How widow's eulogy debunked notions that undermine women's status
What you need to know:
- Widow’s eulogy debunked some notions that undermine women’s status and rights in families and societies.
- Funerary practices do not have to undermine women’s status and rights.
Trending on social media earlier in the week was the reported statement by Dr Barbara Odudu, the widow of Prof George Magoha, that she had cooked all his meals during the 40 years of their marriage.
Some commentators noted that cooking for a husband is an automatic role for a wife, hence not news.
Others observed that it was practically impossible to have prepared all his meals given that they were busy career people who obviously travelled and had to stay apart during such periods.
The statement was categorical, however, that even when she was away, Dr Odudu ensured that her own cooked food was available for the husband.
Also read: Former Education CS George Magoha dies at 71
Perhaps she meant to demonstrate the dedication and pride with which she performed her traditional gender roles. Radicals would probably consider this a confession that the professor was a traditionalist who did not share in domestic work, as modern men should.
The fact, however, is that sharing domestic work should not be a mechanical 50-50 process. The point about it is that women are often over-burdened and exploited, resulting in opportunity costs related to health, education, career development and participation in public affairs.
Dr Odudu also stated that she did not wail when ushering her husband’s casket into their Nairobi home because that was discordant with her new role as the head of the household.
Dealing with sorrow
This remark stood out for two things. First, it debunked the notion of women as emotion-laden people who can only deal with sorrow, disappointment, heartbreak and other difficulties through tears, which is traditionally considered a sign of weakness not consonant with masculinity.
In strict Luo tradition, Dr Odudu should have also travelled upcountry to tero ywak (announce the death) before returning to Nairobi for funeral arrangements.
By not following the traditional script, although she apologised for it, Dr Odudu inadvertently reminded us that women can control their emotions and that mourning can be diversified and carried out in non-stereotyped ways, particularly in inter-cultural marriages.
Second, assuming household headship also goes against the gender norm in many African communities, including the Luo of her husband.
Traditionally, the household headship transfers to their son, Dr Michael Magoha. The statement indicates that Prof Magoha was the head of the household during his life and that this passed on to the wife automatically once he died.
In Luo tradition, household headship belongs to men and is defined by specific functions. These include construction work, establishing a home, conducting activities to generate food and wealth for the family, maintaining discipline, providing security and making important decisions, such as over property.
In this regard, therefore, a widow should be inherited by a brother-in-law, immediate or phratral, to fill the functional void left by the deceased.
Announcing that she now becomes the household head sends a message that Dr Odudu is not a candidate for inheritance, a practice whose functional value has been overtaken by modernisation and negated by epidemiological factors, as well as human rights principles.
For progressivists, Dr Odudu’s act invites us to challenge what it means to be the head of a household. Is it inherent in one’s sex or should it be defined by executive exertion? Are the functions not actually also carried out by women in real life? Can the role be shared or must it be monopolised?
The other memorable thing was the departure of Dr Odudu’s attire from the normative black, a colonial imposition on Africans. Her dressing defied the norm on what a widow should wear.
Among the Luo, a widow is traditionally required to wear the husband’s jamba, a khaki overcoat, until all funeral rites are completed before she can resume normal life. There are many other things she must do or refrain from during this period, some out of sync with modern life.
Social media commentators also recognised that Magoha’s funeral did not yield the usual drama of concubines seeking to be included in funeral arrangements and division of property whenever a prominent Kenyan man dies.
They rightly observed that this depicted Prof. Magoha as a man who was upright in his personal life as he was in the public domain. Emulating him would help men to restore their tattered reputation and eradicate the embarrassment widows face.
In short, funerary practices do not have to undermine women’s status and rights. This often occurs with regard to domestic hierarchy, division of ancestral property, domicile and decision-making powers.
The fact that Dr Odudu still played the traditional role of making meals for her husband, yet shattered other norms in mourning him, demonstrates the subtle contradictions in societies undergoing cultural transition and the plausibility of harmony between tradition and modernity regarding gender norms.
Dr Miruka is an international gender and development consultant and scholar ([email protected])