'Stay-at-home' support
The Archbishop, or any other bishop, does not mince his words. He goes straight to the point. As a spiritual leader he has no other choice. He's there to promote the teachings of the Church, to provide guidance and to give direction to the "faithful".
The Archbishop, or any other bishop, does not mince his words. He goes straight to the point. As a spiritual leader he has no other choice. He's there to promote the teachings of the Church, to provide guidance and to give direction to the "faithful". The Archbishop is not an opinion maker, a critical analyst or a political figure. Even his silence speaks volumes. Within our climate of an open society his public speeches are not considered dogmas anymore. There are many occasions when his words had stirred controversy even if unintentionally so.
His latest pronouncements on the subject of working mothers raised the eyebrows of so many people particularly those who spearhead the continuing fight against gender discrimination. At the forefront, Minister Dolores Cristina pointed her finger towards the Church and in her own diplomatic way she expressed her disagreement with the Archbishop. She advised him to focus more closely on the problems of missing fathers and single mothers than deal only with the issue of stay-at-home mothers. She had also implied that a sense of guilt was being generated among those women who had chosen to pursue a professional career or who had opted to enter the labour market.
The executive director of the National Commission for the Promotion of Equality had also reacted to the Archbishop's proposals. According to her, his message had yet again identified work as the problem interfering with child upbringing. Perhaps quite rightly she questioned why we are not seeking plausible solutions where both genders can maintain their personal development and also give the children the care they truly deserve. Social scientist Frances Camilleri Cassar contends that there is little evidence that men have moved with comparable enthusiasm into the area of care in the family.
There is no doubt as to the validity of the arguments put forward by these ladies but is the Archbishop missing the whole point when dealing with the role of women in today's society? I do not think so.
Whether it was gross misinterpretation of the Archbishop's discourse or whether it was another gutsy attempt to reject his comments is besides the point. The Archbishop appealed to the government to provide stay-at-home mothers with state support and cautioned against those who were promoting the idea that mothers who opted not to work were seen as failures. What is wrong with that? We all know that through the liberal and individualistic approach of our society we tend to perceive the concept of the family unit as an old fashioned lifestyle. Our family homes are being replaced by houses for groups of individuals. Effective communication between parents and their children is deteriorating. Quality time dedicated entirely to our children is unfortunately missing. The family bonding is not getting any stronger. Even our sleep is becoming a race against time. We talk of the European model and we tend to detest the traditional values that sustain character formation and enhance unity among the family members. We are not detecting the symptoms but we are experiencing the effects of this modern type of home care and child upbringing!
It was reported recently that a teenager was in no way hesitant to declare in front of the presiding magistrate at the law courts that his ambition was to grow up as a professional criminal and he wanted to get a hands-on experience in jail at such a young age; unbelievable but very true! It was also equally shocking to hear that so many of our 13-year-olds are already victims of drugs and alcoholism. Notwithstanding our efforts, we have not yet managed to minimise to acceptable levels the problem of illiteracy and the increasingly upward trend of marriage dissolution or separations. Although we are investing millions of euros in education and social security, we still need to delve into the cause of the emerging ills of modern society particularly those resulting from lack of parental skills, good child rearing and family values.
The significance of the Archbishop's message must be taken within this context. He was not pontificating about moral values but he touched on the need for society to acknowledge and recognise in concrete terms the contribution which stay-at-home mothers extend to society at large.
After all, those who are registering for employment do get social benefits, post secondary students do get financial support while many others receive social assistance benefits. So, why not consider support for stay-at-home parents?
In the prevailing circumstances it is very difficult to convince the government to introduce some form of a scheme. According to the NSO, the number of woman staying at home exceeds by far the number of women in full-time or part-time employment. Economically the country cannot afford it. Financially, it is impossible to find an adequate source of revenue that could make up for the overall expenditure on such benefits. Socially it may also have its negative effects both within the labour market - we would otherwise never reach the Maastricht criteria on women's participation - and also in terms of the "mums for benefits" syndrome experienced in other countries, which could find fertile soil with the introduction of state aid to parents at home.
I am not surprised at those who levelled their criticism at the Archbishop and described his proposal as a superfluous recommendation which lacks practicality and instils disrespect towards women's right to personal choice. On the other hand, I am all in favour of further research into how this material support could be provided to this category of our society.
matyas@maltanet.net