Medium Article Review Part Five (TikTok Edition)

How Colonial Laws Forged Today's "Traditional" Gender Norms: The Head of Household & Patrilocality

A rare picture of Basani in high heels

Examining the colonial and apartheid roots of gender norms upheld as "African tradition."

Introduction

Today, on my quest to prove that the traditional gender norms most black men uphold and desperately want to return to are actually colonial and apartheid mechanisms, I’ll be dissecting the second batch of complementary norms: The Norm of the Man as the Head and Primary Economic Provider and The Norm of Patrilocality.

This pairing is a somewhat fundamental definition of patriarchy, if patriarchy had a baby with “traditional customs” and “economic culture” in rural communities.

The Man as the Head and Primary Economic Provider

This norm is rooted in both distorted customary law and colonial-Christian ideals, where the man is culturally designated as the head of the household and the primary, if not the sole, breadwinner.

A couple of questions arise:

• How is that working out now?
• Why was the man designated this role when he had to conform to the migrant laws and be away for long periods of time?
• Did the system not anticipate the outcome of women struggling to a point of poverty when it enforced these collection of colonial laws?

Before attempting to answer these questions, it is worth noting that the black man was designated the role of the sole provider, not because he was more fit for the role. Patriarchy doesn’t work the same for black men as it does for white men.

Let me cook.

When black men “reminisce” about “the days of their forefathers”, it sounds like black people were just “simple” people—surely they couldn’t have known anything about capitalism, right? I’ll even dare say (for the sake of this narrative) that a capitalist patriarchy was introduced to them. This is the double patriarchy—the patriarchy of the white state and a hardened, state-backed black patriarchy, both of which, respectively, declared women as perpetual minors, needing guardianship from father to husband, and also gave men control over land, law, and family in the rural reserves.

So patriarchy hasn’t worked the same for black men as it does for white people. As much as patriarchy wasn’t a foreign import, colonial and apartheid systems fundamentally distorted and intensified various forms of African patriarchy that were fluid, negotiable, and balanced by women’s economic and social roles. This is to say, women had their own system—matriarchy. It’s uncomfortable when we talk about it, isn’t it? It sounds like a curse word, doesn’t it? Ever wondered why? I digress; that’s a topic for another day.

So, capitalist patriarchy was born out of colonial mechanisms that selectively hardened the most patriarchal interpretations, then backed it up with laws that are now norms. But these norms were engineered to strip and oppress, and introduce a racial hierarchy to create rigid systems of control.

Now we can deduce that colonizers figured black women weren’t as malleable as black men and used that as leverage to dismantle black-identified structures that served both men and women. And then they positioned themselves above an entire race as the law. So, in a state of “side-by-side” equality, they introduced a mathematical division that saw women as the denominator. But you can’t talk of patriarchy and not talk about matriarchy (topic for another day).

And so, men wanting to be the sole provider with the mindset that it was “intended” should really think about who intended for them to be that way. They should really think long and hard about who made them. Also, they should admit it with their chest that their metric for success is their closeness to whiteness, as this "intention" is as white-influenced as one would imagine. That’s why they still choose to conform to these norms that were laws used against them. Again, we can safely deduce that black men haven't evolved past colonial and apartheid rule.

This “men are providers” trope is problematic because I lack better words to describe the wrongness of people identifying as providers, when providing is a natural thing to do. No need to expect special treatment or to be held in high regard, because this quality is expected of you as a living thing. All living things provide for other living things, human males included.

But men carry this misogynistic patriarchal structure wherever they go and impose it on whoever they “deem” fit, i.e., women they can manipulate into servitude. They weaponize this so-called provision to further limit women's autonomy. And they wonder why women want to be independent of said patriarchal structure, more especially because of the fact that men fail in these so-called structures they impose on women.

