I do agree that women’s huge contribution to managing everyday domestic chores is not appreciated enough. It is generally taken for granted. Yet the Parliamentary Committee for Family Affairs is proposing an utterly regressive remedy.
They suggest that compensation is given to mothers who stay at home to care for the family. This is not a new idea and has been debated around the world for decades. It runs directly contrary to the government’s aim to motivate women to join the workforce.
Rather than elevating the status of women, this proposal to give housewives some pocket money is demeaning. Their contribution at home will no longer be appreciated as a voluntary act, as a caring mother or wife, deserving love and respect in return. Instead, women will be paid to serve husbands and children, as glorified employees, probably for a pittance giving no financial security, status or independence whatsoever.
In effect, this measure would encourage women to sideline their careers. As a spin-off, husbands would conveniently be relieved of all household duties. It will also suit those men (and there are plenty of them) who feel threatened by their wife’s independent financial and social status. They can double their efforts to make her feel guilty about working, to push her to get stuck in a dependent and subservient role.
Populist politicians tend to be rather good at spotting and manipulating grievances, and the innate need to identify with a group
Working women also deal with housework. They cook, shop, do the laundry and raise children. It is harder for them as they also have a job. Will they receive compensation too? Mothers who do not work already receive national insurance benefits for a limited time period, which is good. But many housewives do not have young children.
For many years, the government has tried to motivate women to work. It provides child care facilities, training courses and tax benefits. Housewives may genuinely feel under-appreciated and disadvantaged, but encouraging women to stay at home and receive small pay-outs, is completely muddled thinking.
• People define themselves by things that they believe in, by communities they belong to, by gender or sexual orientation, and by social interests. They identify with issues such as environmental justice, patriotism, or equality for women. They may relate to concerns of the business community, the working class, the middle class, or the ‘South’.
Individuals often bond to specific groups through shared grievances. A sense of identity and allegiance develops. This is the root of identity politics. Personal problems are linked to social and political causes. The women’s movement in the 1960s had used the slogan ‘the personal is political’.
Populist politicians tend to be rather good at spotting and manipulating grievances, and the innate need to identify with a group. They conjure up labels and sell them to voters. Labels are much easier to digest than facts and details.
The Nationalist Party has not been especially successful with identity politics. Its main ‘identities’ which people might relate to, include pro-Europe, Catholic, middle class, moderate and perhaps pro-business. But overall it tends to be more interested in policies, not identity, which is solid enough but appeals less to the emotions.
The Labour Party, on the other hand, focuses more on identities. It has, for example, captured the sympathies of people who prioritise LGBTIQ issues. It also attempted to attach itself to the ‘middle class’ and ‘pro-business’ tags, with less success.
Labour’s latest shot at identity politics is to label itself as ‘anti-elite’ and ‘not the establishment.’ Joseph Muscat has taken to repeating that “this government is part of the people and not part of some elitist clique”. The Castille trio clique excepted, of course.
Before the last election, Labour had tried to capture the hearts and minds of the ‘pro-environment’ group, but that has failed utterly as they have done precisely the opposite. Planning regulations have unravelled and are steadily moving towards a free-for-all scenario.
All you can now rely on in the environment sector is that most permits will be granted, either by the Planning Authority or by the Tribunal, and most illegalities will be sanctioned. The Nationalist Party is trying to create a fresh ‘pro-environment’ identity, but has a very steep hill to climb. Alternattiva Demokratika and the new Partit Demokratiku also follow environmental concerns.
A negative approach to identity politics leads to polarisation, the ‘us’ versus ‘them’ mentality. Social groups are pressed to identify themselves in opposition to one another. The blogger at Castille, for example, focuses on polarisation not journalism, now even hyping up talk of ‘revenge’ between different groups.
Populist political campaigners don’t spend too much time talking about the nitty-gritty of economic policies, EU legislation or good governance. Instead they work on emotions, and on making people feel a sense of attachment.
Come over to us, they croon, this is where you belong. We share your pain. We are gays and transsexuals, low-paid women, the unemployed, undervalued housewives, disillusioned environmentalists, disgruntled businessmen, frustrated developers, single parents, separated couples.
We are you. We share an identity. This is your place in society. Be part of our movement for change. Together we will assert our power, against the oppressors and abusers. Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good grievance.
petracdingli@gmail.com