1.0 INTRODUCTION
Two critical questions emanate from the literature regarding the role of women in households and how that role impacts on household relations. The first is whether motherhood and wifehood include any financial contribution towards household survival. Chapter Six clearly indicated that women in Newtown were involved in various income mobilisation strategies. Chapter Seven showed that women did have housing priorities and that, in fact, they did make significant contributions to housing improvement.
Second, the literature contains contradictory views on the impact of women’s incomes and their contribution to households. With the use of qualitative data, I explored the nature of this impact in Newtown. I also examined the level of power that women derived from their contribution. But I also looked at the implications of women’s contributions to the ideological dimension of the household, particularly as it related to their husbands. In the previous chapter I presented the discourse of men as izehluleki.
What did this mean as women managed relations with these men in the course of day- to-day living in households?
This chapter will begin by presenting case studies that illustrate the scope and nature of women's contribution in Newtown households. The discussion will include the responses of other household members to this contribution. This will be followed by an exploration of strategies that women used to manage these responses in day-to-day life. Women's self identity will then be discussed through an exploration of whether they had any self interests and how they satisfied them. As explained in Chapter Eight, cases and quotes were used as mere illustrations.
2.0 THE PRACTICE OF UKWAKHA UMUZI’
In talking with respondents in Newtown households I established that women were generally seen and perceived as mothers and wives. Although women also defined themselves as such, they also regarded themselves as individuals. Their contribution in households and specifically in housing improvement was influenced and also influenced these gender identities. Unlike men, the gender identities of women defined gender roles. Also, the gender identities of women defined gender behaviour far more explicitly than in the case of men. It is precisely because of this unambiguous set of behavioural norms that sanctions for non-compliance in the case of women were so strong and accepted. These sanctions permeated the lives of married, widowed, divorced, separated and never married women, and even daughters.
In terms of roles that women as mothers and wives were expected to play and tasks they were expected to carry out in households, these were clearly articulated by all household members including women as domestic chores, caring for and providing emotional support to everybody, organising the household, ensuring that children adhere to the disciplinary code set by their father, and entertaining and looking after relatives and friends of the household (particularly of the husband). Although there was unanimity over these roles, there was variance of opinion on whether financially providing for the household was also women's role. Where providing was viewed as women's role, explanations were always given. It was “traditionally” not her role. Women were involved in it because of the changing context that was making it difficult for men to adequately perform the role on their own. Women were therefore “assisting”.
In terms of expected women's behaviour there were two main dimensions. At an ideological level women were expected to be respectful to their husbands and his people. If a woman did this well, children would in turn learn from her. As Sperata explained: "It is the way she treats her husband, gives him respect, how children appear in the community." She had to be tolerant and patient and persevere in her engagement with others. She had to have dignity and not gossip, otherwise her household would not have a good standing in the community. The second dimension was an emotional one. Women in Newtown were expected to be caring, to provide the needed emotional warmth for others and to ensure overall happiness in the household.
* Ukwakha umuzi is a set o f activities that women engage in to make a home liveable, warm and efficient. It encompasses the distinction between a home and a house. Therefore it is a gendered concept. In a sense the concept encompasses all three dimensions o f the household. But only women are involved in ukwakha umuzi.____________________________________________________________________________
to be loving. Women had to "form the emotional nexus of the (household)" (Campbell, 1990:6). As Bheki summed it up: “Household warmth is about women - respect, attitude to visitors and relatives, her background.”
In terms of housing contribution, a conceptual distinction between indiu (house) and
ikhaya (home) emerged in my dialogue with people in Newtown. It was the responsibility of men to provide a house for his wife and children. A house represented a physical structure that provided shelter against natural elements (rain, heat, etc.) and human danger (crime, violence, etc.). A home was a qualitative living environment within which women attended to their husbands, raised children, and entertained visitors and relatives. There were also behavioural norms linked to providing a home, including being respectful, tolerant, accessible yet dignified, and always available to help others. Gullestad further explains that “(t)he word home brings in one notion both the idea of a place and the idea of social togetherness associated with this place. The notion has both material and less tangible social, emotional, moral and spiritual connotations” (Gullestad, 1993:131). In Newtown it was the responsibility of women to transform a house into a home.
The concept that captured what was expected of women in providing this qualitative living environment in Newtown was ukwakha umuzi (building a home - not a house). The circumstances under which women had to do this varied. It was dependent on the resources at a woman's disposal and the extent to which she could focus on what she saw as essential priorities. Therefore, both the structural (domestic and societal) and material factors were important. Within the household both these sets of factors were gendered. To elaborate on these issues, I looked at examples of three categories of women found in Newtown: women heading households; wives working in the informal sector and housewives; and employed wives. The categorisation was useful in that it captured both structural gender location within the household and potential variation in availability of and access to material resources to women.
