Sarah Harte: Amending a clause in Constitution will do little for equality of women

However, we’re not alone in having a strong stereotype of the mother. The Irish Mammy is sometimes compared to the Jewish Mama. That archetype of the bossy, ultra-dedicated figure who will
sacrifice herself for her kids, but subtly demands a pound of flesh for what she has done, probably because she has no economic power.

The announcement earlier this month that we’re to hold a vote on ‘women’s place in the home’ by way of a referendum in November may see us move further away from our symbolic veneration of the traditional mother figure with the rewording of Article 41.2 of the Constitution.

The contentious article is 86 years old and has long been viewed as a sexist, anachronism by many.

In its current incarnation, the article recognises the support a woman gives to the State “by her life within the home … without which the common good cannot be achieved”. It also pledges that “mothers” shouldn’t be obliged to “neglect their duties in the home” due to “economic necessity”.

It’s firmly aspirational. Women’s lives were not supported within the home, there were limited safeguards such as the children’s allowance or lone parent allowance, but the massive contribution of Irish mothers was — and continues to be ascribed no real value.

Gender stereotypes

The language in the current article propagates outdated gender stereotypes. The duties within the home bit particularly sticks in the craw. It is proposed that we remove the references to a woman’s place in the home and replace them with non-discriminatory and gender-neutral language which will also take account of one-parent and more diverse families and reflect modern Ireland.

The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Gender Equality proposed replacing the current text of Article 41.2.1 with: “The State recognises that care within and outside the home and Family gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.”

Recently, Labour leader Ivana Bacik, a former chairwoman of the committee, made the valid point that, “without care, our society could not function”. She also said, “whether we realise it, care work is a part of all our lives, at every stage of life”.

Who the ‘all’ comprises of is of interest. Some men do care work, but let’s face it, there remains a huge imbalance in unpaid care responsibilities within families. Caregiving is largely within the female domain, ditto the bulk of housework, and certainly almost all of the emotional heavy lifting for the family. How many men do you know who rush around the place sandwiched between the needs of their teenage kids and aged parents?

The hope is that by changing the language in the article, we will adopt a less genderised view of caregiving which might begin to dismantle gender stereotypes about traditional gender roles. 

Yet nothing really changes unless we drastically alter how we raise our children and how we view the act of caregiving.

Gender roles and divisions start early. Research clearly shows what we see our parents do is a major driver in how we replicate their behaviour where housework responsibilities are concerned. This is particularly true of sons and fathers.

The European Institute on Gender Equality found that, during the pandemic lockdowns, Irish women spent more time on housework than all their EU peers other than Portuguese women, even though gender equality rose overall in terms of Irish women accessing economic power. Only 6% of Irish women said they shared the housework with men equally. This probably won’t come as a major shocker to many Irish women.

Of course, some men are equal partners. These shining beacons stand out precisely because of their relative rarity.

Note to male readers who may fancy themselves as modern men: Taking the bins out does not count as equal housework. Nor does buying the Sunday papers, a bottle of milk, and some rashers on a Sunday morning or making a statement meal, and seeking praise for it, while leaving the kitchen like a bomb site. Or the old chestnut, ‘babysitting the kids’, which is a phrase when employed by fathers that drives female partners mad.

The truth is that, as a society, we only value paid work. The role of caring for children or the elderly and the sick contributes both to society and the economy in a myriad of ways, but the fundamental problem is that work is not ascribed a monetary value.

Some politicians have recently lined up to tell us how valued Irish mothers are. If we do such a great and important job, if we are a lynchpin of society, why doesn’t the job come with pay, benefits, and security? 

Why should this be such a radical notion? And why are women who stay at home left relying on handouts from a spouse which is a very risky road and leaves women open to being controlled in all sorts of insidious ways during a marriage?

Unless the State pays mothers or carers (call them whatever you want) for their work and life within the home, or their caregiving more generally including entitling them to a pension then their contribution isn’t valued.

On that basis, certain realities need to be pointed out to young women. By getting paid work you have security and status. Although you might fancy staying at home to raise your children it means that you will almost certainly hamper your career and if you get divorced your immense contribution to your family and society may count for very little.

If you have several children and can’t rise to exorbitant childcare costs you may have to stay at home because quality, affordable State childcare is not our thing. Move to Scandinavia for that. Here, we prefer to get excited about gender-neutral language in legal instruments.

If you work outside the home and can afford it, you will contract out ‘caring work’ to women from a different socio-economic bracket or migrant women, many of whom are exploited economically and who don’t have benefits or security.

This is the ugly, harsh reality of living in a capitalistic patriarchal society. 

One that is on steroids in Ireland where mothers and caregivers are concerned because of our double thinking around motherhood which we historically elevated to a sacrament although with no practical follow-through. Unless, as Joanne Hayes discovered, you were an unmarried mother in which case there was plenty of follow-through by the State.

It was always a dewy-eyed narrative that mothers were valued in this country.

So, male politicians who are enthusiastic about this great new dawning for equality by way of an amended clause in the Constitution can frankly save their breath to cool their porridge.

To paraphrase Cuba Gooding Jr in Jerry Maguire, “show us the money”. Fine sentiments cloaked in equality language which glides over uncomfortable facts about power, economics, and the exploitation of women and mothers in particular — arguably don’t amount to more than a hill of beans.