A Social Plan for the Family 2024 - 2030
Published by Malta's Ministry of Social Policy & Children's Right, here's our questions and opinions on it.
Right on the heels of the Digital Education Strategy 2024-2030 Malta public consultation, which is still ongoing till the 28th of June 2024, comes another, important one, A Social Plan for the Family 2024-2030 Malta, also with the same deadline.
As we did with other public consultations, including the Digital Education Strategy 2024-2030 Malta, Children's Policy Framework 2024-2030 Malta, and the The National Education Strategy 2024-2030 Malta, we also went through this Social Plan and provided our feedback accordingly.
Below, we are sharing our opinions and the questions we posed to the relevant department, in the hopes of encouraging others to do the same. If you agree with any of our points, please go ahead and include them in your own feedback, this way it will gain more traction with more people pointing out the same or similar concerns.
The consultation can be found here, and will come to an end on the 28th of June 2024.
“1.3 The Transformation of the Family Structure
The ‘Family Unit’ traditionally consisted of a married man and woman, with biological or adopted children. However, in today’s realities, this understanding does not reflect a true picture of society. With the ever evolving and changing realities of society, the term ‘Family’ as a unit has broadened. While the traditional family unit is still fairly common in Malta, other forms of families are becoming increasingly prevalent, with the idea of the ‘typical family’ with a male breadwinner and a housewife taking care of children becoming everyday less reflective of the Maltese society” (Page 21)
Yes, the traditional family unit has deteriorated almost entirely into the various different setups mentioned in this Social Plan. This was mostly due to numerous ideas and policies, both locally and internationally, that lacked any foresight, but were nonetheless imposed on society. Certain policies have already been with us a long time and we can clearly see that they didn’t work, or are not working. Despite this, we keep, not only persisting, but even doubling down on some of these policies, as seems to be the case even in this Social Plan itself.
Our top priority as a society should always have been the safeguarding of the traditional family unit, that between a man and a woman, and their children, where one parent (normally the husband/father) was enough to provide for the whole family, as the other (normally the wife/mother) took care of the children. This setup was vilified relentlessly along the years however, with the main excuse being that women were somehow subjugated in this setup.
After all these years though, how have things improved for women, indeed, how have things improved for any of the family members?
Do women actually feel more empowered or fulfilled nowadays or do they feel stuck in an endless, repetitive cycle that’s even worse than before?
Both parents nowadays have to work to try to make ends meet, which means spending less and less quality time with their respective spouse, or children. How does that help the family exactly?
How did all this improve the well-being of our society as a whole?
Or have we actually regressed?
The goal of any proposed policy should thus be, to strengthen the traditional family, the backbone of our society. It should be our benchmark and not something to be frowned at. Most issues encountered in modern society are precisely due to the fact that we have, for various reasons, moved away from this model. Not all “progress” has been beneficial to our society and it’s time we admit we were wrong, and to finally start trying to find our way back.
For instance, the government has for some years now, been paying child care services for families that have pre-school children, in order for both parents to go right back to work as soon as possible, in some cases, just three months from the birth of their child. This has somehow been dubbed a family-friendly incentive.
How about the government starts offering this allowance to one of the parents instead, so if they choose to, they can stay at home to take care of their children themselves?
We also note how a US document (https://www.purdue.edu/hhs/hdfs/fii/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/s_ wifis01c02.pdf) was referenced in this section of the Social Plan. Firstly, the link seems to be broken as it doesn’t lead to the document that is being referenced. But, we also would like to ask the following:
How can, and how does, US data and policies apply to Malta exactly?
Why are we using US data to base some of the information found in this Social Plan?
Why are we assuming that this data is applicable to Malta without any issue?
“Whereas stigmatisation, marginalisation and segregation may take place towards the diversity of family life, the approach of this policy framework is that of respect and inclusion to continue to build on the positive impacts achieved.” (Page 23)
What positive impacts were achieved exactly?
Why does it seem that in recent years, in order to accommodate certain family setups we are marginalising the rest, including, and especially so, the traditional family?
It seems that, in order to “safeguard” some family setups, we are ready to sacrifice the most basic and fundamental of them all, the traditional family.What is being done to safeguard and promote the traditional family?
