Mfungeni was a driver and earned R1 400 per month. His wife, Abegail, was a nurse, earning R1 100 per month. Abegail defined Mfungeni as a non-supporting husband: "He is not supporting since the last three years, so I do everything.” Before they moved into Newtown he was the only one working and did everything. They decided that she should also work in order to assist in paying for the household expenses when they moved into Newtown. Mfungeni contributed to the physical improvement of the house. He paid for the plastering and floors, and bought the lounge suite and a hi-fi set. The rest of the improvements, including painting, electricity, water, fridge, television set and stove were paid for by Abegail. After Abegail started working, Mfungeni decreased his contribution slowly until he stopped three years ago. Abegail said he only paid for the children's school uniforms and his own transport; she did not know what he did with the
rest of the money. Mfungeni still lived with his household. Abegail believed that men and women should share the responsibility of providing for the household.
TTA was a handyman in one of the local schools and earned R897 a month. He told me that he provided for his household. He gave his wife, Sarrie, a monthly allowance "to cover for all the monthly needs". He kept the rest because "as a man you must have some money for a few drinks with friends. Also you need to keep money for unexpected crises." Sarrie admitted that she got an allowance but insisted that it was too small to cover even their very basic needs: "I sell chips and other small things to get money for food. He gives me little money and insists that it must last the whole month. I do make profit, but I also have to pay for electricity, the house and bread for the children. When baba (husband) runs short of tobacco he also asks from this money ..." She also claimed that TTA got a bonus but he neither informed her nor increased the monthly allowance. She believed that TTA spent a significant amount of his income on liquor. Sarrie stopped working six years ago because of diabetes: "My child, I know the sorrows of this home. I stayed with him not working from 1983 to 1987. I bought this lounge suite and he was not working. I stayed and persevered. I got ill, stayed in hospital and came back without work. Even now when he is working, there is nothing - there is nothing good." She also bought a bed and a fridge. TTA paid for the floors, plastering, electricity, and television and hi-fi sets. Sarrie and TTA believed that it was the role of the man to provide for the household. It was clear that Sarrie had expectations of TTA once he got a job. She felt very strongly that he should be able to fulfil them, but was deliberately not doing so. TTA, though, was of the view that “if she doesn’t work she has no say. She must just ask.” He believed that he was supporting his household adequately.
Phile's husband was a driver but I could not establish how much he earned. Phile was a cleaner and earned R100 per week. Her eldest son was a shop assistant and earned R350 per month. According to Phile her husband did not support his household, and as a result she took him to court: "I was stuck and the children are many, they are seven. I really had no way out." He then paid child maintenance, which Phile fetched from court on the 7th of each month. She said it assisted with food although it did not cover everything. Her husband still lived with them. Asked what she thought he did with his money, she answered: "No my child, I don’t know baba’s money. I can’t tell you what he does with his money. He goes here with full pay and only comes back with nothing left ..." She also noted that her husband was abusive and then she slept at the neighbour’s. It grew better when the children were older because they told him off:
"Even my elder boy can see now." Phile's house had all the basic improvements, including electric appliances, and she claimed that she paid for all of them herself. She believed that men should be the ones responsible for providing for the household, but women were taking the lead because men had become unreliable.
The definition of non-support or insufficient support was a contested area as could be seen from TTA's case. He believed he supported his household whilst his wife reduced his allowance to non-support. The fact that she did not know how much he earned and that he did not increase the allowance when he got additional money exacerbated the situation. It was also clear that Sarrie had unfulfilled expectations that left her bitter and untrusting. The child maintenance that Phile’s husband paid through court was not defined as contribution. His wife said: "I don’t know baba's money," meaning that she did not get a cent from him. Therefore, providing for the household was expected to be a voluntary obligation, something you did because you emotionally felt the responsibility to do so as a husband and father. But men also felt that women’s unfulfilled expectations were the result of their demanding too much. Zola asserted that “a man knows how to budget. The woman just wants money. She doesn’t know where it comes from.” Concurring, Solly argued that “women who are not working complain too much. They want all kinds of things like stokvels and pots. They are easily irritated because they feel the husband is not doing enough. You can never satisfy them.”
The case of Mfungeni showed another dimension. Within a period of eight years, without any drop in income, he moved from being a sole provider to not providing at all. The change coincided with his wife’s entry into the labour market, which she claimed they mutually agreed upon. To what extent her engagement in the labour market led to or influenced his decision to stop providing, I will address in the next section of this chapter. Maybe his perception was that his wife would "assist" and he would visibly remain the main breadwinner. By her sharing the responsibility, she was blurring the responsibility line. This challenged his perceived role as the main provider. She became visibly less dependent on him. Khaya shed some light on this when he said cynically: “Yes they (women) must work because they desire change too much.”
Mafeje (1991) raised questions on whether we could really talk about a household if there was no common budget, because sharing sustenance was an important dimension of the household. But these cases of non-supporting men confirmed the significance of the gender dimension in household analysis. The gender dimension introduced gender power relations, which allowed men like Mfungeni to “belong” to the
household even when they unilaterally stop sharing in its sustenance.