|
When former Archbishop Joseph Mercieca called for more support for stay-at-home mothers last year, he provoked the ire of the Carrie Bradshaw “children-might-cramp-my-style” types, as well as that of other working women. Even the normally docile Dolores Cristina stated that his comments would generate guilt among women who had chosen to enter the workforce, and advised him to focus on the problem of missing fathers instead.
The statements, which induced such furious reactions, consisted of the bishop’s praising mothers who stayed at home to care for their small children, condemning the modern depiction of such women as old-fashioned failures and urging the state to support such a choice. He added that if young parents cannot raise their children together properly because both are “constrained” to work out of the home, that would be “sowing harm” in the lives of children.
Admittedly, this last declaration cannot have been expected to go down well with the ever-increasing number of working mothers whose children are well-turned out, pleasant individuals and not latch-key kids turned delinquents because of their parents’ careers.
However, I feel that the incensed reaction was the usual knee-jerk one caused whenever anyone hesitantly suggests that domesticity and child-rearing might still appeal to a good number of women. That this is a life-style choice which many women are opting for, is something that confounds women’s associations, politicians of every conceivable hue and those women who prefer to work. These groups cannot accept the fact that a significant percentage of the female population simply don’t want to work. This is not because they aren’t as well-paid as their male counterparts. According to the 2007 Equality Report published by the European Commission, women in Malta are the most fairly paid in the EU when compared to their male counterparts. The difference in pay between men and women stands at just four per cent. Neither is it due to insurmountable difficulties faced by having to juggle work and a boisterous broods – Malta’s fertility rate has plummeted, with the average family having 1.37 kids. Although it’s not all plain sailing, it is not impossible to combine a career and bringing up a single offspring even with all the crazily inconvenient catechism lessons and ferrying to and fro thrown in. It’s when sibling two and three come along that things become unmanageable. Grandparents and some childcare centres also help out.
So, there may be room for improvement, but there are no incredible obstacles to masses of Maltese women swelling the workforce, entering the sphere of politics and generally doing everything that men have been doing since they threw of their bear-skins and laid off clubbing huge mammoths for food. Why then, aren’t women getting all excited at the prospect of doing all this? Why is Malta’s female employment rate a low 33.7 per cent when that in the rest of the EU reached 56.3 per cent? Is it due to the conservative urgings of the nappy-happy Archbishop Emeritus whose image of the ideal woman is that of a homely earth momma with a cake in the oven and hubby’s slippers placed behind the door? I don’t think so, and in their heart of hearts most women will admit that the decision to become a working girl or not is not dependent or that influenced by the Church authorities. After all, it’s not as if Church rules are rigorously followed by the Maltese population. Look at the prohibition on contraception. Do you really think that the declining birth rate is due to the successful use of the rhythm method?
As all the reasons mentioned above will not stand up to scrutiny when it comes to explaining why women are not joining the workforce in droves or taking over the reins of political and business power, other reasons have to be found. Here they come. The first is (yawn, yawn) “some men feel threatened that women want to take over” (Grace Attard, spokesperson for the National Council of Women, on the issue of the battle of the sexes in politics). Then there is that ridiculous stand-by – the pressing need for positive action or positive discrimination. Again according to Grace Attard, the argument that women should be appointed on their own steam cannot be seen as a valid point in the case of female representation in officially appointed bodies, since “there is no level playing field and there is still the mentality that men and women appoint men.” This is an argument that makes me bristle – as if the imaginary playing field is going to be levelled off by frantically stuffing these boards and quangos with candidates of doubtful qualifications and credentials just because they have an XX chromosome. It is far more likely that such a measure will create resentment in other candidates who might be more intelligent and better suited for the post, but belong to the wrong sex. Yes, women can make it on their own steam, they don’t necessarily have to work harder then men to prove themselves and it is extremely disparaging to claim otherwise.
The “boy network” is another reason which women often trundle out to explain the weak female presence in officially appointed bodies. Labour MP, Marie Louise Coleiro favours this and says that the candidate selection process for such posts is “male-friendly”. She thinks that “In many cases, men who are less qualified than women will get the job simply because of their male networks, not necessarily because of their qualifications or expertise.” A friend of mine will agree with this assessment. She cites the company she works with as an example of the strength of male influence and insists that there are no women employed in the highest echelons of the organisation because men keep them out and actively dismiss the testosterone-challenged contenders. What she doesn’t realise is that she works in one of the most conservative organisations on the island – one where changing the font of the company letterhead would cause shock waves to the managing directors and make them break out in a sweat. The top brass would as much take on a woman as they would take on a man with original ideas, a fresh outlook and ties which are not borrowed from his father. It’s a mentality thing, not a gender thing. My friend’s bosses don’t find it difficult to employ staid individuals who won’t rock the boat or send the system into shock by suggesting anything innovative – be they men or women. Sometimes, that which is perceived to be a gender bias is actually a preference for the familiar, conservative approach which has always been adopted and which people hope will be perpetuated by employees, whether male or female.
It’s not the male mafia which has barricaded the workforce against the Maltese female invasion – if anything, it’s the Amazons who have stopped trying to ram the door of high office open and who have sauntered off to a calmer, less stressed-out life. Do you really blame them? What if women just don’t fancy long hours and exhausting burden of certain careers? Maybe those organisations and political parties which purport to represent women should give them a little bit of credit for knowing what they want. While some of us prefer marching out and find it invigorating to have lots to do, others prefer a gentler rhythm to life and not having to contend with the hassle of having it all. If we look around us more closely, we’d realise that this is one of the main reasons why not all Maltese women are not as ready to rush out to the workplace. If they can afford it and they prefer it that way, why dragoon them into a world of deadlines, endless committee meetings and complicated mental timetables as to which parent has to pick up which kid from the best friend who lives in Benghajsa? Different people find fulfilment in different ways, just let them be and stop banging on about guilt-inducing bishops and quotas. It’s enough to send women fleeing to the shelter of a nice, warm kitchen and the blessed simplicity of reading Noddy stories to an appreciative audience before catching up on some reading of their own.
I thought I was alone in believing that “different strokes for different folks” was one of the best mantras to go by. These days there is much more pressure to go out to work, whether you need to, or want to, or not. Women who opt out are considered to be letting down the side, accepting inevitable mental deterioration and not fulfilling their destiny. I was pleased to see that two prominent female columnists – both with high-flying careers – also think there’s more to life than work. In an article published last week Sunday Times columnist Minette Marin said, “One hard fact a would-be wife has to face- and I was absolutely horrified to realise this myself – is that’s it’s not possible for a married couple to have two demanding jobs and children and a good relationship. Something has to give. If the relationship has to be neglected, then the marriage will fail, which will be very bad for the children. If the children are neglected, then the marriage is worthless anyway.”
Lionel Shriver is the best-selling author of “We Need To Talk About Kevin” one of the most riveting fictional works about high-school massacres like those at Columbine and Virginia. She is not keen on children and has been accused of actively disliking them and of being ruthlessly ambitious with a masculine work ethic. She too, finds that some other things are more important than her career. In her own words, “For long professionally exasperated, I’ve done better in recent years. The most refreshing consequence of improved career prospects has been putting my work in perspective. And ironically, now that work is more important to the rest of the world, it is less important to me. Call me a sap, but my husband walking in the door makes me happier than any book.”
|
