CHAPTER 8: GENDER DYNAMICS OF ACCESS TO PRODUCTIVE RESOURCES
8.1 Introduction
In chapters Two and Three, I presented literature pertaining to the gender dynamics associated with agriculture and the use of agriculture inputs within a household. In the current chapter I discuss the dynamics related to productive resources with a particular emphasis on land as other productive resources have been discussed in Chapter 7. Land is a key productive factor for households living in rural areas and can be instrumental in determining household food security.
8.1.1 Land access and “ownership” patterns
One of the key productive resources is land. Of importance to note is that generally land ownership was understood differently by the participants. In general, even though land ownership was vested in the state and under the Trusteeship of the President, cultural and customary practises specific to individual communal areas prevail. Discussions with participants therefore took cognisance of this factor and it was evident from the responses that traditional norms and practises were important in regulating the relationship to land.
8.1.2. Women’s perceptions of their relationship to land
Moyo (1995) argues that it is important to differentiate types of women, asserting that it is single women who were never married who suffer more from lack of land rights. Furthermore, it is to consider is that about 70% of the farmers in communal and resettlement areas are women (ZFU, 1998) and they all have access to land through different means. This discussion therefore does not in any way suggest that women are a homogenous group.
The women that I interviewed, both married and widowed, were of the view that they had secure and predictable access to land. Their analysis was that as long as they had usufruct rights, all other pedantic notions of ownership were meaningless. Ownership was deemed to be relative and related to the ability to use the land. Ownership was understood in terms of the
182 right to use the land more than in the sense of the freedom to sell the land or a formal entitlement. As long as the women could grow crops for their households without impediments, they were satisfied with the relationship they had to the land.
As a married woman I know that you young ones mean well with your ideas of human rights. But what you need to realise is that for us, the reason we are still married to our husbands is because we know our place. No matter how much education one receives, one should never forget our culture. We work together with my husband and children on the land. So why would I then want to be the one to cause chaos in my household by saying to my husband I want to own land. If my family heard that is what I was doing in my husband’s village, they would be ashamed. I for sure do not want to be the one to bring shame to my in-laws and to my family back home. (Rudo, female participant, date of interviewed 12 August, 2015).
All the widowed women indicated that they had experienced moments of uncertainty as to whether they would be allowed to continue “occupying” their pieces of land when their husbands had passed away. However, they had settled down after their in-laws had allowed them to remain on the land and to continue occupying the homestead. Nyashadzashe had the following to say,
My husband and I did our things together, we worked as a unit and I was really devastated when he died. I was not sure of whether my in-laws would allow me to continue on the family plot as there were other family members living on the same plot.
On the day of my husband’s burial, I was waiting to hear my fate from my husband’s family representative. I was pleasantly surprised when he announced to my parents that they wanted me to continue living on the plot and look after the children. As long as I was not remarried I could continue living on the plot. (Nyashadzashe, female participant, date of interview 12 July 2016).
Given existing literature, their fears were reasonable as FAO (2002) notes that in Africa, in general, custom excludes women from ownership; property is held in a man’s name and passed through patrilineal systems within communities. This is a common practice which the participants noted was prevalent in the communal area. Therefore, a widow’s right to remain on the land is often not secure. The understanding with Tatenda’s circumstances was that land was available to her but this was on behalf of her two sons, one of which was still a minor. In as much as she was allowed to stay on the land, she was also expected to behave in a manner that warranted her stay. She noted that there were thinly veiled connotations of chasteness and perpetual widowhood failing which she would have to move out of the land.
183 From the discussion with the women, it was evident they had accepted that their husbands or male children were the rightful heirs to the land. They had also internalised this culture and all felt that if they had the choice to bequeath land to their children, it would be their sons.
Nyashadzashe, whose husband passed away about 11 years ago was regarded as the matriarch within the household. Two of her daughters in-law live on the same compound which was the family homestead but they were running their homes separately in the absence of their husbands who worked in Harare. She noted that she understood that the land she occupied would eventually be her sons’ or grandsons’ and said,
I am here because when my husband died, I had to protect the land on behalf of my sons and grandsons until they take over. The land is not getting bigger, once you lose it its gone. I never had ambition to own the land or even under the illusion that I could ever own the land. I have no such desire. (Nyashadzashe, female participant, date of interview 12 July 2016).
The maintenance of a presence on the land was associated with a desire to maintain the household lineage in the community as girls were viewed as “passers-by” who would get married and leave the home. Even if the girls got married locally, they would still take up the husband’s name and the family name would be dropped and girls were therefore regarded as not belonging. The lack of interest in land ownership by women in Goromonzi could also be influenced by cultural and traditional practices in which women are known to benefit from land through a male relative. Historically in Africa, women’s access to land was based on status within the family and involved right of use, with limited women being able to own land under free hold title.
Tinotenda attested to the fact that when her husband died 16years ago, she only felt secure on the land because she had three minor sons. Her source of security was vested in her sons who are now grown up. Two of her children (1 boy and 1 girl) are late and she suspects they died of HIV some years back but she could not be sure as they had never openly broached the subject. Tinotenda had been fearful of stigmatisation which she felt had since declined. HIV was still a topical issue in Mashonaland East. The ZDHS (2015) reported that HIV prevalence has decreased among both women and men since the 2005-06 ZDHS but Mashonaland East still had a high of 15% prevalence with 22% of women and 20% of men having discriminatory attitudes towards people living with HIV. Tinotenda’s sources of livelihood were farming and she received remittances from her other children who worked in Harare. When her husband