Referendum on Gender Equality (THREADBANS IN OP)

No. It has no effect on separation/divorce now and will have no effect if changed, either.

I'll be voting to get the "women in the home" thing out for definite. Yes - the Holy trifecta of Steen, Breda and Ronan do my head in, but the real reason is for my own, dead mammy.

Absolutely loved working. Said she loved to hear "my high heels going clikety click on the path walking to work ". Forced by a repressive country to stay at home. Hated it. Nowhere to put kids. While her Scandi and Central European counterparts had cheap state daycare. If the state had wanted to help women we'd have had daycare and CHOICES. My beautiful mam had none. Imagine having no choice over your existence. And lucky she wasn't very fertile or she'd have had 8 kids too.

The state needs to "endeavour " to help families, however they look. Woman's place is where SHE thinks it is.

It doesn't really affect women working nowadays. There's only one way to actually help families an that's a State Day care system. I lived abroad and had my child in one - amazing experience.

I want the referral to women's natural place being in the home out because it was never right and did basically keep women at home - it was used against them. Carers in the home is less archaic.

That's the crux, really - and why I'll be a no. It doesn't affect women working. Or doing anything else. It doesn't hold any woman back from making any choice she wishes. Maybe when women aren't still carrying the burden of 90% of caring and home-based work, it can change. But while that is the case, the recognition puts Ireland ahead of other countries in terms of recognising women's contribution outside of a mere statistic on the old GDP.

There are also plenty of women who would not want to put their children into any form of daycare even if it were free. Removing any recognition of "duties within the home" which many women have, and instating a state-run childcare system, would open the door to women being forced to put their children into daycare to 'contribute' in the workforce. After all - why should some women get to stay home and raise their children when everyone else has to go to work and pay taxes?

It's terrible that your dear old mum suffered under Ireland's various forms of historical misogyny, but forcing women to act in the way she would have preferred to act is not any better.

There is no reason that the government cannot put provision for carers into the constitution (even an ineffectual 'strive') without removing mothers and their work at home, and they should be sent back to the drawing board to do just that.

lol “Vote yes for family and care” yet they want to replace “family” with “durable relationships”

Did the Gaslighter-in-Chief Varadkar come up with that one??

Wouldn't anyone vote for something if it is worthwhile? It seems most people think it's a wishy washy amendment and not a clear and concise change to the constitution. I would say that's the reason not to vote for it rather than reducing it solely to a protest vote.

I will be voting "No", because, like many others, the lack of definition of what a "durable relationship" consists of is of concern.

Also, since the government has failed abjectly, imo, to support "women in the home", I fail to see how the even more wishy washy use of the word "strive" will offer any additional protection whatsover to carers.

There was an old saying "Don't buy a pig in a poke". Those were words of wisdom then, and remain so now.

If anything, the Government are actually insulting the intelligence of voters in trying to sell a "Yes" vote.

Consider this. If the government, or A.N Other political party genuinely want the opinion of the people, should they not remain entirely neutral, and merely present the facts?

The fact that they cannot, or will not, define something as basic as a durable relationship, yet are encouraging a "Yes" vote, would suggest to any rational, thinking human being that they have an agenda that they choose not to reveal.

There must be some way to publicly censure these government actors spreading deliberate disinformation about the referendum, surely? What is the point of the electoral commission otherwise?

Vote as you like but you have this all wrong! The present article does not say that women's place is in the home anymore than it's says women's place is in work. It's quite open ended and simply and rightfully acknowledges womens role in home life. And that's all. I'm not a woman but if I was, I'd certainly appreciate that special mention regardless of whether being a stay at home mother or working mother. Both have a special role in home life and to suggest otherwise is insulting.

Men could argue that they have been ignored and their role in home life is not acknowledged, but that's a different matter.

Gender equality?

Yeah I think that's a good thing

I believe both genders should have equal rights.

Like it's 2024, how do we not already have this?

Woman Mother

Gender ... well this word alone could open up a hornets nest? depending what the latest definition of gender actually means. Does gender refer to the two traditional genders (man & woman) or are they thinking of equality in the "woke" gender self ID version of the word, whereby anyone can just declare their gender irrespective of their biological sex. Gender fluid transgender etc ...

For the context of the Gender equality referendum surely the word gender needs clarification.

A no vote, since it would change nothing at all, would leave women's rights in the exact same position they are today, actually.

Women in Ireland have the same rights as pretty much every other Western country, and in places that they may be lacking they will not be ameliorated by this farce of a referedum, the result of which (if yes) will only be to remove any recognition of women's non-employment contribution to society from the constitution. Since that recognition is one of the few ways that the constitution currently recognises all women and not just those in the middle-and-higher class bands who choose career, it would be a travesty.

Ok. I'll bite. How would a no vote set womens right back 100 years?

But you said it would set women's rights back 100 years....explain that please? What rights will women lose if we see a no vote?