Hi Belinda, thank you for this really powerful article. Though, I was surprised to get to the end of it and not see any mention of the economic implications of 41.2.2 and this referendum. I would agree with a lot of what you have said but find the removal of the "shall not be obliged by economic necessity" element deeply important and something that cannot be overlooked. I would love to see your thoughts on this in light of this whole article you have written.
Hi Ali. Really glad you enjoyed this piece. Yes, my intention for the writing of this was more to give the 'backstory', to look at the whole cultural bedrock that contributed to how it came about (as my interest with my research and what always intrigues me is understanding the historical or situational context that often sits behind the scenes of the thing we're looking at). So I was less focused on the current in-motion happenings with Article 41.2 (i.e. the upcoming referendum) as opposed to the motions that contrubution to its writing in the first place.
But, my personal opinion on the changing of the wording is that it all seems a but rushed and the newly proposed wording worries me for what it leaves out as much as I am pleased that it is progressive in other ways. So I have really mixed feelings and feel deeply conflicted about it, as do a lot of people I have been speaking with lately. Nevertheless, what I always keep coming back to is the deep cultural attitude that informed the original wording and ask - has that changed? To some degree it has and therefore I do think a change of wording is needed to bring the consitution more in line with where societal ideals sit now. But these are just my own ponderings.
Mmm yes thank you for your response, I hear you there and can relate to that feeling of being deeply conflicted. I worry that the referendum is a poisoned pie. A sweet pie in that the change of wording is long overdue, but poisoned in that it is not accidental or inevitable that the 'economic necessity' element be removed, if you get what I mean.
In terms of your deeply researched piece here, thank you, I learned a lot from it. I wonder did you read much about the economic aspects in that historical context / backstory e.g., has 4.1. historically been economically beneficial in ways? This is something I intend to research more myself before Friday, but would be very interested in your insights regardless. Ali
It is really really hard to know what to do - the new wording is so vague. I resonate with your poisoned pie feeling.
On the economic necessity part (sorry, realised I didn't at all address this in prior reply!) I think there have been a couple of cases were in the courts judges have looked to it and highlighted that e.g. in De Burca and Anderson v. Attorney General case, that 'special provision for the economic protection of mothers who have home duties' is implied and has been interpreted as such. However, there are not many cases. More often, the resarch of Yvonne Scannell (noted in references) concludes that the legislation of the state has demonstrated that the article has been used to reinforce and justify keeping women out of the public sphere as opposed to providing economic support for women in the home. However, there are a small number of cases were the legal / court system have interpreted it to mean that 'some preferential treatment of women citizens seems to be contemplated by the constitution' and that has resulted in a favourable outcome for the individual woman in court (but rarely resulted in any change to e.g. legislation that would affect women widely).
So, it always seems to me to have been more about the underlying cultural attitude, although intepretion of the wording and the different ways it could be interpreted is very important.
Thanks Belinda for this very interesting run-through of how things have developed. I didn't understand the process of how the 1922 Constitution morphed in the 1937 version. I totally agree with your conclusion that the real challenge lies in shifting the often unspoken daily practice of gendered behaviour. So little of that is written down or discussed or even realised that it is a very tricky issue. Until we realise that all this stuff creates a prison not just for women but also for men, then it's going to be hard to make major change and we are stuck with the frustrating incrementalism of each new generation and all the lost opportunities that spring from the slowness of implementing more dramatic change.
Hi Belinda, thank you for this really powerful article. Though, I was surprised to get to the end of it and not see any mention of the economic implications of 41.2.2 and this referendum. I would agree with a lot of what you have said but find the removal of the "shall not be obliged by economic necessity" element deeply important and something that cannot be overlooked. I would love to see your thoughts on this in light of this whole article you have written.
Hi Ali. Really glad you enjoyed this piece. Yes, my intention for the writing of this was more to give the 'backstory', to look at the whole cultural bedrock that contributed to how it came about (as my interest with my research and what always intrigues me is understanding the historical or situational context that often sits behind the scenes of the thing we're looking at). So I was less focused on the current in-motion happenings with Article 41.2 (i.e. the upcoming referendum) as opposed to the motions that contrubution to its writing in the first place.
But, my personal opinion on the changing of the wording is that it all seems a but rushed and the newly proposed wording worries me for what it leaves out as much as I am pleased that it is progressive in other ways. So I have really mixed feelings and feel deeply conflicted about it, as do a lot of people I have been speaking with lately. Nevertheless, what I always keep coming back to is the deep cultural attitude that informed the original wording and ask - has that changed? To some degree it has and therefore I do think a change of wording is needed to bring the consitution more in line with where societal ideals sit now. But these are just my own ponderings.
Mmm yes thank you for your response, I hear you there and can relate to that feeling of being deeply conflicted. I worry that the referendum is a poisoned pie. A sweet pie in that the change of wording is long overdue, but poisoned in that it is not accidental or inevitable that the 'economic necessity' element be removed, if you get what I mean.
In terms of your deeply researched piece here, thank you, I learned a lot from it. I wonder did you read much about the economic aspects in that historical context / backstory e.g., has 4.1. historically been economically beneficial in ways? This is something I intend to research more myself before Friday, but would be very interested in your insights regardless. Ali
It is really really hard to know what to do - the new wording is so vague. I resonate with your poisoned pie feeling.
On the economic necessity part (sorry, realised I didn't at all address this in prior reply!) I think there have been a couple of cases were in the courts judges have looked to it and highlighted that e.g. in De Burca and Anderson v. Attorney General case, that 'special provision for the economic protection of mothers who have home duties' is implied and has been interpreted as such. However, there are not many cases. More often, the resarch of Yvonne Scannell (noted in references) concludes that the legislation of the state has demonstrated that the article has been used to reinforce and justify keeping women out of the public sphere as opposed to providing economic support for women in the home. However, there are a small number of cases were the legal / court system have interpreted it to mean that 'some preferential treatment of women citizens seems to be contemplated by the constitution' and that has resulted in a favourable outcome for the individual woman in court (but rarely resulted in any change to e.g. legislation that would affect women widely).
So, it always seems to me to have been more about the underlying cultural attitude, although intepretion of the wording and the different ways it could be interpreted is very important.
Thanks Belinda for this very interesting run-through of how things have developed. I didn't understand the process of how the 1922 Constitution morphed in the 1937 version. I totally agree with your conclusion that the real challenge lies in shifting the often unspoken daily practice of gendered behaviour. So little of that is written down or discussed or even realised that it is a very tricky issue. Until we realise that all this stuff creates a prison not just for women but also for men, then it's going to be hard to make major change and we are stuck with the frustrating incrementalism of each new generation and all the lost opportunities that spring from the slowness of implementing more dramatic change.