An Umbrella, Gender Roles and Power

Nigel Chanakira (@nigelchanakira) on X, shared a picture of an umbrella some time in April. The umbrella, which depicts the “Biblical Order of the Family” screamed “gender roles” and “power.”

The umbrella is particularly problematic, not least because it reaffirms the roles assigned by patriarchy that appear to be unresponsive to the ever-changing times. The umbrella does not allow for bottom-up review, because it creates a subject-object relationship. An object can never have the capacity to review a subject. In the instances where, in some marriages, participants in these highly gendered structures attempt to review it, the review threatens the very foundation of the marriages. The lack of a review system results in lack of accountability, abuse of power and in the long run, resentment within a marriage.

Gender Roles

Gender roles refer to “social and cultural expectations for how people should behave according to their assigned gender. These roles shape the behaviors, attitudes and responsibilities considered appropriate for men and women.” For example, in Zimbabwe, it would generally not be surprising for a woman to cook and clean the house. However, if a man is doing these household chores, it will raise some eyebrows. This is not unique to Zimbabwe. This patriarchal norm is global. As Morgenroth, T and Ryan, M (2018) in Gender in a Social Psychology Context state: “In most societies, even those with higher levels of gender equality, men perform less domestic work compared to women, including childcare, and spend more time in paid employment.”

Gender roles are a very common topic on X. The issues range from who pays on a date, why a woman did not clean her boyfriend’s place when she visited, to whether a man is obliged to give his girlfriend money. All these point to a very difficult and uncomfortable conversation that we need to have collectively, but we are not necessarily having or we are having it but not in the way we should be having it.

Why is the conversation about gender roles difficult and uncomfortable? The conversation demands that we question what we have always known, what is familiar and most likely what we are comfortable with. In other words, the conversation demands that we question social norms. More importantly, the conversation is particularly difficult and uncomfortable because it challenges us to imagine a different way of doing things, a different way of women relating with men.

Power

The umbrella presents a hierarchy with Christ at the very top, the husband thereafter, the wife next and the children at the bottom. Once there is a hierarchy, questions of power arise. Where does the power reside? Who has power? How is that power exercised? Is that power shared?

Power affects the dynamics within any relationship and shapes the said relationship. In a relationship between a mother and a child, the former has power to decide an appropriate sanction for a transgression, whereas the reverse is not true. Simply put, the one who holds the power decides how it is exercised.

Back to the umbrella.

The umbrella shows that within the family, the husband has power over the wife and the wife has power over the children. The husband has power over both the wife and children. It would appear the children have no power over the parents. The previous generation of African mothers would tell their children “This is my house. If you want to do as you please, go and live in your own house” or some version of this statement. That was a very clear exercise of power: you will follow my rules or else you move out and find your own place.

Gender Roles (according to the umbrella)

The umbrella does not state whether the roles are flexible or not, or if they can be adjusted. One can therefore assume that they are rigid. If the roles are rigid, surely this means that they are not responding to the changes in our society? If they are not responsive, are they relevant? Are they fit for purpose? What are the Terms and Conditions attached to these roles?

According to the umbrella, these are the roles of family members:

Husband

Protect Family

The Collins dictionary says To protect someone or something means to prevent them from being harmed or damaged.

What or who is the family being protected from? Who takes over this role when the husband is beating up his wife, for example? What happens if the husband is not able to provide this protection?

Lead the Family

What are the leadership skills required for this role? Is being a man a qualification to lead? In a patriarchal society such as Zimbabwe, the default position is that the man is a leader, not just in the family, but in other spheres as well. Does this mean that the man is well aware of what needs to be done in this role? What are the specific Terms of Reference?

Provide for Family

This role is by far the most contentious. The role is largely seen as financial provision. In other words, when people say men are providers, they are, in fact, referring to financial provision. Patriarchy and capitalism have over time conspired to render this role almost redundant.

What exactly does the husband provide? Does the wife have a say in the type and quality of provision? It does not appear as if this role is open to negotiation.

The problem with the concept of men’s financial provision is that:

• Men want to dictate to women the terms and conditions of that provision
• Women should not have a say in what is offered and be grateful for it, even if it is just scraps here and there

In the event that a husband cannot provide financially, what else, if anything, is he expected to provide? Certainly, in Zimbabwe, a number of men have found themselves out of a job, either because a company has shut down or they have been retrenched.

