On this year’s International Women’s Day, Ireland votes on whether to remove the decades-old ‘women in the home’ clause from its constitution, alongside a second referendum on revising the definition of family. Despite a desire to remove the gendered and outdated language of the 'women in the home' clause, concern has arisen from both the YES and NO camps over the wording of the proposed new article and what impact – if any – it will have on women’s rights in Ireland.
Following the historic same-sex marriage and abortion referendums in 2015 and 2018 respectively, the people of Ireland vote on Friday on whether to remove the ‘women in the home’ reference from their constitution. However, contrary to the aforementioned referendums, Irish women at home and abroad do not appear to be as invested in the vote's result.
"I feel that the move, while welcome, is merely tokenistic. Women would be better served by affordable childcare, more flexibility in the workforce, ultimately semantics while important, do not serve the deeper issues of gender inequality and barriers to caregiving," says Shauna Kane-Brun, an Irish woman who has been living in France since 2017.
"A few of my close friends back home [in Ireland] are rather baffled by it all," she adds.
"I don't think it's been particularly well communicated and there is no clear 'gain' in the Yes vote as far as I can gather."
Article 41.2 of the Irish constitution, which dates from 1937 when the Catholic Church still held huge sway over public and private life in Ireland, states that “by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved”.
It adds that “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”.
The existing wording “no longer reflects modern life”, said Irish Foreign Affairs Minister Micheal Martin in December, while Equality Minister Roderic O’Gorman said that the article’s current wording “seeks to contain women in a very singular role, a role that’s completely divorced from the reality of women’s lives, women’s careers across our State today”.
The so-called care referendum proposes removing the existing article and replacing it with article 42B, containing gender-neutral language.
“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.”
Many Irish people welcome the referendum, saying that it signifies great advancements for Irish women’s rights. Orla O’Connor, director of Ireland’s National Women’s Council (NWC), an organisation seeking equality between women and men in Ireland, is campaigning for the YES vote.
“This referendum is our opportunity to remove limits on women’s role from our Constitution and close this dark chapter of our past," she says.
"The current wording never led to any positive supports for women and was at the heart of cruel, discriminatory policies,” she adds.
While Ireland now ranks 9th on the EU’s Gender Equality Index, the Marriage Bar – which required women to resign from certain jobs once they got married – was in place until 1973, making Ireland one of the last countries in the world to lift it.
Proposed new article causing backlash
However, the referendum has also met with strong opposition – even from those who support removing the gendered and dated language, due to the proposed new wording. “The problem for the government and the proponents of the referendum is the vague wording – the YES vote should win, but the wording is abstract and vague and avoids concrete commitments,” says Shana Cohen, director of the Dublin-based Think-tank for Action on Social Change.
In other words, the current article is stronger because the proposed new article takes away any obligation on the State to provide support to carers. Even one word can make all the difference, as Irish journalist Dearbhail McDonald writes in an opinion piece for The Guardian. The word “‘strive’ falls short of the recommendations of Ireland’s citizens’ assembly on gender equality, which backed [...] the deletion of the women in the home article”, says McDonald.
“For its part, the assembly wanted the article deleted but replaced by non-gender-specific language obliging the state to take reasonable measures to support care within the home and wider community.”
Many who oppose the proposed new article simply feel that the language used is so vague that it could be misinterpreted, says Cohen. The No campaign, she continues, is “not necessarily about keeping women in the home, but rather [...] to avoid confusion, and maintain special mention of the role of women in [Irish] society”. Caregiving in Ireland tends to adhere to traditional gender roles. Ninety-eight percent of full-time carers are women, as are 80% of paid carers.
Even some Irish politicians have expressed apprehension about the proposed new article. Independent TD Catherine Connolly, who described herself as a “very strong feminist” in an interview with Irish newspaper The Journal,said that although she is “not happy” with the current language used in the constitution, “my difficulty is what they’re [the Irish government] replacing it with. It’s not as strong as what’s in there”.
Connolly, who previously worked as a barrister, also said that she would rather “take her chances” with the current article, adding that she would prefer that the country’s courts interpret the current wording “in a modern way”. While the Irish Women Lawyers Association (IWLA) said in January that it supports a YES vote in the care referendum, it added that it would have preferred the government to choose the word “obliged” in the new 42B article, as recommended by the Citizens’ Assembly.
The care referendum does not seem to have gripped the country in the same way that the abortion referendum did, which made global headlines and was widely talked about across the country in the months leading up to the vote. “The abortion referendum was very different to the current one, in that someone had died because of the ban and women had been travelling to other countries, such as the UK, to obtain abortions. The ban was a very, very tangible act based on religious doctrine that put women’s lives at risk and did not reflect contemporary Irish social values,” says Cohen. The care referendum on the other hand “is less tangible and may seem so contradictory in its current wording to what Irish society now practices [...] that the public may wonder why the clauses are still there in the first place or if they have any relevance any more, regardless of their inclusion in the Constitution”, adds Cohen.
Suspect timing?
The timing of the vote has also ruffled some feathers. Connolly has dubbed it “a double insult” to hold the vote on International Women’s Day. McDonald says holding the referendum on March 8 “only adds to a sense of grievance” as many remain unsure of what the proposed constitutional change will achieve for Irish women in material terms. The vote also comes just a few weeks before the Irish Supreme Court is due to hear an appeal by the mother of a severely disabled boy who was refused the full means-tested carers allowance because her husband’s weekly salary is €850.
This appeal will involve consideration of the existing Article 41.2 and the importance it places on care work.
Brenda Power, a journalist and barrister part of a group of lawyers urging a NO vote (Lawyers for No) in this referendum, said at a press conference in Dublin in February that she is “very concerned” about the referendum taking place ahead of this appeal. The Lawyers for No group also said that the constitutional change “would [...] have long-term consequences in areas of law including family, tax and property, and mean ‘no justifiable rights’ for people either giving or needing care” and so are urging people to vote NO to keep the original clause.
Even among YES supporters, there is a fear that this referendum will be merely symbolic and not have any real material impact on the everyday lives of Irish women. While the NWC is urging people to vote YES, O’Connor has also said that it is important that this constitutional change be accompanied by legislation. “Recognising family care in the Constitution is important, and it must also lead to practical supports that families need” such as investment in public childcare and better paid family leave, she says.
Cohen agrees with her. “The fear is that this [constitutional change] is just symbolic, and without legislation, the changes will not have real effect [on Irish women]. The lack of affordable, accessible childcare in Ireland is a real impediment to [Irish women] working full-time and at all,” she says.
According to the latest Labour Force Survey released by Ireland’s Central Statistics Office, Irish women make up 60.4% of the workforce (compared to 70.6% men), which is considered low by international standards. Furthermore, OECD statistics show that employment among working Irish mothers falls below both the EU and OECD average.
Women in Ireland therefore seem to be at a crossroads – between wanting their constitution to reflect modern day sensibilities and ensuring that they will receive the government support they need. “The change in [the article’s] wording is necessary to keep up with social and cultural change within Ireland. [..] But so is subsequent legislation to improve the capacity of women to work, if they choose, and to not suffer financially if they are a primary carer,” says Cohen.
