Ireland at a crossroads: Redefining family, motherhood on the ballot

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/256991/ireland-at-a-crossroads-redefining-family-motherhood-on-the-ballot

...On International Women’s Day, March 8, voters in the country of more than 5 million people will head to the polls to cast their ballot in twin referendums proposing historic changes to the Constitution of Ireland.

The first referendum pertains to the family and would amend Article 41.1 by introducing “other durable relationships” alongside marriage as the foundation of the family.

The second referendum would delete a wording on women and motherhood in Article 41.2, where the state recognizes “that by her life within the home, woman gives to the state a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.” Therefore, the state shall “endeavor to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labor to the neglect of their duties in the home.” ...

It is greatly under-appreciated, even by those that favour "traditional family structure", that stay-at-home Moms are actually net contributors to both the family and society.

Even people who WANT the option for mothers to stay at home see it as a frill, where the a stay-at-home mom is a net drain on a family. Her "selfishness" only causes Dad to have to work that much harder so she can have the "privilege" of staying at home, like it's some sort of luxury for the lazy and immature.

No.

A stay-at-home mother truly does "give to the state a support without which the common good cannot be achieved."

Raising children to have their heads screwed on straight is a HUGE positive contribution to a society. It makes family life at home much more harmonious. But it also ensures that the next generation of doctors, lawyers, store clerks--and stay-at-home moms--are mature, emotionally controlled, responsible, sober citizens. It's good for society as a whole to have stay-at-home moms.

... Writing in the European Conservative, Dualta Roughneen noted: “The implications are unclear; but in a society that increasingly outsources care to institutions — whether children, the elderly, or the infirm — it will remove any constitutional preference for care in the home.” ...

Humans are resilient, and just because your kids went to daycare does not mean automatically that they will grow up to be mass-murderers. No one is arguing that extreme.

But home-raising of children does have an influence, and a very strong one at that. And, as that quote points out, care of the elderly and infirm at the other end of the age spectrum is done with more kindness and compassion by family than by minimum-wage state employees.

It's a whole mindset that is so alien to modern society, that care of the vulnerable is primarily a family responsibility. It's not callous and uncaring to want government out of child-rearing and caring for the elderly and infirm. It's spun that way by Statists, that conservatives/traditionalists are cheap or unkind and just want to throw people out on the street. But that is to an accurate assessment.

Children and the elderly/infirm are BETTER cared for by people who ACTUALLY LOVE them rather than by people who are being paid to perform acts as if they love you. Mom is going to wipe junior's drippy nose with more tenderness than any daycare worker.

The root of it is the idea that the individual, alone, is the atomic building-block of society. But just as substances are built from molecules--groups of atoms--so too society is built of families--groups of individuals. It's a mindset shift that has to happen, and then it all becomes very clear.