How about we start focusing on the preservation of the traditional family once again, instead of looking down upon it, especially given the unsustainably low fertility rates we’re facing as a people?
“In the last decade, Government has implemented a range of policies, measures, and initiatives aimed at providing crucial support to every family, especially those facing hardship and adversity.” (Page 28)
“In recent years Malta has experienced a rapid increase in population.” (Page 28)
We all know what caused this “…rapid increase in [the] population…” . In fact, this is analysed further on pages 30 and 31 of this same Social Plan.
The government at one point decided to open the floodgates for third country nationals to come work here in an unsustainable manner, without considering the negative effects this will have on Maltese society. Please note that we specifically mention third-country nationals because immigration from countries outside the EU can be controlled directly by the government, whilst EU nationals have the right to come work here, so the government is limited in what it can do to curb an influx of EU nationals.
The end result of all this was a severe increase in property prices and services, and the creation of an unfair competition with Maltese, and EU labourers. All this is very evident, and even this Social Plan admits these very issues later on in the document.
We ask,
Is all this part of the so called “…crucial support to every family…” that is mentioned above?
Are there any serious plans to control this unbridled influx of foreign workers from outside the EU?
It is clear that these policies were put in place for economic reasons without consideration on the repercussions they will have on Maltese society. Tackling this issue is of the utmost importance if we truly want our society to thrive once again. This has to be the government’s priority, otherwise, the issues we’ve already mentioned are going to exacerbate further. We share more opinions on this further down.
“Malta’s Total Fertility Rate has seen a precipitous decline over the last 50 years. In Malta, the Total Fertility Rate was at 2.14 births per woman in 1977, just above the Fertility Replacement Rate of 2.1. This has now fallen to 1.07 births per woman in 2022, the lowest fertility rate in Europe, and one of the lowest globally. Malta has also seen a long-term decline in the crude birth rate (from 9.6 in 2015 to 8.1 in 2022 ).” (Page 29)
Does the 2022 Fertility rate of 1.07 births per woman include only Maltese women or is this including foreigners that gave birth in Malta?
This should be clearly stated as it makes a substantial difference for analytical purposes. If it is the latter, then the situation is even more precarious than it looks and sounds.
The chart above, found on page 30 of this Social Plan, is clearly mislabelled and should be fixed. It seems the pink data-points denote the Average age at Childbirth and the orange data-points denote the Fertility Rate. The colours are wrong.
The chart above, found on page 32, should also include cases of separation as that too is very relevant in showing a snapshot of our society.
“Cultural norms often lead to an unequal distribution of these caregiving between the adults in a household. Unequal division of chores persists, with women carrying the heavier load. This is particularly evident when caring for and educating children and grandchildren and taking care of the elderly or people with disabilities. Positive steps like flexitime, telework, and reduced hours, reduce the challenges in achieving work-life balance for the Maltese workforce.” (Page 38)
Biologically, women were always the carers in a society, whereas men were the protectors and providers. There was never anything particularly wrong in that model, and past societies thrived on it for eons, as it was synchronistic with our respective biological functions. Women are naturally more suited to the direct care of children, so it is also only natural that most of that direct care falls on the mother’s shoulders.
However, this doesn’t mean, and never meant, that fathers don’t have a role in the care of their children. The care that a father provides is simply different to the one provided by a mother. It is usually much more indirect. Each of the two sexes has a role in child care, and each role is just as equally important. That’s where our focus should be. Equality should never have been exclusively applied in reference to the direct care of children. It should have been applied to the overall care of the children, including both direct and indirect care.
This idea to push the two sexes into similar roles started to take hold in recent decades, and the issues we face as a society today are precisely due to this shift. How about we stop trying to go against our very human nature and start re-embracing our natural roles instead of vilifying them with wild claims of oppression? Obviously there were failings in the past, but it was surely better than the situation we find ourselves in nowadays, with few really knowing what their supposed role should be and many having a sense of entitlement instead of a sense of duty towards each other as a family. We’ve heard about diversity ad nauseam in recent years, yet somehow, we keep pushing for uniformity by trying to blend various roles together. How has any of this improved society?
“Single parent families have increased in Maltese society” (Page 45)
Why? Why are single parent families on the increase in Maltese society? Are we trying to understand what the cause of all this is? Or are we just looking at the symptoms and trying to alleviate them with various lacklustre policies that end up fixing nothing or making matters even worse?