2.1 Women Heading Households
Thenjiwe was a nurse earning R1 500 a month, and had never married. Her son Lungani was employed as a stock taker and was retrenched in 1994. Her daughter Lindiwe was a part-time saleslady since the beginning of 1996. Thenjiwe improved her house. She plastered and painted it inside, and had electricity and water. She had all the basic furniture. She bought everything herself except the iron, which was bought by Lindiwe. Lindiwe also assisted with buying food. Lungani bought a television set, which
he sold when he lost his job. Thenjiwe said she bought most things for the children. In most cases she decided what to buy although the children (mainly the daughter) sometimes decided within the budget limit that her mother set. She believed that providing for the household should be shared by all those who work, but within the context of their incomes. When I asked her how she managed to improve her house so much on her own with such a low salary she answered: "Women are better managers. They care for their households."
Irene, a domestic worker, earned R200 a month and had never married. She sold fruit and tablecloths to extend this income. She lived with her four sons, three daughters and two grandchildren. Her eldest son was a teacher and only started working in 1995. Irene had plastered and painted her house, improved the floors and connected water. She bought a stove and a kettle. Her son had the electricity connected, bought a fridge, iron, television and hi-fi set, and lounge suite. Irene decided what was needed and only consulted the working son because he might decide to buy some of the things himself. He informed her what he wanted to buy but did not really ask for permission.
Audrey was an unemployed divorced household head living with her two daughters and a grandchild. She improved her house whilst she was still employed as a domestic worker. She extended it by two rooms, plastered and painted it, improved floors, and had water and electricity connected. She bought a fridge, iron and lounge suite. At the time of the interview she depended on her elder daughter, Lorraine, who earned R560 per month as an assistant nurse. She discussed with her daughter what should be prioritised, and food and other basic needs like electricity were the main concerns: "Sometimes we pay a little for electricity just to avoid being switched off." Audrey acknowledged that their low household income did cause tension when they were unable to meet their very basic needs: "... especially around food, it causes tension. Lorraine takes loans. I used to also take loans, but I don’t have an income so it is a problem. So I stopped."
Women heading households entered the labour market because they had no choice. All of them said that ideally women should not work, but be supported by their husbands. Thus they supported the dominant ideology of a male breadwinner. Their current situation demanded that they work because they had their own households without men. They needed additional sources of income over and above the formal wage in order to extend their income. As shown in Chapter Six, female wages in
Newtown were very low.
Despite the absence of male support and low incomes, women heading households were able to sustain their households. The extent of improvements in their houses supported this assertion. Irene maintained that "a woman knows how to stand for her household. She stands for her household and ensures that it looks nice ... It is only shortage of money that stands in your way, but you still try." Their ability to sustain their households was mainly determined by how income was distributed in female-headed households. More resources were directed towards household welfare. But low incomes in these households caused tensions. The tensions were not around different gender priorities as in the case of male-headed households; they were mainly around inability to meet basic survival needs. But these needs might also take a generational dimension as in the case of Audrey. In such cases, the priority was food, electricity card and children's needs.
Asked whether spending patterns changed when women were on their own, Irene agreed: "There is a difference between when you ask, and when you have financial power to buy and decide". It is important here to unpack the concept of “asking” as articulated by Irene. If you did not work you asked for money; but even if you had money you asked for permission to use it. Of interest was how these women interpreted joint decision making with men. They argued that women's gender position relegated them to asking. If not that, then women had to motivate and justify their priorities, which priorities were actually to the benefit of the whole household in most cases. When relations were not equal in the first place, joint decision making per se was a misnomer. When one considers that men had personal priorities that were outside the ambit of joint decision making (as discussed in Chapter Eight), the impact of different levels of power at the disposal of men and women in a negotiation process is highlighted.
Gender relations were seen by women to be a stumbling block to household well being. As Yanga said: "Nobody says I'm wasting money. I focus on the priorities and nobody questions those priorities. I work with a clear direction and motivation that I can buy my child that shoe ... Now I know I am working for my children. Even the lounge suite, I bought it to make them happy." In male-headed households, even if women worked, their priorities might be mediated by their husbands. This highlights that there were different priorities for men and women but, more importantly, that women's priorities might be mediated by, or even subordinated to, those of men through their “power over”. It is these constraints that female-headed households did not experience.