Is it time to scrap Article 41.2?

Why not update it and make it gender neutral? That way the children of any union would continue to be the beneficiaries and the couple could mutually decide their duties. To get rid of it would reduce the primacery of childcare. 

scrap Article 41.2, it is used to bias family court proceedings against men. 

I do not think it makes much difference what is in Article 41. 2 as you answered your own question by saying in practice, its approx 50: 50 M/F from the O. B. C. breakdown. In the real world a chore is usually done by the individual who is better or who finds it easiest to perform . Most "who does what " would be defined this way with trade-offs on borderline chores. I agree with an earlier comment, surprise that O.B.S. is getting into this area. Before cherry picking the Constitution, ask the question, How many Irish lay people have ever read the 1937 Constitution ? 

Most definitely not. It should be amended to be inclusive of whichever parent stays at home. The state currently has a constitutional obligation to ensure that” mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.” An obligation that they have failed to adhere to. Amend this to state that a parent shall not be obliged. Scrapping it will further remove the obstacles that the government faces in forcing both parents to work just to make ends meat. 

This is the article No 41. THE FAMILY ARTICLE 41 1 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law. 2° 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. 2 1° 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. 2° 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. 3 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack. 2° A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that – i there is no reasonable prospect of a reconciliation between the spouses, ii such provision as the Court considers proper having regard to the circumstances exists or will be made for the spouses, any children of either or both of them and any other person prescribed by law, and iii any further conditions prescribed by law are complied with. 3° Provision may be made by law for the recognition under the law of the State of a dissolution of marriage granted under the civil law of another state. 4 Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex. 

Sorry, the article should probably read man/woman home care giver but I dont think we should remove the place of a care person been protected in the home. Already, the family units are not been protected as per our constitution articles where the family unit, husband, wife and children are to be protected by our state - the unit is to be protected but we do not offer the same tax savings to this valuable unit as we do to the single parent units. All family units should be treated the same by both the tax system and other assistance agencies in the states, not putting a burden on one type of family unit over another. Our children are the future and we should be working to keep them in a loving, safe, nurturing environment. So, no the words may need to be changed but the family home units should always be protected. I had to go to work to provide income for my family, but i limited it to part-time so that my children would have me as much as possible in the home so I could be there to help in their education, morals and beliefs, to feed them when they came home, to help them with their homework, to listen to them with any of their worries, as a parent in any way that I could. I would have preferred to stay at home while my children were young full time but economics drove me out. I did not become a mother to abandon my children but to be a mother for that period in my life. My children are in their 20's now and I continue to be their mother but now I can work full time as they are all independant adults but when my grand children come I will encourage them (as i have told my sons, get a good job so your wife if she chooses may stay at home when you have children) to put these children first, money second. Children first. 

Change “mother” to “parent” and I’m happy 

Totally agree ...it should be scrapped. Tired of total ignoring of mens input into the home and I am a woman! If there's ever going to be equality of the sexes mens work in the home needs to be recognized. It appears to be more common nowadays to put men down. This is not equality. 

Yes about time 

yes without any doubt