What the offending article says...

ARTICLE 41 (2) 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION STATES:

‘In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.’

The next provision, 41 (2) 2, declares: ‘The 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.’

There is no mention of fathers in the Constitution, nor of paternal duties in the home, which is why it is seen as patronising and one-sided.

But the Constitution was framed in 1937, and Éamon de Valera, who penned it himself, intended – at a time of widespread poverty, alcoholism and child neglect – that a household situation should never become so bad that all caregivers had to abandon their offspring to seem employment.

It was actually a call to future governments for social justice, rather than a deliberate attempt to chain one gender to the kitchen sink forever.

The now offensive provision stemmed from the beginning of Article 41 which saw the home at the basic building block of society.

It declares: ‘The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its Constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.’