One of the most significant revelations of this referendum debate is that it has exposed the underlying attitudes towards women by many politicians and public figures.

For all the talk of equality and urging women to enter gainful employment, it is clear that the real image many of these spokespeople have in their heads is of the financially dependent 1950s housewife wearing an apron who is happy to bring her husband his slippers.

In fact, the argument which has been repeated again and again, that divorce will result in women being abandoned with no source of income, has taken women back not just decades, but hundreds of years. Any progress which feminists thought might have been made has been ground to a halt.

It is especially shameful that this type of thinking is being propagated by women themselves. The personalised letter which Joyce Cassar and Anna Vella have sent to married women is insulting on so many levels that, unsurprisingly, it has backfired dramatically, leading many women to openly voice their anger. In an attempt to play on deep-rooted fears of being left alone with no financial security, this letter simply reinforces how detached Ms Cassar and Ms Vella are from reality.

The only conclusion is that the ‘No’ lobby is convinced that women in Malta have no self-respect or pride, and will willingly allow themselves to be at the mercy of a man who may or may not pay their bills as they wring their hands in distress.

The reality, of course, is so sharply different that it has to be stated. As things stand today, many women who are separated from their husbands have to work, whether they like it or not. The only exception is women of a certain age who have never worked and who do not have the possibility to be retrained to enter the work force, and who are usually awarded alimony by the judge. Contrary to what is implied in this letter, these women will continue to receive alimony even if their former husband remarries, as otherwise the man will face a jail sentence.

The fact remains that, unless they were married to a very wealthy businessman, the alimony to which a woman might be entitled to according to her husband’s income is usually so meagre no one could possibly live on it. In cases where the woman is still young enough to work and the children are of school age, it is less likely that she will be awarded alimony since the judge usually rules that she is capable of supporting herself. Here it has to be made clear that we are speaking of alimony, not child support, which is a completely different matter and which is obligatory by law.

The truth is that bills have to be paid, even today without divorce, and if a man (or a woman) sets up home with someone else, they have to deal with the financial responsibilities of their new domestic arrangements.

The other points made in the letter, which refer to the suffering of children and men walking out of their marriages instead of trying to solve their marital problems are equally misleading. If we were living in a country with 0% separations (and annulments) this argument could be taken seriously. Instead, as has been often pointed out, men already walk out, and so do many women, and children suffer because of the trauma – so unless one makes it illegal for people to leave their marriage, all this is irrelevant to the divorce issue.

The continuous attempts to scare women into voting ‘No’ with these deceitful arguments simply indicate that those who are anti-divorce have completely underestimated women’s intelligence.