A recent analysis of the US Census Bureau’s 2023 American Community Survey data found single women own 2,719,923 more homes than single men, with 13.01% of a total of 11.14m owner-occupied properties owned by single women, compared to 9.83%, or 8.42m owned by single men.
These figures are astonishing, especially in the context of the US gender wage gap. In 2024, women earned only 84c for every dollar earned by men, according to an analysis by the Pew Research Center of the median hourly earnings of both full- and part-time workers. This is more significant when one considers that until 1974, women in the US were required to have a male co-signatory to any credit agreement — be it their husband, father or another male relative — before they could finance the purchase of a home, regardless of their individual credit history.
The rank absurdity of this requirement was famously illustrated by Billie Jean King — the world champion tennis player and 11-time Grand Slam singles winner, who earned $100,000 a year (that’s $644,363 or R11.7m at today’s value) — not being allowed to apply for a credit card without the approval of her husband, Larry.
Despite the perpetration of this glaring injustice a decade after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, it took pressure from women’s rights organisations for then-president Gerald Ford to sign the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) into law, in October 1974. The act outlawed financial discrimination by any creditor on the basis of a citizen’s sex or marital status.
In its infancy, the ECOA drew criticism for its imprecise and vague provisions, allowing creditors to shirk proper compliance. It was not until 1976 that the act was adequately amended, at which time its provisions were extended to outlaw discrimination on the basis of race, colour, religion, national origin and age. Since that time, women in the US have embraced their financial autonomy, despite the artificial barriers placed in their path by workplace discrimination and unequal pay. Today 58% of the properties owned by unmarried Americans have single-women owners.
Despite their differing political and cultural contexts, women’s dominance of the South African property market has accelerated in alignment with women in the US. Over the past 10 years, women buyers have outstripped not only their male counterparts, but mixed gender couples as well, with single women accounting for 38% of property ownership in South Africa. By comparison, mixed-gender couples account for 33% of property owners, followed by single men at 29%. Like their US counterparts, unmarried women in South Africa have made this progress while dealing with an ever-present gender pay gap, as well as women being locked out of decision-making positions. A total of 25.3% of top management roles in South Africa are held by women, including the 3% of CEOs leading JSE-listed companies who are women.
But women’s clear gains in property ownership have not translated into similar progress in land ownership patterns. The cacophony of debate about racial land ownership disparities conceals the similar injustices experienced by South African women.
A 2024 report by the Commission for Gender Equality (CGE) found that in the Eastern Cape, women make up 26% of the province’s 11,680 landowners. This seems a low, but respectable number, until one controls for hectarage. A total of 9% of the province’s 4,611,528ha of audited land is owned by women. In the North West, the corresponding percentages are 28% women landowners against 16% of the land mass owned by women. Likewise in Limpopo, 33% of landowners are women, but they occupy 16% of the province’s land.
Like unequal pay or credit discrimination, land ownership laws must not be weaponised to perpetuate women’s continued disenfranchisement. After years of oppression, it is time that women were lifted by the rising tide of transformational policy
Economic inequality is not the only cause of these disparities. The CGE also singled out discriminatory rules, patriarchal norms and “traditional authorities [that] often restrict women from independently accessing land, with conflicts arising between the application of constitutional democracy and customary laws”.
Customary laws of primogeniture effectively deny women the right to hold or inherit land, even forcing them to depart their marital homes in the event of divorce or widowhood. And despite the Constitutional Court’s abolishment of the legitimacy of primogeniture, these laws continue to be selectively applied.
Traditional courts are also headed by a select group of influential male decision makers. Consequently, women are denied both representation on controlling councils and the opportunity to attend their own civil proceedings and give testimony. They must instead nominate a man to represent their wishes. Should a dispute arise between a man and woman of the same household, what chance does a woman have of fair proceedings?
The Traditional Courts Bill — originally devised in 2008 to regularise an informal system for judicial administration in traditionally-headed communities — has been continuously kicked down the road by successive administrations not wanting to upset the status quo. Its current iteration still includes a clause that allows courts to deprive accused people or defendants “of any benefits that accrue in terms of customary law or custom”. Without question, women must be allowed to represent themselves in court, own and inherit land, and be free of any and all discrimination relating to their sex and gender.
Reforming the unconstitutional customs of these courts would empower women socially and economically, allowing them to achieve their full potential in South African society. Like unequal pay or credit discrimination, land ownership laws must not be weaponised to perpetuate women’s continued disenfranchisement. After years of oppression, it is time that women were lifted by the rising tide of transformational policy.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.