How Women Navigate This Norm

1. Financial Dependence:

Our mothers’and grandmothers’ labor was devalued in the cash economy, making them financially dependent on their husbands’ income (I talked about this in my part 3 video). What I want to dwell on now is how this norm is currently playing out in our timeline:

• “Be educated and somewhat independent, but not too much that you outshine the man.”
• “A woman’s position or her wage doesn’t extend to her household, because the man is the head and should be respected.”
• “Don’t have any claim to his assets, don’t have your own.”
• “He’s very selective about who he brings to his homestead, so strive to be what they’ll approve of.”

Does that sound familiar?

“You can have your little career, but don’t ever think he’ll respect you or your career.”

Does that sound familiar?

It’s as if they don’t like it when women don’t depend on them financially.

This norm further upholds systems that oppressed women during “the times of our forefathers.”

2. Justification for Control:

The man’s role as the provider is frequently used to justify his authority over major decisions and to demand obedience.

3. The Empty Title:

A woman may perform a vast majority of domestic labor and still contribute financially, but the title and authority of the “head” reside with the man.

The Norm of Patrilocality

This norm dictates that upon marriage, the woman is expected to leave her family home and community to live with her husband in his family’s homestead. And just like that, we’re in the cornerstone of a patrilineal society. Welcome, let me give you a tour of how women navigate this:

1. Loss of Support Systems:

Firstly, she is physically separated from her own family, losing her primary network of emotional and practical support, which makes her more vulnerable to isolation. This is equivalent to the removal from a matriarchal system. Matriarchal structures have been reduced to institutions that prepare women for patriarchal systems, not so that a woman can navigate patriarchy with an instilled sense of self, but to conform to it by limited matriarchal standards that serve patriarchy.

The most firm, assertive, and powerful forms of matriarchy have been demonized, repressed, and weaponized against women. And this could be me and where I come from, but for a system that adheres to rigid “societal binaries,” it wants to suppress matriarchy so bad…why?

2. The Outsider Status:

She enters a community where she is initially an outsider. Her status and acceptance are often tied to her husband and her ability to bear sons for his lineage.

And of course, she has to navigate In-Laws: The bride must build relationships with and often submit to the authority of her husband’s family, especially his mother, who may wield “significant power” in the household—and I use the word significant power loosely because she’s not as powerful; she’s still considered an outsider too, she’s just been there longer.

This dynamic is quite disrespectful to women. They’re pitted against each other; it’s humiliation. Let's look at the bigger picture: within that dynamic, both women confirm the childishness that patriarchy expects from women—no, wait, let me rephrase that: “within that dynamic, both women confirm the childishness that patriarchy demands from them to keep it alive and well.” They prove to it that women don’t deserve the little freedoms it allows them to have, age be damned.

Mother-in-laws giving main chick energy is backwards, honestly. Young women are supposed to be looked at as a progression from patriarchal oppression to a non-conforming individual. I’m starting to think this norm was designed solely to humble the young woman. She’s obviously different from the mother-in-law—she’s free, educated, and can utilize her autonomy. Put her in hostile situations long enough, and she’ll conform to what the patriarchy expects from her.

How Do We Politicize These Challenges?

Are there any colonial laws that were enforced on black South African women's economic autonomy that today are considered cultural/traditional norms used against young Black South African women, even though they are not laws anymore?

What I want whoever is reading this article to know is that the legacy of colonial and apartheid laws continues to shape the economic and social vulnerabilities of black South African women even today. The most impactful laws were those that systematically dismantled black women’s legal personhood and property rights, creating a culture of dependency that is now often justified as tradition.

The Legal Mechanisms: Then and Now

The Black Administration Act of 1927 and the Code of Native Law:

This law legally classified all black women as minors (children) for their entire lives, placed under the guardianship of their father or male relatives, and then their husband upon marriage. This meant that they could not:

· Sign contracts

· Own property

· Open a bank account

· Litigate in court without their guardian’s consent

· If a man decided to leave her pregnant, she couldn’t register the child at Home Affairs unless a male relative agreed to help her

· If the man decides to chase her away, she couldn’t buy her own land

Does that sound familiar?

Obviously, these laws are no longer in effect; women can freely enjoy these privileges. So why do some want to throw those away? How are these historic laws now used as “norms” against black women?

