High on emotion
Robert Fisk, award-winning Middle East correspondent for the London newspaper The Independent, spoke recently about his decades of work in journalism, starting from when he was a cub reporter with a local newspaper in Newcastle. One thing he said is that what works when writing about a cat stuck up a tree, or a football match, or council elections – giving each side equal time or space – does not necessarily work when it comes to a war or the Holocaust. “If reporting on the Holocaust, would you give equal time to the SS captain?” he asked his audience.
He took the argument to the extreme to make his point, but the same can be said of political reporting in Malta, especially with our state television. Sometimes the Labour Party does something worth reporting, and sometimes the Nationalist Party does. If it’s not worth reporting, don’t report it. And if it should be reported, then report it. Anything else makes nonsense of the news, and giving them equal time insults the intelligence of the viewer. Yes, lots of viewers are intelligent, and those who are not should still be treated with respect.
From time to time I receive one of those round-robin emails about Muslims taking over Britain, and how we shouldn’t let them take over Malta. That would be difficult, given that the Catholics took over around 600 years ago and haven’t released their clutches yet. What the senders of these emails don’t seem to understand is that the British protests are against the ‘taking over’ of secularism by religion, and the taking over of the Christian way of life by Islam. It’s a safe bet that if British Catholics of Italian, Maltese and Spanish extraction were to behave the same way, they would get exactly the same reaction.
In all the emails, variants of the same pictures are attached of women wrapped in black and bearded men carrying placards calling for death to those who insult Islam. When the messages are from people I know, rather than from people I don’t know, I always reply. I say that I find this kind of thinking as deeply offensive as the sentiments expressed on the ‘death to those who insult Islam’ placards, and would the person in question remove me from that particular email group. Thank you.
The last time this happened was two days ago. My acquaintance emailed back with the usual chestnut that ‘we’ tolerate ‘these people’ in ‘our’ territory and then they behave like that. And just imagine if ‘we’ were to go to ‘their’ countries and behave in the same way. Where does one begin to explain? It would take forever, and in the face of prejudice that has been formed by inadequate knowledge of history, philosophy, geography and current affairs, it’s generally useless.
There are a hundred points one wishes to make, but chief among them is the fact that the west passed through the Age of Enlightenment, which advocated reason rather than religion as the primary basis for authority. Europe is tolerant now despite the full efforts of the Catholic Church and its various Christian off-shoots and breakaway parties, and not because of them. Islamic states, on the other hand, are exactly where European states were before the Enlightenment. God’s rules, or what they see as God’s rules, are the rules of the state. They are theocracies.
The reason the west is tolerant is because it is secular, and not because it is Christian. States that are religious rather than secular are intolerant whatever the religion. Catholic European states were supremely intolerant – violently and cruelly so. The reason that there is so much intolerance in Malta is because it is only partly secular, but mainly a theocracy. God and the rules of Catholicism remain the first point of reference for legislators and the people for vote for them. The process has been slower here.
David Abulafia has had published a fascinating new book, The Discovery of Mankind: Atlantic Encounters in the Age of Columbus. We all know by now that the Catholic Europeans who first made their way into the New World across the ocean treated the people they found there with great savagery. They were hardly great ambassadors for their religion, but that was of far secondary importance to them when compared to the desire to exploit the mineral resources they found. What most of us don’t know is that not everyone thought or behaved that way – that cruel and savage barbarism were recognisable as such even to contemporaneous observers. Some Spaniards protested, most notably Bartoleme de las Casas, who had witnessed massacres during the subjugation of Cuba. He wrote passionate epistles against this kind of injustice, that are seen as a major step on the way to the concept of human rights and the legislation that followed centuries later.
To give their conquest the merest veil of legality, the Spanish read out a proclamation to the peoples they encountered on beaches and in jungles. They were exhorted, in a language they did not understand, to give up their territory to these strange-looking people wearing alien garb, and to ‘acknowledge the (Catholic) Church as the Ruler and Superior of the whole world.’ If they put up a fight, they were taken into slavery and told that ‘the deaths and losses which shall accrue from this are your fault’.
One Cuban chieftain delivered a damning verdict on the Spanish Catholic invaders who destroyed his people’s culture and eventually annihilated those people altogether through persecution and disease. As they prepared to burn him at the stake for the crime of opposing their wishes, they warned him to accept Christ before death or face eternal damnation. The chieftain asked if heaven is where Christians go when they die. “When told that they did,” Bartoleme de las Casas wrote in a contemporary account of the event, “he said that he would prefer to go to hell.”
If heaven and hell do exist, the chieftain and those who burnt him must have wondered, when they arrived, who got the arrangements mixed up.
I am more than a little tired of the endless protestations against abortion, which have erupted yet again because of that business with the Council of Europe. The newspapers are filled once more with hysterical letters and articles holding Malta up as the last bastion against this craven evil. We’re not the last bastion, because that’s a dubious honour we share with Islamic states (horrors).
Throughout, I am left with the nagging suspicion that our objection shares its roots with Islam on two counts: religion, and the discounting of women’s dignity and integrity. We talk about the baby, the baby, the baby, bringing forth a mental picture of one of those jolly little things on Anne Geddes birthday cards, all cuddly and pretty and with flowers in its hair. The woman is never factored into the equation.
It’s a little bit harder to feel emotionally galvanised about a couple of cells two days after conception, which is why the most emotionally-wrought among us refer even to this, with biological inaccuracy, as ‘the baby’. It is so far removed from a baby that when two-thirds of these conceptions are flushed down the lavatory, as happens naturally, the woman doesn’t even notice and probably didn’t even know she was pregnant (“Oh, how odd, my period’s late this month. I hope I’m not pregnant.” Oh darling, but you were and you didn’t notice.)
