The female of the species

As has been happening with boring regularity over the last decade or so, International Women's Day - March 8 - was this year once again overshadowed with the hassle and political sparring that is stimulated by the country's annual appointment with local council elections.

No surprise, therefore, that few noticed the message in a press release issued for the occasion by Minister for the Family and Social Solidarity, Dolores Cristina. In her message - that was, incidentally, completely ignored by The Times and l-orizzont - she reiterated Government's declared policy in favour of an increase of female participation in the labour force.

If one recalls the incentives to married women who return to the workforce that were announced in last November's budget, it is obvious that this policy is not just a lip-service exercise.

Malta's female participation rate in the labour market is the lowest among the EU's 25 member states and, clearly, Malta cannot afford to underutilise half of its human resources potential if its economy is to grow. This is, of course, an oversimplification because the issue has obvious and not so obvious implications.

Among these is the fact that female participation in the black economy is very high, so high that some would say it is quite a big chunk. Consider the number of married women who work as babysitters, carers, maids, cleaners and helpers with private households and who do not declare their income anywhere.

Adding to these the similarly undeclared work that married women carry out from their home, work like sewing curtains and dresses or giving private lessons, one will get a rough idea of the extent of female participation in the black economy.

One should safely assume, however, that this sort of thing goes on not only in Malta but is also the way of doing things in other European countries. This means that the comparison of official statistics on female participation in the workforce still stands.

Yet, every now and then, the idea has been floated around that there is something wrong with a married woman being also employed and earning income for the family. This notion has even been reinforced by certain statements made by the leaders of the Maltese Church, statements that were even used for short-term political ends by the Malta Labour Party.

This notion is completely unrealistic, even considering the present relative shortfall in Malta's female participation rate. Suffice it to say that, if all married women were to stop working, all schools, hospitals and caring homes for the aged would immediately grind to a halt - whether or not these were owned by the state, the church or private enterprise.

This is a reflection of the fact that traditionally women were expected to lead careers mostly in teaching and nursing - a situation that is no longer prevalent, considering that today there are more female students attending university as well as the high female student ratio in MCAST and other post-secondary educational establishments.

From a historical perspective, the idea that a married woman should stay at home tending her children while the husband is the sole breadwinner is a load of relatively recent pseudo-romantic nonsense that has not withstood the test of time.

Ever since humans started settling in communities as a result of agriculture and animal breeding, women played a vital role in these economic activities. Even when man was just a hunter and gatherer, I am sure women also played their part in the battle for survival.

Up to this day, the married female of the species in rural communities works in the fields and in animal rearing as much as the male - something that anyone familiar with this way of life should immediately realise. This way of life is still prevalent in rural communities, both in Malta and Gozo, and yet no-one has ever questioned it.

More than that: while their menfolk went to war killing each other to satisfy the egoistic foibles of the leaders of their communities, it was only the women who were left to do all the work in the fields and the farms - while at the same time rearing their brood!

Throughout mankind's history, mothers have worked in all sorts of jobs - sometimes exploited because of the status of their sex. The angry crowd marching on the Bastille in the French Revolution included women as much as men. Only those women who were married to the limited rich elite could afford not to work.

The industrial revolution did not liberate women from the yoke of work but changed the nature of the work of some women, without liberating them from being exploited. But liberation from this exploitation has nothing to do with whether women work or not.

On the contrary, there are instances where women can only stop being exploited if they have an independent means of income for which they have to go out and get a job. Of course, this liberation is one of the more important reasons why the world still needs to remember International Women's Day.

The historical record shows that for the great part of the time since humanity arrived on the scene and started its economic activities, the idea that a married woman was expected to stay at home and just tend for the children was only prevalent for a short period in the post-war era and limited only to some developed countries - except, perhaps, for the customs of the privileged elite throughout the ages.

Why anyone in his right senses should grasp at this notion and turn it into an article of faith is beyond me.

micfal@maltanet.net