· Intelligence was never historically attributed to women; that much is obvious. So today, a woman’s financial decisions, especially large ones like buying a house or a car, are often still implicitly or explicitly distrusted, for example, women being asked for a male co-signer for loans despite having independent income, or being considered for cheaper house loans if they have male spouses.

· Science studies were not historically a black woman’s thing to do; laws were enacted to ensure this. Can you draw any example from this? Leave a comment and let me know.

· Black men don’t consider black women’s body autonomy as a freedom black women should have, because the norms of patriarchy condition them to control every aspect of a woman, including how she should use her body.

Honestly, black men’s anger towards women can be justified, because the same system that conditions them to seek control over women is the same that relented women’s rights. Their anger is directed to the wrong people, though. News flash: we won’t stop fighting for our rights and even utilizing them to our advantage. Men can join the club of being beneficiaries of women’s rights if they like, but we aren’t letting up.

The Natives Land Act of 1913:

This Act prohibited black people from owning or renting land outside of designated native reserves (only about 7% of South Africa’s land). It dispossessed millions and destroyed the subsistence farming economy that many women relied on.

The Act is no longer in effect today, but we’re talking about norms; it definitely is a norm and used against black women. How so, you ask?

This law perpetuated the patrilineal land inheritance and the belief that women cannot own family land or the homestead. Even today, in rural areas, when a woman’s husband dies, the land is often passed to a male relative (his brother or son), not to her, leaving her economically destitute and vulnerable to eviction by her in-laws. Again, does this sound familiar?

A young widow can be chased off the land she lived on her entire married life because “the family name must continue with the land.” This practice, now defended as “custom,” was hardened and often enforced by the colonial and apartheid administration’s recognition of male-only land ownership.

The Migrant Labor System and Pass Laws:

While pass laws targeted men initially, they were later extended to control women’s movement to urban areas. The system was designed to force men to work in mines and cities while women and children remained in impoverished rural reserves. They shifted the economic feasibility in rural areas to urban areas and made it so the man couldn't build in both areas, or own land in a place that could be economically feasible for a black person.

The migrant laws have since been repealed, but which norm was born from this?

The man became the sole “breadwinner,” and the woman’s economic role was considered secondary or supplemental. This devalued the woman’s economic contribution, whether she was a subsistence farmer, an informal trader, or a professional.

In relationships, a man who is the primary earner may feel entitled to make all major financial decisions. A woman’s career may be seen as flexible or interruptible for family duties. This creates a power imbalance where her economic autonomy is suppressed because the man’s role as “provider” is culturally inflated—a role originally created for him by the migrant labor system.

Supporting Studies

All these focus on Three Key Aspects:

1. Pre-existing patriarchal elements in some African societies.

2. The disruptive impact of colonial capitalism and laws.

3. The apartheid era’s rigid gender enforcement.

1. The Codification of Customary Law & Legal Minority of Women by Dr. Julia C. Wells

As previously mentioned, this study demonstrates how the legal minority status was the cornerstone of controlling black women’s mobility and economic activity. She argues that this legal framing cultivated a culture of paternalism and dependency that outlasted the law itself, as families internalized the state’s view of women as legally incompetent.

2. Land Dispossession and Women’s Economic Dependence

This is the work of The South African Commission on Restitution of Land Rights and NGOs like the Legal Resources Centre. Extensive research and casework by these bodies show that despite the constitution and progressive laws, women’s land tenure remains insecure due to patriarchal customs that were reinforced by the Land Acts. The system privileged male heads of household, a model that persists culturally long after the law was repealed.

3. The Migrant Labor System & the Patriarchal Belt by Dr . Belinda Bozzoli

In her work “Marxism, Feminism and South African Studies,” she coined the term “the patriarchal belt” to describe how the apartheid state deliberately bolstered rural patriarchy to maintain control. She argues that the migrant labor system created a “double patriarchy” where women were subservient to both the white state and black male authorities in the rural areas, entrenching the economic dependence that is now taken for granted.

I hope you enjoyed reading this and found this informative, I'm a startup I'd really appreciate your support. Consider buying me a coffee.