As somebody pointed out elsewhere, if we’re claiming that ‘ensoulment’, a very odd word that my computer doesn’t recognise and which isn’t in my Oxford Dictionary, takes place immediately upon conception, then what we are also saying is that there are more souls in heaven who were never born at all than there are souls who actually lived. This leaves us with another problem for those who believe that they will be reunited in heaven with those they knew on this earth, and who even see these presences in near-death experiences. How is something that leaves a woman’s body naturally and without her noticing it, two days after sexual intercourse, represented in heaven? And how will we women recognise our ‘children’ when we meet them in the afterlife, given that they’ll all look the same – correction, given that we won’t be able to see them without a microscope?
These legalistic debates about heaven leave me cold with boredom in any case. It’s life on earth, in the here and now, with which a secular state should be concerned, instead of taking to platforms in international forums to behave like Islamic mullahs. And no, there’s no difference; when you represent the state, protesting against legislation, ideas or concepts on the basis of religion is unacceptable whatever the religion. When you’re a private individual, you do whatever you like because it’s your prerogative and you live in a free country. Those who want to speak out against abortion are free to do so – and not because Malta is a Catholic country, but because it respects free speech. Equally, those who want to object to their views are free to do so too. When you represent the state, it’s a different matter.
The time for hysteria, and yes, I know it is an unfortunate choice of word given that it is derived from the Greek for womb, and high emotion is long gone. The government, instead of contributing to the screaming and shouting, must pull its head out of the sand and assess the situation properly and realistically. What we are saying here is that Malta can afford to have no abortion because, in effect, it does have abortion – a brief catamaran ride away with no passport or foreign exchange required. Abortion is actually far more accessible to Maltese women than it is to millions of women the world over, in countries where abortion is legal but where the closest clinic is several hours away.
What this means is that our position on abortion is buoyed up by the immediate availability of abortion and so it is nothing short of hypocritical. There is strong demand for abortion in Malta, and it is being met in Sicily, or London as it has been for decades, with a spot of shopping around it. The mental illness of having an abortion? The depression of ending an unwanted pregnancy? Funny how it is mainly men and women who are divorced from their femininity who believe these things and who talk about them Real women, on the other hand, know that far more mental illness and depression are caused by actually having babies, even if you desperately wanted them, but especially if you had them against your will. If having babies were not essential for the survival of the human race, it would be outlawed as a dangerous sport. Instead of talking about the women who should be forcibly prevented from having abortions in case they get depressed, let’s spend some time actually caring for all those thousands of women in Malta who are either coping with post-natal depression right now as you read this, or are still suffering from the fall-out, years later, of post-natal depression that spiralled out of control when the illness wasn’t acknowledged because women who have babies are supposed to be happy. One of my dearest friends killed herself at the age of 30 and left three children behind after developing a mental illness provoked by childbirth. I know several women whose lives and mental health have been destroyed by having children at the wrong time, or when they didn’t want them, or by being unable to cope mentally even though they wanted them. The children suffer, the woman suffers, her husband suffers, and eventually, after some years, the whole thing falls apart.
And in case you were wondering, this is not an argument for abortion. It’s an argument against hypocrisy. It’s an argument against the strange belief that Malta objects to abortion when thousands of Maltese women have had abortions in Italian and British clinics over the years. It’s an argument against the argument that abortion makes a woman mentally unwell but childbirth and child-raising do not. It’s an argument in favour of commonsense and against religious hysteria, which never brought anything other than harm to humanity.
This article is published in The Malta Independent today.
80 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
I’m totally on board with the idea that the state should not protest against legislation, ideas or concepts on the basis of religion and I also agree that secularism is a fundamental pillar of any civilised state. But surely it is also one of the most fundamental duties of any government to respect the will of the people who put it there in the first place and to show deference to their values and ideals, regardless of whether these are rooted in secularism or religious conviction (hysterical or otherwise). If a referendum on abortion were held tomorrow, and the majority of the Maltese electorate came out in favour of it, then yes the government would have to pull its head out of the sand. But until the government is handed such a mandate, I fail to see how it can be expected to redress the hypocrisy which, I agree, is obvious for all to see, without at the same time showing a blatant disregard for the will of the majority of the Maltese people.
One of the MP’s who actually led the parliamentary delegation in Strasbourg and who appeared so terribly shocked about the (meaningless) abortion vote was good old JPO. I recall that Daph proudly stated many times that she voted for him (and spent the best part of post election days roundly defending his part in the Mistra Affair) so in a nutshell, you get what you pays for. The swings and roundabouts according to convenience on this blog are remarkbale.
[Moderator – Would you rather Michael Asciak were elected instead of JPO?]
great article, both with regards the abortion issue and the intolerance shown by some so called religious exponents
It’s funny how you defend the rights of some children (and on this I and any sane person backs you to the hilt) and then accept the destruction & murder of the most defenceless of all children.
I do know that the debate on when “those few cells” are a human being is not settled for some but even if for argument’s sake there is only a 1% chance of ‘those few cells’ being a human being that is still too big a risk to take.
Also, for your information, Islam permits abortion up to the 12th week so that argument falls flat.
Also the statement “there is strong demand for abortion in Malta” is rather exaggerated.
[Moderator – Indeed, every sperm is sacred.]
Doesn’t anyone find it odd that four men were sent to argue this position before the Council of Europe? I know that we had no choice with the first three, because they have the right to vote, but what on earth does Joe Debono Grech have to do with anything?
That the members of the delegation with voting rights are all men is a problem in itself.
@Moderator
Sarcasm duly noted but I was not talking about sperm cells and you know it.
[Moderator – Isn’t that the logical end of the argument that everything that has the capacity for life is sacred?]
