The Collins English Dictionary defines “inactive” as “1. idle or inert; not active. 2. sluggish, passive or indolent.” Using this term to define “stay-at-home mothers” is to say the least propagating a negative, disrespectful, offensive and defamatory stereotype. Am I to understand that by National Statistics Office and EU standards a woman in child-birth who is not gainfully employed is “inactive”? On the same note, is a non-employed woman chasing her two-year-old while nursing her newborn inactive? How about a stay-at-home mother taking care of a severely disabled child, or a mother of three who also looks after her ailing elderly relatives; are these women inactive too?

Of course one must not forget the many pre-retirement age grandmothers, who rather than enjoy the activity of, say, a part-time job, go for the “inactivity” of taking care of their grandchildren while their own children, who they have already gone through the pains of bringing up, have a job. This, needless to say, grandma does for free, hence her being deemed inactive. Perhaps she should get a VAT number and start charging for her chores and labour, stay-at-home mothers too. Then voilà, without any changes whatsoever to their work/job-description, they will suddenly become active and be able to enjoy the myriad of benefits showered upon those of us who are active.

I am not a mother. I am a single, gainfully employed woman and I am well aware of the fact that most people in employment, with our opportunities to enjoy public holidays, weekends, leave and sick leave not to mention punching-out after a mere eight/10 hours’ work, generate a significantly lower degree of “activity” than innumerable stay-at-home mothers who should better be referred to as “domestic engineers”. In an era that promotes diversity and tolerance can a woman be allowed to give up her career for the sake of her family without being maligned?

I do not delude myself that all “stay-at-home mothers” have the same degree of dedication and activity. I furthermore greatly appreciate and value the struggle of those mothers who, out of necessity, juggle employment and family rearing, but I would not dream of negating women who chose to forfeit their career to lovingly nurture their family the admiration due to them, by slandering them with the term “inactive”.

I thank all women who with great personal sacrifice dedicate themselves entirely to their families and who, by doing so, among other things, save the state and the taxpayer fortunes in unemployment benefits, nursing homes and childcare.