To define is to limit: What is and what is not a Women Headed Household?

By Ruvani Fonseka

On 04 January 2016

This is the third in a series of articles by CEPA about women-headed households (WHHs), who are considered a vulnerable group in post war Sri Lanka. Each article questions some of the assumptions associated with Sri Lankan WHHs and gender-selective development interventions. 

In CEPA’s last article on women-headed households (WHHs), we outlined a set of definitions that have been used, with varying degrees of success, to identify heads of households in Sri Lanka. One definition that was used by Sri Lanka’s2012-13Household Income and Expenditure Survey (HIES) is what we called the “popular opinion” definition: “head of household is a person who usually resides in the household and is acknowledged by the other members of the household as the head of the household”.In this article, I will examine the relevance of this specific definition for Sri Lanka’s myriad of different WHHs.

Too many types of WHHs

In a recent meeting held by FOKUS WOMEN to brainstorm a common definition of WHHs for use by policymakers, the group identified more than 15 different types of households that might count as WHHs, depending on which definition was used.Many of these types would qualify as WHHs under HIES’s definition, especially those with no adult males, such as households led by widows or divorced women. In addition, households supported by a male but in which the male does not live at home, such as a family supported by a male migrant worker, would still count as female-headed even if the woman did not provide economic support separate from her husband’s contribution.

When does self-identification fail?

A large number of WHHs would only qualify based on the responses of the households. In this article, I will examine several different reasons why a WHH might not be counted as such under the HIES definition, and highlight some of the unique vulnerabilities of each type.

Development Discouragement

Heteronormative development practices, such as refusing to provide housing to single women, or to only issue deeds to male household heads, might make WHHs less likely to self-identify. If women know that sending a male relative to collect a government entitlement in her place will be more successful than going herself, why would she identifyas a head of household? One example in this regard is the default practice—after the 2004 tsunami—of giving housing to males, even in Tamil and Muslim communities where women were the traditional landholders. WHHs had to jump through a number of logistical challenges to prove their right to own land in  the absence  of a male head. This practice changed power dynamics in these communities and taught people that households with male heads would more easily receive development benefits, potentiallydiscouragingacknowledgement of one’s WHH status.

Societal Disapproval

A patriarchal society which does not tolerate women assuming headship might also discourageWHHsfrom coming forward, and force women to ascribe headship to other male relatives, such as sons or brothers. Women who openly acknowledge that they are single and head their households could be judged for pursuing livelihood activities outside feminine norms, andclaiming male protection and headship to avoid the security risks faced by women living without men. An example of this comes from CEPA’s focus group discussions with WHHs in the North – they reported being highly scrutinized by their communities and having their every move watched and judged in a way that women living in male-headed households were not.

Lack of Closure

Some women’s husbands have not been proven to be dead, but instead “disappeared” during the war. If these women refuse to acknowledge their husbands’ absence and instead label him as the head, they won’t be counted, even if their vulnerability remains the same as other WHHs. These women could be experiencing “frozen grief”, a psychological condition where the loss of a loved one is ambiguous and their relatives cannot move on. In this instance, claiming WHH status could be an acknowledgement for these women that their husband will not return, something they don’t want to believe or admit.Forcing these women to declare themselves widows and their husbands dead could cause psychological trauma while also undermining their status in patriarchal communities. They need closure and information on the whereabouts of their missing family members in addition to the support needed by WHHs in general.

Family Support

What of women-headed households that are absorbed into the homes of their extended families, but still have to support themselves financially/make decisions independently? In many Sri Lankan communities, WHHs are absorbed into their extended families’ homes, but the women may still be expected to provide for/make decisions for their children themselves. In this type of situation,what defines the border of a “household”? One example of this comes from CEPA researchers’ experience in the North in a Muslim community, where the researchers could not identify any women living on their own as heads of households – all had been absorbed into larger familial groups. In these groups, do the needs of the WHH become subsumed by the needs of the dominant male-headed family? Or do these WHHs receive more support as a result of being surrounded by other family members?Using the current HIES methods, it is impossible to even identify these women to answer these questions.

Bad Enumeration

Sometimes the opinion of household members is not honoured by those asking the questions. Some government officialsin Sri Lanka refuse to record a woman as head of a household when a man is present, even if it is clear that the woman is the main breadwinner in the household and all family members agree (this has been personally experienced by a WHH at CEPA). This type of refusal to record a WHH’s self-enumerationcan lead to obviouserrors in the data collected on household headship under the HIES definition.

What can we do?

Household headship is clearly a tricky subject, which is currently judged by inconsistent and changing measures, leading to a lack of focus and clarity in Sri Lankan data collection and intervention efforts. As I realized in FOKUS WOMEN’s meeting, we might need to critically examine the notion of a “household”. Perhaps, as Shyamala Gomez, the country director of FOKUS WOMENin Sri Lanka stated, the concept of headship needs to be abolished. Instead, we might need to find a clearer concept that helps policymakers identify Sri Lankan households in need. It is clear that we need to better understandthe reasons for the current focus on headship, and to question development practitioners’ preference foraddressing gender-based vulnerabilities at the household level.