By Devana Senanayake Based on time-use surveys from 64 countries, an International Labour Organisation (ILO) study (1) noted that women shouldered three-quarters of unpaid care work in the world. The last time-use survey conducted in 2017 in Sri Lanka discovered that 87.3% of women above the age of 10 years shouldered the majority of care work. “Caring labour is a concept first introduced by the feminist economist Nancy Folbre. It is work undertaken to look after the household and the people in it. Those needing care could be children, elderly people, or disabled people. There is also housework which is unpaid work. This work does not contribute to increasing the earnings of the family, at least not directly, because the output of the work cannot be sold in the market but is essential for the functioning of human beings,” said independent researcher Dr. Ramani Gunatilaka. She has conducted a number of studies on female labour force participation in Sri Lanka for several INGOs and NGOs.  While separate from formal employment, unpaid care work should be seen as a form of labour – as work. Unpaid care work is also labelled the ‘second shift’ that women come home to when they have completed their ‘first shift’ at work. Housewife or homemaker are positions a woman holds, either because of duty, pressure from external factors, or choice. The State should pay homemakers, particularly if they are poor or oppressed because of their gender, race, caste, and disability. Moreover, as recommended by the Progressive Women’s Collective (PWC), they should provide institutional support for caring labour.  There have been several studies done on the disproportionate amount of care work women in Sri Lanka have to shoulder. In the Labour Force Survey 2020, the number of ‘economically inactive’ men amounted to 26.5% and women amounted to 73.5%. The report also detailed the reasons for women’s absence from the labour force. They were burdened by housework (60.3%), whereas men were absent because they were busy with education (39.2%). Only 3.7% of men were absent because of housework. In a 2018 study (2) done by Dr. Gunatilaka, the majority of women believed that the distribution of household chores was ‘unfair,’ which was an opinion backed by their husbands. Nevertheless, the research noted that women preferred the role of homemaker over the formal workforce. Why? What are the historical, cultural, and social reasons for their choice? What is the impact of population increase and Covid-19? What needs to be done to support their choice?    Historical factors    Based on academic literature, Dr. Gunatilaka noted that in societies like Sri Lanka that use the plough in farming, men work in the market and women work at home. This demarcation was formed based on upper body strength because it was not easy for women to hold the plough to manoeuvre the buffalos or the oxen. However, in societies that use handheld tools, both men and women are employed in market work.  Henry Heller, in his book, ‘The Birth of Capitalism: A 21st Century Perspective,’ noted that the Industrial Revolution resulted in “the climax of the long transition from feudalism to capitalism. Capital entered the productive process and transformed the means of production.” Many Marxist-Feminists have proposed that it is in this period that women’s position at home and men’s position at work were demarcated.  “It is with industrialisation that the ‘productive’ sphere, which earns income, and the ‘reproductive’ sphere, which produces the labour force for earning income, became very distinct,” ICES Senior Researcher Ranmini Vithanagama said. Women’s work, which included caring labour, fell under the reproductive sphere. Within the capitalist system, reproductive work was never considered or paid for.  “Women [instead] were seen as the caregivers who would take care of the labour force,” Vithanagama said. Within nuclear families, this unequal distribution freed men and boys from any reproductive work and situated them in the capitalist system. Men and boys were able to earn money, and receive access to resources and power, which led to the subordination and exploitation of women.    Absence of institutional support    In the absence of institutional support, women chose the role of homemaker over formal work because this is an investment of time and likely to provide a better return.  “In a relationships-based society rather than a rules-based society such as ours, social capital made up of networks of relatives, friends, and neighbours, enables one to access scarce resources and opportunities…Investing her time in raising children will provide her with a more secure old age which even a government pension on its own cannot provide,” Dr. Gunatilaka said in her 2018 study. “Let’s take a woman who has been educated up to secondary level. What social protection systems can she count on when she is old? She can hope for Samurdhi, a food bundle if there is a disaster, and an elderly stipend, but this will not be enough. So she has to depend on her family and even that becomes complicated because families are having fewer children,” Dr. Gunatilaka explained. “Of the total number of children produced, 50% could be loyal and provide care. Earlier, if a woman had six children, and then at least three helped her out. In the current climate, families only have two children and it’s likely that only one child bears the entire burden.” “Even retired government servants cannot meet all their expenses from their pension because old age is very costly. For example, medicine and pampers are expensive and as they become older, they need more of it. If they do not have property and real estate, they depend on their children, and in the current economic climate they are lucky if they have at least one child abroad that can remit some money for their care,” she said. “With a private sector job, a woman might have a bit of EPF or ETF, but many jobs do not even pay that. Then it may be better to stay at home and to invest in the education of their children so they can provide care as she ages, as there is no other support in old age.”    U-Curve    Women are also likely to choose the role of homemaker over the formal labour force because there is an absence of jobs which fulfil them. Dr. Gunatilaka’s research has focused on the U-Curve. When the economy is underdeveloped (i.e. based on farming), everyone participates because of poverty and a need to earn money. As the economy develops, there is money and a fall in female labour force participation. With better jobs, increased pay, and improved conditions, female labour force participation rises over time. Sri Lanka has not reached this point as of yet.  