@Moderator,
Well, maybe according to your logic, but there is a difference between a capacity for life and life itself!
[Moderator – A sperm is alive.]
@Moderator
Well, maybe so like any other cell in our body. My apologies for not being clear. when I said life I should have specified human life. A sperm cell, whilst having the capacity for human life is not so in itself. A fertilised human ovum is a different matter.
Again you know what I meant but never mind, I’m glad the subject of human life, potential or otherwise is cause for such merriment.
[Moderator – Is a fertilised ovum an individual?]
@David Buttigieg – there is no way that a fertilized ovum can even be remotely compared to a child or given the same status. That is the root cause of all this controversy. And that is why, even under Maltese law, there are very severe penalties for infanticide and not such severe ones for those who have abortions. Fertilised eggs are not children, they have the potential to become children, which is very different – and as every woman knows, two-thirds of fertilized eggs end up in the lavatory. I don’t wish to be disgusting or off-putting, but men tend to romanticise the process and women don’t hold a funeral service for every ‘missed period’. They just pull the flushing. Yes, if you’ve been trying hard for a child, you mourn, but if you’ve been trying hard not to have one, you go dizzy with relief, praise the lord, give the various saints what you owe them, and break open the champagne. When I was in my 20s, I used to be dogmatic about this subject, but as life progresses for women, they begin to see large areas of grey – in issues, that is. Now, when faced with the question of whether a 16-year-old girl without a supportive family (and even if she does have a supportive family) should have a baby and ruin her life or an abortion and put it behind her, well….let’s just say I don’t have the answer to that one, but this is because, unlike many people who are dogmatic about this issue, I realise that the girl is a person too.
@Daphne,
I agree that whether or not the ovum (Fertilized) is an individual is the whole issue. I believe it is, I take it you believe it’s not.
I also do know that there are many areas of grey and being a man I am probably not be able to see all of them.
And yes I don’t have answers to all questions. The case of the 16 year old girl is quite debatable to me however there are situations that I agree are very difficult, and no I repeat I find very difficult to answer like rape and incest (especially as a result of rape) and severe handicap.
Also, let me make clear that whilst I condemn abortion, even in the first couple of days, I would never judge a woman for how she acts in a situation that I as a man can never find myself in.
Matthew, perhaps having Dolores Cristina or Jutyne (with a ‘y’) Caruana in the delegation would have made a cosmetic difference. But in terms of substance, the message would have been identical.
The legalization of abortion (together with divorce)is considered a major victory for the secular-feminist movement in most Western states. Women took to the streets, they waved their placards and figure-heads like Simone Veil put their intellectual weight behind the cause.
When Maltese women decide that the time has come to press for change, the debate will take on a different tone. As things stand, the discussion is bogged down by ova, sperm cells, plastic foetuses and ensoulment.
Abortion is a massively serious and emotional matter but the way the debate goes in Malta reminds me of the bullfighting debate in Spain. Malta’s opposition to abortion as a badge of honour, a badge of nationalist pride, as something which defines us culturally.
Women are the key to this issue and if Maltese women are happy with the ‘abortion is murder’ mantra, fair enough.
@ David Buttigieg – you’re right, I don’t think of a fertilised ovum as an individual, because it clearly isn’t one. I’m not a Catholic, so I look at the science and the law, rather than at the religious angle. If I were a Catholic, I would think differently, and I respect that view. You will find it a strange anomaly that even in Malta, it is not only fertilized ova that are not regarded as individuals, but even a fully-formed baby who is not yet outside the mother’s body. The moment of birth is the moment when we become an individual, in the eyes of the law. Malta goes one further: you become an individual when your parents register your birth and you are given an ID number. My own view is that the cut-off point is when the unborn child takes on the form of a human being and becomes viable. I think every woman should be allowed to swallow a pill that gets rid of the problem some hours after conception. I have no problems with ‘clump of cells’ abortions (though I do have serious problems with the frivolous and capricious approach to any such procedure) but I cannot even bear the thought of a late abortion (after six months) as that is patently the killing of a baby.
Oddly enough, I can’t agree with you about abortions in case of rape or incest. The many times I hear that argument, I can’t help spotting the lacuna in the logic. If the aborting of a foetus is wrong, criminal or evil, then the method by which that foetus is created doesn’t have any bearing on the permissibility of its removal. In other words, this is a non sequitur: killing an unborn child is illegal; rape and incest are illegal; therefore killing an unborn child that is the result of rape or incest should be legal.
That you think Dolores Cristina is only as good as the body which she inhabits says it all.
@Daphne,
I did not say in those cases (rape etc) I find it acceptable, I said I find it hard to give an answer to a woman who finds herself in that predicament!
@Daphne
I also take it then you are against partial birth abortions?
Quite the contrary Matthew.
That you took what I said to mean what you imply says it all. Pity.
My message points in a diametrically opposed direction. This is a question of women’s lib. But I don’t see many women out there (be it Cristina or Caruana or Kate Gonzi or whoever) taking up the cause.
The views of all Maltese people are not in concordance with those of the state, otherwise you wouldn’t be reading this post.
Even if Dolores Cristina were there saying the exact same thing, though I think she would be more articulate than Joe Debono Grech, it would have made all the difference, because the medium is the message. The state should stop framing this as an issue which is dominated by opinions that are communicated and debated solely by men.
There is no arguing that a delegation of men, sent to present an argument that so affects the lives of women, is not representative of a serious gender gap and the subjugation of one gender by another. I would be arguing the same way if Malta were to send a delegation of women to argue for the involuntary castration of men.
@Matthew
Involuntary castration of men? Well if your initials are MVG perhaps …
Reductio ad absurdum.
@Matthew
Joking apart, actually there was something similar in India some years ago when men were forced to be sterilised against their will. Not quite castration but still..