All this ties in with what we have already stated earlier:
How has our society improved, given all these supposed family-friendly measures?
How have things improved for women in general?
Since around the 50s and 60s, it is claimed by feminist lobbying groups that women are somehow oppressed, but how is the current situation any better for either of the two sexes?
Once again, what is being done to promote the traditional family?
“PRIORITY ONE:
SOCIAL JUSTICE FOR FAMILIES
To further provide and enhance adequate support and services to families in disadvantaged situations. Families with member who have specific needs require additional support.
By improving the overall social wellbeing, all families are to have the necessary opportunities and assistance to thrive.” (Page 51)
While we are all for helping families in disadvantaged situations, whatever that may mean, as MCDM, we have to keep stressing the importance of not neglecting the traditional family. While our focus has been fully on helping families with particular issues in recent years, and indeed, it seems to also be the focus in this very Social Plan, we have completely neglected the core, traditional family, letting it erode slowly instead of safeguarding and strengthening it. Support should be available to all families not just for some.
“This proposed Social Plan for the Families will give particular importance to diverse family forms, life phases and challenging situations. Within this context, it is essential to consider the lessons learnt from the COVID 19 pandemic…” (Page 53)
What lessons exactly were learnt from the COVID 19 “pandemic”?
“Early intervention is paramount for promoting positive development, wellbeing, and resilience among families.” (Page 54)
What about life-skills that can be taught in schools?
For instance:Family creation
Finance management
Child-rearing
Understanding duties, which are just as equally important as entitlements and rights (the latter of which have been relentlessly promoted in the past few years especially when it comes to children)
Striving for self-sufficiency, instead of reliance on the government, or society.
Growing your own food, and water preservation in the household. Why is something like this laughed at or even frowned upon nowadays?
Etc.
“Positive family dynamics are built upon core values, dedicated quality time, collaborative teamwork, and mutual appreciation.” (Page 58)
How is this going to be achieved exactly, with both parents having to work to make ends meet?
Pre-school children as young as 3 months old, are being sent to be with strangers in nurseries, away from their parents. So, the crucial time for bonding with your child is being slowly eradicated, and we’re actually hailing this as some kind of “family-friendly” measure. How is this family-friendly exactly?
Things get even worse with school-age children. Dropped off to Breakfast Club as early as 06:30 in the morning, if not earlier, and picked up as late as 18:00 in the evening.
How is any of this helping any of the family members exactly?
Also, let’s not forget the stress that piles up on both parents throughout the whole day, be it work itself, the horrendous traffic we are experiencing daily on our commute anywhere, and at any time of the day.
All this accumulated stress creates the perfect conditions for arguments and fighting between family members at home when it’s supposed to be quality time with the family, while having to juggle, buying groceries, food preparation, cleaning and everything else that a household entails. Before you know it, it’s time to get some much needed rest, and rinse and repeat the next day.What is being done to move away from this toxic cycle?
How is all this any better than the days when a mother could stay home, taking care of her children and making the family’s house a home, while it was enough for just the father to go to work and be able to provide for the whole family?
Here’s another consideration, which rarely gets a mention: many fathers back in those days, had to sacrifice a lot of quality time with their children to go to work to support the family. Now, both parents have to make that sacrifice.
This is the situation we find ourselves in as a society, thanks in no small part to all the claims of women being oppressed, like somehow, the men had it any better.
What would the statistics show for example, if women from back then, and modern day women, were asked how they felt about their lives and achievements? Do women really feel more fulfilled now?For mostly economic reasons, the traditional family has been sacrificed for far too long. For years, we have not looked beyond the tip of our noses and focused entirely on short-term financial gains, destroying the traditional family in the process. Without a strong family however, society will fail, and the economy with it.
“However, it is also important to address the concerning issue of parental alienation. Efforts should be made to educate parents about the damaging effects of parental alienation on children's well-being and the parent-child relationship. Promoting awareness and understanding of parental alienation can help prevent its occurrence and safeguard the child-parent bonds. Therefore, within the plan of supporting families, initiatives to encourage healthy co-parenting practices while combatting parental alienation should be at the forefront, ensuring that children are nurtured in environments that prioritise their emotional and psychological needs above all.” (Page 60-61)
Parental alienation should be treated as child-abuse. The law should therefore make sure that the parent doing the alienation is treated as an abuser. Children are being used as weapons to get back at the other parent with serious, life-altering consequences for both that parent, and the children themselves.
