It’s time we removed the degrading wording contained in Article 41.2

From the moment I became aware of the wording of our Constitution’s (Bunreacht na hÉireann) Article 41.2 (I was 12 years old at the time), I believed it to be loaded with inflammatory, chauvinistic, bigoted, and sexist nonsense. That was my opinion then, and it remains my opinion today. Therefore, I’m glad that before the year is out, a referendum will be held to make changes to this Article’s wording.

Let me explain! In my opinion, Article 41.2, which decrees that ‘by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved’, not only discriminates against women, it’s also reductionist and highly prejudiced. In addition, the fact that it proclaims ‘that 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’ makes it downright degrading and dehumanising to women.

Don’t get me wrong, my disgust at this Article’s wording is not based primarily on the fact that one of my least favourite historic characters, Éamon de Valera, climbed down from his high horse long enough to personally supervise the drafting of this legal document; because he did have help. Dev’s co-conspirators (my words) were, I believe, the then president of the Supreme Court and the High Court, and Archbishop of

Dublin John Charles McQuaid – all men!

Oh there were three female TDs present in the Dáil during the formulation of our Constitution, but history tells us they never contributed to this fundamental and important discussion regarding how Ireland, its citizens, and in particular how Irish women, should be ‘governed’. Yep, they kept their mouths shut! This was a decision that I believe – in some small way – led to the discriminatory impact and to the systematic attempt by Dev and his government (via Article 41.2) to limit the rights and to suppress the lives of us, and of our female ancestors for nearly 90 years.

Mind you, given the repressive and patriarchal environment in which these female TDs ‘existed’, I imagine they were quite possibly afraid of any backlash from the Long Fella, who, although credited with ‘writing’ a Constitution stripping them of their rights, clearly lacked the legal skills to do so. However, he did have enough cop-on to devise what I’d call a set of archaic notions to ratify a Constitution, and in particular, an Article that served to relegate women to permanent inferiority. Indeed, as many aspects of Dev’s warped and sexist ideology still impacts on women’s lives today (the gender pay gap to mention just one), I have to ask, is it any wonder people either loved him or loathed him? For the record, my feelings for Dev fall into the latter category – and not just because