Right, Matthew. The next logical question is: Did the Cristinas and Caruanas put pressure on the decision-makers for their names to feature on that list? Will the Cristinas and Caruanas write articles in The Times of Malta giving a woman’s slant on the issue? Will women’s rights groups in Malta kick up a fuss about the issue?
Or will we get Mrs T, Miss P and Dr. M writing letters to The Times expressing their disgust at the Council of Europe’s stand on the issue?
DF: What is your point?
They didn’t. But you don’t seem to understand that that is representative of the problem. The pattern throughout the rest of civilised world has always been the same: discourage the widening of the gender gap, and a different outlook will follow.
Moderator, its not the point and you very well know it.
[Moderator – Yes it is.]
Matthew, JDG is part of the parliamentary delegation which used to go to Strasbourg for COE mtgs in the last legislature. He went only because that delegation has not yet been constituted in the new parliament. Perhaps there will be a female member on the delegation now but there are actually less women than there were in the last legislature as Helen damato did not get re-elected. Says a lot about our voting patterns viz a vis women.
[Moderator – Are you suggesting that people should vote for a candidate because they share a gender?]
My point, Corinne, is that we can continue debating this abortion subject till the cows come home. But that the debate will not move forward (and will get more and more frustrating and exasperating – as Daphne correctly points out) until women come out strongly on this issue. In the meantime it’s going to be more of the same: the Pope said this, l-Arcisqof said that, embroyos are babies etc etc etc ad nauseum. These arguments have been made everywhere before, the science is there to behold, the Church’s position on the issue is well known.
Women clamouring loudly for entitlements/rights. That’s the missing factor.
We have established that. But there is a reason why women aren’t clamouring loudly for these rights, which I think that social movements in other countries have taught us only happens in parallel with the narrowing of the gender gap.
I think that the disparity between the status of men and that of women is a social construction, and it is a problem for the whole country to solve. It is unfair to say to women, ‘Here is your problem, now deal with it yourselves.’
@DF – it’s not just the abortion debate from which women are absent, but every debate. In Maltese society women are expected to be seen but not heard. Girl-children are not encouraged to have opinions, and the net result is that when they grow up, they have no opinions either. If they do get round to forming an opinion, they will rarely say what they think when there are men around, though they do so in the company of their female friends. You will notice that when there is a mixed table (men and women), the men are talking and arguing, but the women either (a) fall silent and listen or (b) begin to talk among themselves about mundane matters. This is not because they aren’t interested in the subject, but because they feel squeezed out or that they are not qualified to express an opinion when there are men with superior opinions about. Believe me, I’m not exaggerating here. There’s another reason: girl-children are raised by their mothers, consciously or sub-consciously, to be attractive to men (biex isibu ragel). They are encouraged in the ways of femininity a la Maltaise. This involves keeping quiet when men are talking, never challenging a man’s opinion, never appearing too clever and certainly never appearing more clever than a man, being charmingly clueless, etc etc. Women in China suffered foot-binding. Women in Malta suffered mind-binding, and still do.
Women are even less likely to express a view about abortion than they are to express a view about politics, unless that view is churchy. The reason? Men might consider it the ultimate in unfemininity (killing your own child, holding an opinion and voicing it stridently, talking about women’s rights like one of those feminists…).
And there you have the answer as to why Maltese women would much rather make the trip to Catania for an abortion than write a letter to The Times demanding that the laws be changed.
But don’t exclude the fact that the huge majority of Maltese women (whether uneducated or very educated) might NOT actually want to take up this battle. For a number of cultural, social and religious reasons. I think that it’s fair to assume that that is, in fact, the present situation. Women in Malta are involved in most areas of life – business, education, culture, the media. Perhaps less so in parliamentary politics, true, but the few who do have a voice haven’t exactly rallied the troops on the abortion issue. My hunch is that they simply don’t want to.
We are living in the 20th. century and it is so evident that some people are “still priest ridden”, an expression used on Malta in the 17th and 18th century.
The expression used then to describe the Maltse was: ” ignorant,illiterate, superstitious and priest ridden”. It amazes me that such people are still living in such timesn and never crossed over with the rest.
Would anyone believe me that in Gozo a very good number of old aged people still believe it is a mortal sin to vote Labour? I assure all this is not a joke and it reflects the above.
@ Daphne Surely you mean you are a lapsed Catholic?
‘
DF: I think you’re mistaken. The debate will move forward when men will shut up and listen rather than do all the talking themselves. Why on earth should women in public life “rally the troops”? I imagine you mean to say women should lead other women. That’s an example of the problem, not the solution. Why should women only lead other women? And why should women be led at all? Consider the possibility that ‘men in public life’ need to rally a few troops themselves – leading by example and listening, rather than constantly claiming the podium along with the moral high ground and smiling patronisingly or making rude remarks to other men when a woman says she doesn’t agree.
DF: Try this out for size : a woman draws up a counter-petition to the Gift of Life’s attempt to have the constitution changed. What is the likelihood of making any headway and who is most likely to object?
DF: It is far worse than that. Statistics released by the NSO a few years ago show that only half of women have ever worked, and when a woman does work she will receive a salary that is roughly 2500 euros smaller than that of a man in the same position.
The level of participation of women in our society is one of the lowest in the world, and you can see this every single day. I once had an argument about this with a group of friends, and actually had one of them tell me in private that she disagreed with her then boyfriend but wouldn’t say so ‘because she is a girl’. My initial reaction was disbelief, but it would be because I have no idea what it must be like to have your opinion discarded because your gender. I can’t think of anything more degrading than that.