It is heart-breaking when the actual parent of a child, has to spend less time with their own children, than a new partner that the other parent decides to be with. Not only that, but they also have practically no say in who their children are exposed to. What happens if the new partner involved is not someone you would want, to be around your children? Something in this regard also has to be done.
The opposite is also true however i.e. neglecting your own children should also be treated as child abuse. A parent who shows no interest in their own children should be reprimanded harshly.
“5.1 Nurturing Effective Parenting Skills” (Page 66)
We agree with most of what is said in this section of the Social Plan. The only thing which is mentioned and we would like to emphasis, is the building of resilience in our children. Yes! This is of the utmost importance.
We would like to add however, that building resilience should also entail, teaching children to be strong and not to act the victim at every turn. They need to learn to simply brush off certain comments, whether they’re passed maliciously or not, both online and offline. They should not be encouraged to expect someone in authority, be it a parent, a teacher, or the government, to take action on their behalf. They need to learn to stand up for themselves, both physically and emotionally.
“[S]ocietal perceptions of marriage and parenthood have evolved, with individuals increasingly prioritising personal and professional pursuits over starting a family.” (Page 74)
This is a direct consequence of the extreme push we have seen to encourage women to pursue careers instead of building families. We’ve moved towards a completely materialistic lifestyle that encourages egoism and selfishness, while vilifying motherhood and family care. What else could one expect from such policies and ideas?
“Government deems it crucial to take the necessary steps to safeguard our identity from any potential erosion” (Page 74)
How exactly is the government taking steps to safeguard our identity?
By opening the floodgates for immigration?
By forcing other cultures to take precedence over anything that makes us Maltese for the sake of inclusivity?
How?
“By prioritising family-friendly workplace policies, ensuring housing affordability, implementing education / awareness programmes, and strengthening data collection capabilities, Malta can create an environment that supports family formation and parenthood. The ultimate aim is to create the necessary conditions to empower individuals and couples to make informed decisions about starting or expanding their families to secure a brighter future for generations to come.” (Page 75)
But this naturally goes against “empowering” women to pursue, and further their careers no? Something has to give though, as you can’t have the best of both worlds. We are either going to encourage one, or the other. It can’t be both.
“The demands of balancing work responsibilities with family life can pose significant challenges for working parents, particularly for women who often bear the brunt of caregiving responsibilities” (Page 75)
Bear the brunt? Really? So instead of looking at the care of their own children as the wonderful gift that it is, we are looking at it, and referring to it, as some kind of chore that no one wants to do? How can we expect things to improve if this is the mindset we’re promoting?
“Ensuring equality between both parents in caring and family responsibilities is also crucial for fostering higher fertility rates within a society. This approach is essential in addressing stereotypes associated with caregiving responsibilities, particularly with regard to household tasks.” (Page 76)
So our very biology is now a stereotype?
“To address this challenge, policy interventions will focus on increasing access to affordable housing options through measures in particular through better targeted subsidised and tax incentives housing programmes for young couples and further support for first-time homebuyers. Additionally, efforts to further enhance financial stability, including job creation, better income, further investment in education and social welfare programmes, will continue to be prioritised by Government for alleviating financial pressures on households and fostering an environment conducive to family formation.” (Page 76)
Government needs to make sure that subsidies don’t end up in the pockets of the construction industry, with a hike in prices as has always happened in the past.
“The economy exists to serve the people, not vice versa.” (Page 81)
Let’s start walking the talk then.
In conclusion, we stress once again, the need to start slowly shifting back our attention towards the traditional family. This is the backbone of our society and it should be the priority for any plan that is proposed on families. This is not to say that other family setups should not be given the care that they need, but their care should not come at the expense of the traditional family. It is high time that we start giving it once again, the love it so rightly deserves, and so desperately needs.
As always, we kindly ask you to share our articles, subscribe to our Substack, and follow us on Facebook, and Telegram through the links below:
Substack: mcdm.substack.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MaltaCDM
Telegram: https://t.me/maltacdm