In a capitalist world and an economy such as the Zimbabwean one, how sustainable is men’s financial provision? Zimbabwean women have always had some income, whether from formal employment or from participating in the informal economy. Many of these women are breadwinners even though this fact may not always be acknowledged.

According to Jakkie Cilliers (2023), nearly one out of three Zimbabweans (4.4 million people) live on less than the international extreme poverty line of US$1.90 per day. Roughly two out of five Zimbabweans (6.7 million people) are living on less than US$3.20, the extreme poverty line for lower middle-income countries. The World Bank (2021) states: Poverty in Zimbabwe is largely rural, but the rural-urban gap has narrowed in recent years. Accompanied by the inflation and economic crisis of 2019, urban poverty rose faster in relative terms (from 4 percent to 11 percent) than rural poverty (43 to 52 percent).

Given these statistics, how feasible is it for men to insist on being the providers? Are they immune to the increasing poverty levels? Is it not time for them to re-think this role?

Given these statistics, how feasible is it for men to insist on being the providers? Are they immune to the increasing poverty levels? How many men can confidently claim that their financial provision is to their wives’ satisfaction?

The narrow view of provision only benefits men, and short changes women. A man can provide the very bare minimum and the woman will subsidise him. If a man cannot pay school fees for his children, his wife is most likely going to call her sisters, cousins, friends and/or workmates in order to raise the required money. Somehow, women always fall back on their networks in times of need. However, do men reciprocate and step in on behalf of the women?

Tobhiyasi and Venenzia

Tobhiyasi and Venenzia are married. Tobhiyasi is retrenched unexpectedly. Eventually, Venenzia pays the rent, school fees, all the bills and buys the food.

Does Tobhiyasi still have the “provider” title, or is he now a ceremonial provider? At which point does he lose the title, if at all? What else is Tobhiyasi providing, since he no longer has the capacity to provide financially? Is he now preparing the children’s lunch boxes? Or doing laundry?

The very narrow view of provision is very problematic because it limits men’s contribution in relationships to finances. It inevitably results in men’s financial statuses being their whole personalities.

The view says-without actually saying so -that once a man cannot provide financially, he is not obliged to provide anything else. If this were not the case, we would not have cases of men complaining about being expected to do household chores when they are out of employment.

Men Doing Household Chores?

Men doing household chores is a very hot topic because housework is considered “women’s work.” So, will Tobhiyasi cook and clean? Will he do the dishes, now that he does not go outside the home to work? Logically, this makes sense, but the reality is different. A man on X complained about doing housework now that he was unemployed. He said …the marriage is no longer conducive anymore I feel like a slave because I clean, cook and do laundry even when she’s around I am expected to make food and clean the house…

While the responses were varied, there was a very clear trend where generally, the women argued that women are expected to work outside the home and still do household chores, so why would the man not clean since he is not working outside the home. Men argued that the man was being demeaned and he should leave the woman. So, housework is considered to be demeaning for a man. Herein lies the problem with gender roles.

When a woman cooks, cleans and does dishes, it is perfectly fine, but when a man does the same, he is being demeaned and disrespected. How about when the woman takes over the man’s role? In the Zimbabwean context, women have always played multiple roles within the households, including the provider role. Even when they were not gainfully employed, they still contributed financially, directly or indirectly.

They directly contributed by undertaking income-generating projects. Indirectly, they contributed by using skills, sometimes taught at Women’s Clubs to reduce the household grocery bill while also making sure that the house itself was clean and maintained high standards of hygiene. Of course, there are numerous examples of these contributions, but this post focuses on a few:

Direct:

1. Selling sweets, biscuits, popcorn, etc. at school gates to children knocking off from school
2. Selling fruits and vegetables by the roadside and at bus termini
3. Making jerseys and clothes to sell in the neighbourhood

Indirect:

1. Making basic household requirements, such as floor polish, commonly referred to as Cobra, a brand name
2. Sewing clothes and knitting jerseys, crocheting quilts for the children using their Singer sewing machines
3. Growing vegetables in the garden for domestic consumption

So, women have always done more than they are credited for. Thus, the gender role equation is heavily unbalanced in favour of men.

The Gender Role Equation

The gender role equation is heavily unbalanced. While women are expected to subsidise men, this expectation is missing when it comes to men. Perhaps a more accurate description of the imbalance is “While women are expected to subsidise men in the event that they (the men) cannot play their roles, the men are not expected to subsidise the women in the event that they (the women) cannot play their roles.”