DF: Here’s another example of the caveman mentality that makes women despair. In the rankings of last year’s gender gap report published by the World Economic Forum Malta was way down the list. When this was pointed out to the media in Malta, the result was a spate of irate letters and, if you please, an editorial in one of the daily English language newspapers expressing shock not at the status of women in Malta, but at the report itself. The common element? “How dare they say that about our women”. They all trotted out that old chestnut about women dedicating themselves to their families. I agree that the economic contribution that represents is all too often overlooked, but did any of these irate letter and leader writers ask women what they really think? Needless to say, the writers were men.
And now I see in Matthew Caruana Galizia’s comment that the mentality persists even among people half my age. Women are not people here, you see: despite what the law says, women have the social status of children and even that is not good enough for children. If you have any doubt, just take a look at the reactions to the exposure of Mark Vella Gera in the latest paedophile case – the defence of religion, religious institutions and religion teachers overlooks the fact that in cases such as this one, the real victim is a child.
DF: You’ve really got me going now. Here’s another one. In an interview for a professional post a woman was told she was shortlisted for a job but that the company was waiting for an answer from a man. He turned the job down. She was offered the job instead – and asked to make the tea in the office as part of her duties.
Please Corinne, let’s be fair about this, shall we? It’s not like women are being silenced. The most forceful opinion columnist is a woman, several other women write articles on a regular basis (Anna Mallia, Marisa Micallef), host TV shows, are prominent journalists (Ariadne Massa, Fiona Galea Debono, Julia Farrugia, Miriam Dalli…), are active in culture and the arts, in business, some have made it successfully into the political field, some courses at university are, thankfully, dominated by women…
@Cikki – no, I mean that I am not a Catholic. Yes, I had to jump through all the hoops when I was at school, and go to mass on Sundays, etc etc, but only because I was given no choice in the matter. I certainly didn’t do it out of conviction and cast it off with my school uniform. Oh the bliss of growing up and leaving it all behind…
@All,
Since the subject has turned to this may I ask your opinions on positive discrimination?
I always thought that beneath the hysteria of an anti-MLP woman lays a clear-headed woman.
Enjoyed going through the article.
I am for secularism. I the sense, that morality should be left out from parliament. It is not the role of MP’s to preach on the notion of what is good and bad, personally I can go to church to hear about eternal damnation, but it is their responsibility to provide social laws that, regarless of sex,age,ethnic,religion, reflect this european society.
[Moderator – When a man disagrees with a woman, she is hysterical. When he agrees with her, she is clear-headed.]
DF: isn’t it telling that you can count all the women who aren’t ‘silenced’ on two hands? I can’t understand why you keep arguing that women have reached a desirable level of social participation, when clearly they haven’t.
The only alternative that I see to the argument that women are systematically kept silent is that they are biologically predisposed to being of incapable of communicating opinions, holding down jobs and determining their own future.
Another thing, Corinne. If you look around you, you’ll also realise that several men are on your side on many, many issues. But you probably won’t find them militating in God’s Chosen Party (which we were told is the only rational choice for sane human beings).
[Moderator – Who are these men, and in which party do they militate?]
Christ guys – I’m on your side on these issues!!!
Matthew picks on ‘silenced’, Corinne directs her rage at me.
No Matthew, I can list a whole list of women who occupy important roles in society: teachers, doctors, university professors, businesswomen, lawyers…
I focused on journalists and opinion columnists and media people because that’s where ideas can kick off, flourish and grow. Maybe they will. Let’s wait and see.
Well let’s begin with married women who wish to read for a degree. You’re over 30, so you have no right to a stipend, or any recompense for the cost of books or photocopies. You attend every single lecture because you ARE interested, and wish to succeed. I tried to find out why this was, and was told (wait for it) “Then all married maltese mothers would apply for University!” Yeah right. So the money comes out of the household allowance? Apparently so. Part-time job? If you’re raising a family when do you work? Ridiculous. And ‘they’ want to encourage women to educate themselves. What a load of cobblers!
No I am not, but evidently people seem to prefer men as politicians. Even the women who get elected are not exactly feminine bliss.
[Moderator – People do not inherently prefer men as politicians – take a look at the parliaments of most European democracies. Please define ‘feminine bliss’. It’s funny you should say that when the parliament contains the highest concentration of short, fat and ugly men in all of Malta. Maybe it’s because women should be seen and not heard.]
@Sisi,
Actually Sisi I believe nobody should get a stipend for going to University.
DF: There should be too many to be able list them, that’s the point. We should able to say with confidence what many other Europeans do, that almost all women aren’t confined to gendered roles. It is a fact that a quarter of all Maltese people do not work because of their gender.
@ Mcomb
‘No I am not, but evidently people seem to prefer men as politicians. Even the women who get elected are not exactly feminine bliss.’
Check Spain and what Zapatero did.
Just to bring this full circle Matthew, not to lose track of my original argument. So you believe that when the ideal scenario you describe becomes reality, Maltese women will clamour for the legalisation of abortion? I’m not sure – several highly educated women I know wouldn’t stick their heads out on the issue (either because they genuinely don’t agree with abortion or because they don’t want to risk being seen in a negative light by the powers that be or because they simply can’t be arsed wasting their time tilting at Clerical Windmills). The same goes for many men, no doubt.
DF: Why should what happened in the rest of the Europe not happen in Malta? I can’t stand this ‘u le, ahna orrajt’ attitude.
To put things in perspective, here is the number of women working in each economic sector per one hundred men working in the same sector. The data was calculated based on the NSO’s survey of the Gainfully Occupied Population: November 2007. You would have to be really obtuse to say that this is not related to the state’s position on abortion, and the absence of women in the debate.
