Clodagh Finn: 'We need to go back before we go forward'

It is striking to recall how women, from all traditions and backgrounds, united in a campaign to oppose these articles when they were first proposed in 1937. Organisations such as the National Council of Women joined the Legion of Mary, the Irish Girl Guides, the Irish Countrywomen’s Association, and many others, to say they believed the new Constitution threatened their rights.

They did not think that articles 41.2.1° and 41.2.2° were about acknowledging the wonderful work that a woman did in the home. Rather, they saw it as an extension of the 1936 Conditions of Employment Act, which limited the number of women in the workforce.

At the time, women in the workforce had risen from about 20 to 23% but under the Act, Minister for Industry and Commerce Sean Lemass could prohibit women workers in industry. Section 16, for instance, said there couldn’t be more women than men in a workplace.

The original wording also said that women’s “inadequate strength” should not be abused, and women should not have to do work “unsuited to their sex, age or strength”. 

I think it’s important to remember that: these articles were not about honouring women, but containing them.

Having said that, it’s a pity the State was never obliged to help women in the home. Imagine if the Government had been forced to put an economic value on those duties in the home that were apparently so deeply valued.

That didn’t happen, of course. And while I welcome the proposal to delete both articles, they are being replaced by a proposed article, 42.B, which effectively exonerates the State from any financial obligation to carers. It offers the weak-as-water commitment to ‘strive’ to support them.

Also, I think it’s always really important to listen to the people who will be affected by this proposal. A number of groups representing disabled people have objected to the wording, pointing out that it is not human-rights based.

The proposal puts the onus for care on the family, freeing the State of any legal obligation to support family carers. For that reason, I’ll be voting ‘No’ on the care amendment.

As for the proposed changes to the articles on the family (41.1.1° and Article 41.3.1°). I will be voting yes to change both, so that constitutional protection is given to a family based on marriage as well as those founded on ‘other durable relationships’.

The phrase ‘other durable relationships’ has drawn criticism and rightly so. It is vague and untested, but it is infinitely more inclusive than defining a family as one defined by marriage. It is beyond time that we acknowledged (and celebrated) the myriad variations of the family unit that exist in Ireland.

You do not have to be married to be a fully functioning, love-giving, support-offering family.

• Clodagh Finn is an Irish Examiner columnist and author of a biography on Mary Elmes called A Time to Risk All, as well as Through Her Eyes: A New History of Ireland in Women. She is acclaimed for her work in bringing to light the stories of women who have been relegated to the footnotes of history. Clodagh has always been inspired by stories, particularly around the landscape of her childhood in Kerry. Her family, particularly her dad and her Auntie Mary, were wonderful storytellers and they inspired Clodagh to become interested in the stories of women in history.