ATT SAHMS: Being a housewife is a payable full-time job, rules Kenya judge
by Samantha Herbst
Some would call it a historic win for mothers worldwide when this week Kenya High Court judge Justice Teresia Matheka declared that being a house wife should be considered a full-time job.
Presiding over a matrimonial dispute, Matheka recognised the unpaid labour of stay-at-home wives and mothers. The case in question reportedly heard the plea of a woman who wanted to sell the family property and split the money equally between her and the husband she is divorcing.
The counterargument to her having any right to the estate was that she did not contribute financially to the property. The implicatin here is that housewives and stay-at-home mothers who do not contribute financially to bond payments have no right to the house (or any other belongings that they did not pay for) post divorce.
In her final ruling, Matheka challenged the common (dare we call it patriarchal?) perception that a physical income is the only recognisable contribution one can make to a household. She pointed out that housewives (and, in turn, stay-at-home moms) should also be considered key contributors to a family’s financial standing.
A financial contribution is not the only necessary contribution
According to Kenyan channel k24tv, the judge noted that housewives should not consider themselves unemployed, as their primary occupation running a home is a full-time job.
Matheka told the court that raising a family, coupled with cooking and cleaning is should be considered part of her contribution. Shepointed out that while a breadwinning spouse earns the money that purchases a property, for instance, that property is developed by the stay-at-home-spouse who also provides a service when taking on the role of default parent and primary childcare provider.
“[The spouse working away from home] and sending money will be heard saying that the other one was not employed so they did not contribute anything,” said Matheka, indicating in her final statement that this couldn’t be further from the truth.
The bottom line here is that a financial contribution is not the only necessary contribution in sustaining a household, especially when it comes to childcare.
Matheka highlighted that, in a case of separation, the spouse shouldering the bulk of the childcare should be offered a significant portion of the matrimonial property. Also citing surrogacy and the fact that some women are paid to carry the children of others, she pointed out that pregnancy should be considered labour. Matheka urged her colleagues in the justice system to keep this in mind when presiding over matrimonial disputes.
Regarding the case in question, Justice Matheka ruled that the couple should split the proceeds of the sale of the house equally. Another suggestion was that one party could buy out the other for half the monetary value of the property.
A house wife’s rights in SA
Had this case been overseen by the South African court, a similar ruling would have been made. That is, unless a prenuptual agreement expressly stipulated that the wife would be excluded from having rights to the property.
“The only way a woman would have no rights to the estate would be if the couple entered into a strict contract without accrual. Even then, she would still be entitled to maintenance for the children,” says family mediator Bonita Nel.
Nel adds that a spouse’s rights post divorce always depends on the regime that a couple marries into, which is typically in communty of property or out of community of property.
“When no contract is entered into before a couple gets married and they want to divorce, the husband has no right to take everything he’s paid for because half of their estate is legally hers.”
Regarding the case in Kenya, Nel notes that, while women have rights according to the law, those who stay at home are often of the mindset that because they they do not contribute financially to the household they hold no value.
However, Justice Matheka’s closing statement showed that the opposite was true.
“Women should know that there is value to what they are doing, and that they have rights,” agrees Nel.
Not quite Twitter-approved
Nevertheless, a quick glance at social media will tell you that there is still a long way to go before society at large will take a women’s unpaid labour seriously.
There were some vile reactions from the Twitterati that are not worth mentioning. However, those who were more benign proved that the unpaid labour of women is still largely undervalued.
@benard_okemo wrote that the judge’s ruling is “a judicial intoxication of [the institution] of marriage”. He added that placing a monetary value on a woman’s contribution would corrupt “the psychological aspect of the marriage bond” and that the ruling was an example of "radicalising women towards monetising love”.
According to @williamonkoba, “housewifing” should not be considered a full-time job: “With the economy right now, sustainability of the family requires both parties to hustle to achieve family goals.
@snoopiefox believes that a private arrangement should be made between partners, as what works for one couple might not work for another.
The (rather simple) bottom line here is that, when it comes to families that feature a house wife or stay-at-home mom, the home would not be maintained and the children would not be cared for if it wasn’t for that default parent.
While situations may indeed vary from family to family (with stay-at-home dads becoming more prevalent and many homes needing both partners to earn an income), the fact remains that rearing children and managing a household holds significant value. Even if that value is neither physical or financial, it is a crucial contribution.