Agriculture
100:11
Fishing
100:2
Quarrying
100:3
Manufacturing
100:41
Energy
100:9
Construction
100:3
Trade of goods
100:36
Hotels/Catering
100:41
Transport/Communication
100:25
Financial services
100:92
Real estate
100:40
Public administration
100:35
Education
100:141
Health/Social work
100:87
Community
100:44
Foreign/International organisations
100:69
Apprentices/Students
100:10
GRAND TOTAL
100:40
@ Matthew
I don’t have a problem with no one getting one – but there’s a difference between that, and being told that you’re too married or too old to get one (and in the meantime everyone else is)
[Moderator – I think it was David who said that.]
Matthew – what happened ‘in Europe’ will probably happen in Malta, with time. When enough people put their weight behind a movement for change, when enough people clamour for change and when enough folks are ready to put their heads on the block for things they beleive in. The way I see it, lots of people just can’t be arsed to upset the apple cart lest they aren’t handed any toffee apples for dinner. Pragmatists. Thousands of others genuinely don’t agree with what you, or I, or your mum are proposing. In fact they view such arguments with genuine horror.
‘Beleive’ should have been spelt ‘believe’, just in case you swoop down on that typo and psychoanalyse me on that count a la Daphne…
;-)
I was referring to the Maltese electorate and not to the rest of the civilised world
You can’t expect people to put their weight behind something when they are not empowered to do so. More than 50 per cent of Maltese women would starve to death were it not for the man they depend upon. How can you expect anyone in that position to fight for what they believe in? And not only does our system eliminate the means to fight, it eliminates the will too. When Samuel Johnson was comparing a woman’s argument to a dog walking on hind legs, I think he wasn’t making a misogynistic statement but rather that he was giving an accurate description of someone who has been educated by nuns and has never worked a day in their life.
Anyway, why should anyone have to ‘put their heads on the block for the things they believe in’?
Matthew – people must put their heads on the block for the things they believe in because that is simply the way that liberties and rights have been gained throughout history. Against the grain, against the dominant dogma. Check out A.C. Grayling’s Towards the Light on this issue.
In modern, Smart Malta you won’t be beheaded, burnt at the stake or banished. But you might seriously compromise your political ambitions, be sidelined or prevented from getting that plum job you always desired. You may also be called a bit of a fruitcake (look at poor old Emy Bezzina to give you one eccentric example). Would a pragmatist take the plunge? Many don’t, let’s face it.
If I may put in my 2 cents (Euro cents of course) I do believe that women are discriminated against in Malta, but sometimes they contribute to it themselves.
Take my cousin for example. She is an intelligent woman, with a doctorate and whose mother is a strong willed woman who started up her own successful business where she is the boss in all respects.
My cousin and her mother then come up with the ludicrous mentality that they will not see a woman doctor because they do not think they are as good as men. Isn’t that crazy?
In my own office we have one woman who easily holds her own with the men. She states openly that she hates working with other women.
I cannot understand women like that because they contribute to the problem no end.
Back to the abortion part which is were this thread started I would like to state my position for whoever gives two hoots.
I consider abortion murder of the worst kind.
I think it solves nothing but rather increases problems
I firmly believe there is always an alternative.
I believe a person is from conception.
Having said all the above, and here you may all consider me crazy, I believe abortion should be legalized in Malta.
The way to fight it is not through legislation but the way it is fought abroad (and I don’t mean bombing clinics) from the pulpits and through education. I honestly believe that if done properly it will be much more effective then banning it.
If ever it is introduced however I would also hope it is not available in 5 minutes and that a mandatory counselling session by an objective person who would explain everything in detail as well as explain alternatives. There should be a limit when it could be performed and of course no doctor should be obliged to perform one.
Partial birth or late term abortions should be treated as murder by the courts, both for the mother and the doctor.
DF: Poor old Emy Bezzina? Well if that isn’t a fruitcake, then I’m still 18.
DF: I still don’t get your point. Or maybe I do. You seem to be saying that women should clamour for abortion as an end in itself, a cause for which we should put our heads on the block. Let’s leave aside the fact that that is a self-defeating process – or a rather drastic way of achieving an end – and look more closely at the real issue.
The objections women have to men dominating the abortion debate are the same objections women have about male domination generally. People do not concern themselves with gender issues unless they are put at a disadvantage. This happens to men in exceptional circumstances such as in child custody disputes. Women are by definition at a disadvantage in relation to men in most situations and so are more aware of the gender perspective at all times.
Men are irritating when they moralise over abortion because they don’t think theirs is a gendered perspective, yet believe the opposite of a woman’s opinion: a woman who says she is against abortion is ‘rational’; a woman who says she favours abortion is ‘unnatural’.
Against that mindset, how can anything a woman says move the debate forward? I stand by what I said earlier: the debate will shift when men listen more than they speak.
A debate will nourish only when you have good listeners and good speakers and when they intelligently change roles.
It is not a question of gender. It is a question of rights, logic, comprehension and understanding.
One cannot take a personal example as ‘fiat accompli’ that all and everyone behaves thus.Debating such is very much shortsighted and illogical.
What amazes me is the fact that performing abortion in Malta is illegal and subject to criminal proceedings, while if any Maltese performs such ‘ellegality’ abroad goes scotch free. Same with divorce.
In short, anyone who can afford, can freely perform such ‘illegal acts’ abroad, while those who can’t afford, do not have any way out.Discriminations comes in different forms and methods.Is this not a jungle form of discrimiation we live in nowadays?!..
It amazes me too that many who are commenting on the subject of ‘gender equality’ are themselves falling in same traps they are accusing others of.It is quite evident that very few understand pretening is miles away from reality.
[Moderator – Peter, your comment is a bit vague, and you are naive to say that gender is not an issue in view of the statistics listed above and the experiences of the women commenting here. Who is falling into what trap?]
