if you want. But if you want to get rid of the latter, I’m voting No. I don’t tend to vote for things that lessen my status legally. I’m not stupid—I’m a woman.
This page is available to subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.
Areas of Catholic Herald business are still recovering post-pandemic.
However, we are reaching out to the Catholic community and readership, that has been so loyal to the Catholic Herald. Please join us on our 135 year mission by supporting us.
We are raising £250,000 to safeguard the Herald as a world-leading voice in Catholic journalism and teaching.
We have been a bold and influential voice in the church since 1888, standing up for traditional Catholic culture and values. Please consider donating.