Women are most vulnerable group when right to housing’s considered

MONDAY, August 8, was International Women’s Day that started in Germany in 1914 when women’s right to vote was recognised.

South African women struggled against the pass law, holding demonstrations in Bloemfontein in 1913, in Potchefstroom in 1930, and at the Union buildings in Pretoria in 1956.

In South Africa, anti-apartheid and anti-colonial activists included Lilian Ngoyi, Fatima Meer, Helen Joseph, Albertina Sisulu, Rahima Moosa, Charlotte Maxeke, Sophia Williams-de Bruyn and Frene Ginwala.

We have come a long way from the time of Ngoyi who was arrested for using the post office reserved for whites and her courageous activism together with other women on August 9, 1956. On this day, Ngoyi led a women’s anti-pass march to the Union Buildings in Pretoria.

Sixty-six years later, men continue to dominate women; their space, their dignity and freedom, defined by their misogynistic whims presented as laws, God’s laws or cultural dogmas to which women are subjected and subjugated. Men continue to believe that they are God’s chosen ones.

Unscrupulous landlords see women as “soft targets” for illegal disconnection of basic services and lockouts carried out with impunity during the Covid-19 pandemic. Older persons, especially women, as pensioners must survive on a meagre income, most of which goes towards rentals. They are most vulnerable to being displaced and rendered homeless with their children and grandchildren.

An owner can become homeless too with no legal help to challenge a breach of contract. Take the case of a woman who sold her property at a reduced price out of desperation to make ends meet. One of the terms of the sale was she would live in the outbuilding until she decided to leave. She occupied the outbuilding, undisturbed for a while, until she spurned the new owner’s advances. She was eventually locked out of the property and had to live in a shelter for the homeless.

Discrimination, greed and disregard for human dignity cannot be changed by the Constitution. The change must come from within, and until then women will be second-class citizens. In Government of the RSA v Grootboom 2001 (1) SA 46 (CC), the Constitutional Court in interpreting section 26(1) of the Constitution points out there is at the very least “a negative obligation placed upon the State and all other entities and persons to desist from preventing or impairing the right of access to adequate housing”. Women are the most vulnerable group when the right to housing is considered.

Women as a marginalised group suffer as tenants at the hands of bigotry, and their right of occupancy is further complicated by customary and non-monogamous marriages.