Last Sentence should read:
It is quite evident that very few understand that pretending is miles away from reality.
[Moderator – Pretending what? Please stop being so cryptic.]
Corinne, my point is this: when a critical mass is reached on a given issue in a given society things start to change. It is generally a battle, yes, often bloody (the battles for religious freedom, the abolition of slavery, workers’ rights and women’s rights have left their victims and outcasts along the way) because you’re up against a system of some sort: be it dogma, tradition, ingrained prejudice or class interests. It was a battle in France and Italy and Spain just like it will be a battle in Malta. Forget it that women in Malta are at a greater disadvantage compared to French women 40 years ago. Women played a leading role in several battles because they WANTED TO and they felt they NEEDED TO.
What I’m saying is that the critical mass in Malta for a secular-feminist movement just ain’t there. It’s pointless blaming the system and stopping there. If enough people (men and women) want to change the system, it will happen. But inconclusive arguments in national newspapers discussing when an embryo becomes a human or taking the piss out of Paul Vincenti will simply leave us at square one.
And let’s also be fair shall we – the party you voted for with so much conviction in the last election is an instrinsic part of the landscape which you are condemning.
[Moderator – With our current political culture and the great disadvantage women are systemically put at, it is very difficult to reach ‘a critical mass’. You need to realise that this is a national problem and not a ‘women’s problem’, in the same way that the Civil Rights Movement was not the Black People’s Movement. When men tell women ‘it’s your problem’ they are effectively complicit in discrimination. It is true that the Nationalist Party does reinforce the role of women as dependants, putting them on the same level as children. In the last ‘Toroq godda: ghalik’ advertising campaigns, each and every billboard out of about five varieties literally put the man in the driving seat, with his wife just along for the ride. The country is full of examples like this, and it is no wonder that the number of gainfully occupied women seems to have decreased under this government, to 40 per cent of all women from a figure that was close to 50 per cent a few years ago.]
Right, OK, it’s a national problem. Back to square one.
What I’m saying is that I feel that this debate will only get out of the rut it’s in when it’s presented from a new angle – a woman’s angle. The French call it ‘le droit a disposer de son propre corps’. For that to happen women must be vocal, determined and clear. All the rest is pussy-footing about Vincenti’s obsessions and sperm cells. Very frustrating.
Women were at a disadvantage in other countries. Think Spain, for Franco’s sake! That’s no excuse. Do Maltese women want to take up the challenge? Do they care? Do they agree, after all?
I do not think that men have to make space for women, or that women have to fight for their space. It is an attitude and I believe that when a wo/man does not leave space for the opposite sex s/he has the same attitude with persons of the same sex.
Call it macho or what you like, I call it attitude.
Personally I have always thought that the creator is female.
Maybe that’s why I adore women.
Especially when they posses the gift of wit.
DF: The moderator’s taken the words right out of my mouth.
DF: Exactly what is it you are expecting to see women do? Chain ourselves to the gates of Mater Dei Hospital and demand an abortion?
Women aren’t exactly hanging around waiting for a revolution to join. Even well educated women – make that ESPECIALLY well educated women – can tell you that it is near to impossible to get through to men who refuse to listen, and often times to other women too. None are so deaf as those who will not hear and when you’re worn out by the daily irritations and obstacles, you’re hardly going to crusade for an abortion that you might never want to have. If you did want to have one, on the other hand, you’d just get on with it without rushing out with banners and slogans.
Here’s the other side of the coin: I’m not too sure I’d take too kindly to an abortion crusader knocking at my door and harassing me to join the revolution, so I’d be disinclined to do the same even if this were a revolutionary cause I particularly cared about.
You see, I don’t think the “woman’s angle” on the abortion debate is something quite apart from the rest of women’s daily experience. Being ignored in the abortion debate is no different to having a bank clerk talk across me to the man in a suit helpfully informing him that he can allow me to sign my own checks. And please note, this is not a trivialisation of abortion. I am talking about the experience of being excluded and ignored on a matter to which I am central.
Corinne, I don’t expect women to do anything at all. All I’m saying is that big changes in society don’t come easy. They didn’t come free of charge anywhere and they won’t in Malta. In the meantime let’s stop the moaning and the dead-end ping-pong laboratory arguments on cells and embryos. You rightly say that ‘women aren’t hanging around waiting for a revolution to join’. Other women in other countries joined, inspired – and sometimes led – the revolutions they wanted to kick off. Circa 1968 in several countries we constantly compare ourselves to. If Maltese women are really so hard-done by but can’t be arsed to do anything about it, who’s to blame? The system, the Church, men, tradition?
[Moderator – What are you suggesting – that Maltese women are biologically predisposed to laziness? If it isn’t that, then it must be ‘the system, the church, men, tradition’.]
@Sisi – when I was at university, married women (and men, for that matter) were entitled to stipends and got them. I didn’t, because I worked (if you worked in those days, however little you earned, you forfeited the right to a stipend). Then at a certain point, it was decided that married persons (not women) and postgraduate students would no longer be entitled to stipends. If I remember correctly, it was the fact of marriage, and not the age cut-off point of 30 which led to loss of entitlement. Perhaps it has changed since then? I remember thinking how odd it was that stipends were given to teenagers so that they wouldn’t have to be dependent on their parents, but married women had to be dependent on their husbands, and ask them for money to buy books. Incidentally, I remember a few married men there, who were supported by their wives.