The patriarchal norm is for a woman to “help” the man and be “humble.” The woman is expected to protect her husband’s image all the time. This is another role that is assigned to women-doing PR for the men and the marriages.

Society frowns upon a woman who shares anything deemed negative about her husband or marriage. In the Zimbabwean context, Usafukure hapwa and Ungazembuli amakhwapha are used in attempts to keep women in check.

According to the umbrella, women and men have three roles each:

Men= Protect Family+ Lead the Family+ Provide for Family

Women= Comfort+ Teach+ Nurture

However, women contribute substantially to men’s roles while men hardly contribute to the women’s assigned roles. Therefore, a more accurate equation for women’s roles is:

Women= Comfort+ Teach+ Nurture+ Protect+ Lead+ Provide

Therefore, men’s overall contribution to the household is 33% while women contribute 67%. The contributions are not 50/50. Talking about 50/50. When men talk about 50/50, they are generally referring to finances, not household chores. Money is very easy to quantify: If a meal costs $100, the woman and man pay $50 each. How does one quantify housework? This is a story for another day.

Suffice to say that the 50/50 being touted by men is a scam. Just like Musha mukadzi, whose direct translation is “The home is the woman.” The saying means that the woman makes the home. The home is a home because of the woman, as it were.

Wife

Women in Zimbabwe have been providing financially and in other ways for their families. In the 1980s, women crossed the borders into Botswana and South Africa to buy various goods to sell back home. These women paid school fees, bought groceries for the family and took care of their needs. The challenge with women’s financial provision is that it was not always acknowledged. It was not deemed to be significant.

The roles as depicted do not do justice to the multiple roles that women have played and continue to play. They significantly downplay women’s contributions to the family.

A brief look at the wife’s roles:

Comfort

This plays into the notion that it is women’s nature to care for families and communities around them. Who comforts the wife?

Teach

Why is this role left to the wife? Why is the husband not also teaching his children about life? This role reaffirms society’s position that it is the women’s duty to look after the children. This is why they must be at home while the father can go out to socialise with his friend on a regular basis. This is not to say that mothers never socialise, but when they do, there tends to be some backlash. Fathers socialising does not raise any eyebrows.

Nurture

Just like with comfort, women are said to be natural caregivers, so they are expected to care for and protect children. Which begs the question, why is the father not involved here? Is it not in his interest to ensure that the children are nurtured/ brought up in a specific manner?

Children

The children’s roles are instructions. What does this say about the way adults view children?

In Zimbabwe, on a regular basis, there are reports of men having sexually abused or raped their daughters, step daughters and granddaughters. In some cases, the families decide to remain silent about the rape. Thus, the parents neglect their role to protect their daughters. Even if the perpetrator is not a family member, families sometimes negotiate with these rapists. They agree not to report them as long as they “compensate” the family.

So, where do we draw the line?

The major problem with the general family set up is that it does not have an in-built accountability mechanism. So, a son questioning his father for beating up his mother can be deemed to be disrespectful. Questioning his mother for beating up his sister can also be viewed as being disrespectful.

Love Parents

What does this love look like? A regular topic for discussion on the Zimbabwean side of X is corporal punishment. Some say that corporal punishment is necessary for good behaviour. “Spare the rod and spoil the child” is used as justification for the punishment. So, parents can punish the children because they have the power. What happens later in life when the children grow older and start to develop ideas and views of their own? Can the parents insist that they must obey them, regardless of whether the parents are wrong? When does the parent-children relationship evolve to reflect the changing dynamics where the children cannot be ruled by an iron fist?

Some parents see children as their extension; not people with their own agency capable of making up their own minds, especially about how they view their roles as parents. This goes back to the issue of power. Parents have power over children. They can decide to abuse this power. The children may not have a choice when they are young and dependent, but once they are independent, they may choose not to even visit their parents. They now have power and can decide how to exercise that power.

Are partnerships an alternative to the umbrella?

Partnerships are a viable alternative to the umbrella: partnership between wives and husbands; partnership between parents and children. By their very nature, partnerships address the issue of power. Power is shared. Unlike in the umbrella, where the husband is “in charge,” in a partnership the two parties work together.

The umbrella is unsustainable because it presupposes domination of the husband over the wife and children, and the wife over the children. Partnerships are more sustainable because all parties have a voice and make collective decisions.