Women in Sri Lanka currently stay at home, either because their parents support them or because their spouse takes care of them. Workplaces, particularly in the private sector, are rarely supportive of women’s lives and responsibilities. Women are expected to be available at hours beyond the set 9-5 for little pay. They are not provided opportunities for remote labour, flexible hours, safe transport (for example: taxi fees for late hours), or care provisions. They are expected to be loyal and devoted to their company. There are little opportunities for personal development, skill acquisition, or mentorship – the chance to chart a ‘career’. Why should they invest their time in the formal labour force if the jobs do not meet their aspirations, pay properly, or have suitable conditions?  Cheaper and more content at home   Being a homemaker appears to be a popular choice based on the circumstances of most families and women’s personal satisfaction. IPS Senior Researcher Sunimalee Maduruwala conducted a study (3) in 2009 which found that one-third of mothers had considered quitting because they could not balance the jobs and their care duties. All the participants who had quit their jobs, had done so because they could not get their mother’s support in childcare because of employment, illness, or death. They also did not feel comfortable leaving their children with domestic aides.  “There is no formal system for maids in Sri Lanka. As a result, a lot of them are unreliable and problematic. A lot of them are also costly and the cheapest cost around Rs. 30,000-35,000 per month,” said Maduruwala. “Take a teacher. Her monthly salary is around Rs. 50,000 per month. If a maid costs around Rs. 30,000, more than half her income is spent on the maid, so it is cheaper for her to stay at home and be a homemaker.”  Mothers also stay at home because they choose to do so. Ann Panditharatne’s study (4) revealed that full-time homemakers are happier than mothers who choose to balance employment and care duties. This is reflected in Dr. Gunatilaka’s 2018 study – the majority of participants had chosen to be full-time homemakers (56%). This is in comparison to the minute numbers employed in the private sector (8%) and the public sector (12%).  The study stated: “Women became full-time homemakers because they had aimed for that role, had never held roles before, and desired to provide the best possible care for their children.” This confirms that homemakers prioritise their roles, tie their personal worth to it, and use it to self-actualise. While it is important to increase female labour force participation, this choice should also be understood and considered by policymakers.  Increased care load Despite the popularity of the role, homemakers have more labour than the generations before them. Demographers discovered that there has been a recent rise in fertility and the number of old people simultaneously. This has increased the ‘dependency burden’ for carers from both ends of the ‘population pyramid’. Women, as a result, have to look after their children and also the elders in their family.  Dr. Gunatilaka noted that in the mid-1900s, four generations of people existed. Family members in their 50s and 60s looked after the elderly, and family members in their 20s and 30s looked after the babies. “At present, there are three generations and by the time the middle generation has had children, the older generation has health problems. The middle generations have to help both sets of dependents, and this is a crisis. Only people that can hire care have it easy,” she said.  In the context of this increased care load, Covid-19 spread had exacerbated the situation even further. Women’s triple burdens in ‘productive, reproductive, and community roles’ have increased, according to one study (5). In Sri Lanka, the ‘reproductive burdens’ (i.e. house and care tasks) increased the most out of all three roles.  Future  While several homemakers are pushed into their role, there are many that consciously choose to pursue it and also enjoy it. Their choice should not be underestimated or undervalued. Why do they have to see the formal labour force as the only path to emancipation and autonomy? Why do they have to prioritise capitalist demands over the care for their loved ones, particularly if this is a role that provides sufficient satisfaction? Why cannot their choice of labour, be it in a full-time or a part-time capacity, be supported and upheld?   Population dynamics and Covid-19 have had an impact on the quantity of care homemakers have to shoulder at home. Similar to a series of proposals initiated in the 1970s, it is important that homemakers are paid for their time and labour. This is particularly the case if they are poor or face oppressive conditions because of their gender, race, caste, and (dis)ability. Researchers such as Dr. Gunatilaka have calculated the number of hours a homemaker spends on each task. The State should provide recipients a monthly, bimonthly, or quarterly payment based on the number of hours laboured. Homemakers can rely on these payments as part of their total household income. The household dynamic is also equalised or tilted in their favour as they have more authority to make decisions about the income collected.  The PWC has advocated for caring labour – it is the basis for all their proposals, policy, and media appearances. PWC member Dr. Kaushalya Ariyarathne’s recommendation that caring labour is supported by a variety of institutions is important here: “Women have to organise their struggles in terms of adequate provision of social protection for all which includes support for care work. This includes: maternity and paternity benefits, care provisions (for elders, children, and people with special needs), good quality public services (such as health, education, and transport), fair pay, and shorter work hours for people of all genders.”  Areas such as mental load and emotional labour, that transcend the traditional spheres of labour and do not create a product or a by-product, should also be considered. Mental toll is the coordination of a household’s programme and emotional toll is the provision of support for friends and relatives. While caring labour can be quantified and calculated (for example, time-use surveys), these forms of labour cannot be measured. Despite this, they are important components that many homemakers shoulder every day of their lives.  (The author is a journalist and radio producer) References:  

• https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/---publ/documents/publication/wcms_633135.pdf

• https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---asia/---ro-bangkok/---ilo-colombo/documents/publication/wcms_551675.pdf

• https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sunimalee-Madurawala/publication/317278493_Labour_Force_Participation_of_Women_in_Child_Bearing_Ages/links/592fe169aca272fc55e1291b/Labour-Force-Participation-of-Women-in-Child-Bearing-Ages.pdf

• https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004395794/BP000016.xml

• https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/9/5/87