@DF – only one thing, and one thing only, will raise the pressure on the abortion issue in Malta: depriving Maltese women of access to abortion clinics next door. Because there is no way that will happen, or can happen, Maltese women will stay silent. They will stay silent because opinion leaders generally come from educationally privileged backgrounds, and educationally privileged people are able to work the system because they have the income and the ability to do so. A pregnant 17-year-old factory worker is never going to be voicing any opinions, even though she has no access to abortion in the way more privileged Maltese women do. Maltese women are silent for many reasons, but mainly because, where abortion is concerned, they are well-served. The ones who can speak out and don’t have all the access to abortion that they could want or possibly need. It’s the ones at the bottom of the heap, as in all other areas of life, who suffer.
Moderator is incorrect in ‘blowing’ what the the PN did in pushing women’s cause.
Moderator should digg very well when jumping to such biased conclusions.I am very well aware to whom this site belongs but still I do expect such silly ‘adverts’.
Moderator should know that in last adminsitration, a new legislation was passed through parliament to promote gender equality. Is moderator aware of the fact that in naming the mentioned legislation Minister Doleres was herself discrimnatory against the fair sex.
I wonder how our dear Daphne was/is not aware of this fact.
Still waiting for Daphne’s lashes about the matter.
[Moderator – Peter, I can’t understand your point. Are you criticising me for supporting the government’s policy on widening the gender gap, or are you accusing me of being too critical of it? the government can pass whatever legislation it likes, whether it does so out of conviction or not will determine the outcome. The fact remains that for every 100 men employed by the government, there are only 35 women.]
@ Moderator .. Calling me naive and cryptic does not belittle anything I said in my earlier messages.I do not need to spoonfeed anyone because I believe no one needs any extra intelligence or any extra effort to comprehend my message.
Gender Equality is not only an issue but worse still the way it has been tackled these last 10 years needs much to be desired.
The legislation passed by the last administration on this issue, even in naming the legislation in question,fell in same trap as those before.
It is not a question of figures or logistics, It is a question of ‘a strong will’, which I am sorry to say it isn’t there yet.
Capish moderator?
Uuppps … How I hate spoonfeeding.
[Moderator – Peter, see what I mean about being cryptic? I agree that Maltese political culture actively discourages the empowerment of women.]
ufff…why dont we talk about George Abela, like we used to talk to a few days ago before his chances started increasing? Uff, I’m bored…
Wrong again Moderator. Maltese women are extremely hardworking (like their male counterparts) in areas which they choose to be hardworking in: making more cash, getting jobs well done (often better than the lads), taking care of the kids and the husband and that kind of thing. But they appear to be completely unarsed about things which women elsewhere consider important. But I don’t want to exclude the possibility that they’re actually happy with the situation and prefer it that way. Fair enough.
Daphne’s point is also largely true I think. No divorce, get an annulment. No abortion, hop on the catamaran. A nation of pragmatists as I like to say.
[Moderator – Would you be happy to have never worked, to have to ask your spouse for pin-money? The Kalkara market on a Sunday is full of women asking their husbands for permission to spend 5c on a pair of plastic earings. Can you imagine yourself in that position, and would you be happy?]
….all this bla bla bla about women’s empowernment…In any case, Moderator, you complain about a 100/35 ratio between men and women in government service. Don`t you know why? Its because up till a certain year, women were required to resign on marriage. Not because it was a social norm, but because it was the RULE. And guess in which year women were allowed to remain in government service even after marriage? Horror of horrors..it was in the despicable 70s. And guess when women were BY LAW given equal pay for equal work? Yes, it was in the horrible 70s. And guess who, when even our nanniet were young, suggested to the National Assembly that women should vote. Horror oh my horror! It was the hamalli Lejburisti. If you want to know who opposed them at the time , take a look at a floortile….
[Moderator – Stop getting so upset, you sound like a fool. If I were around when the Nationalist Party were opposing universal suffrage, I would have most definitely not voted for them. And Daphne has already made the point that her family didn’t vote for the Nationalist Party in its Italian irredentist days.]
Did I mention Daphne? Do I, or anyone, care how Daphne and her ancestors voted or to whom? I am just mentioning some history. To show which party has stood for women’s emancipation in Malta as long ago as 1947…by the way…that was POST irredentist days. I think its not me who is getting upset.
And what is this about mentioning how someone’s family voted? As if I can add to my laurels how my family voted or did not vote 60 years ago!
[Moderator – No – I pointed that out because you seem to think that the people who run this blog are only capable of thinking as part of the tribe, and are ready to fight for it on all fronts, when it is clearly not the case. The way things are now is that there is not a single party in Malta that has progressive policy on the gender gap in our society. And you’ll find it is worst in the people you least expect it. I once sat in a gender studies lecture listening to Joanna Drake defend the indefensible, that the gender gap in Maltese political culture doesn’t exist, and Helena Dalli argued the same point in a recent debate at University. And don’t even get me started on Harry Vassallo, whose wife earns all the family’s income while he potters about at home.]
Well I mentioned three fundamental steps on the road towards bridging the gender gap, taken by a Maltese political party whose history is so rubbished today. The MLP was not afraid to upset the applecart in those to undertake important social reforms. The PN, composed as it is of a motley group of peopke who range from abortionists to fundamental christians, No “moderate” party at all. That is why today I believe that the MLP has to capture back the fire of those days. And not be some cushy-cushy nice-to-all party some are suggesting. Oh and dont forget George Abela on Youtube…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olkQW_lschE&feature=related
@ Moderator .. Lol You got it so wrong once again.
Taking everything at face value does not help to comprehend the real substance. If you try harder I am convinced you’ll understand my point of view.
Moderator please stop calling names whoever expresses an opinion that might be different from yours.Have you ever realised that others may be right and you might be wrong.
Political facts are there and whatever you or your likes try, be assured you won’t change anything.
Quoting half truths to give a different picture that is far away from reality and to twist facts is in itself a disservice. Futhermore it is shameful, puerile and pathetic.
[Moderator – I still can’t understand what you are trying to say.]