1.2.1 Gender relations in rural studies
The cultural turn in research also affected rural studies, creating interest in the role of communities in the production and maintenance of gender relations (Little and Panelli, 2003). Bock and de Haan (2004), in particular, note the close ties between rural gender studies and their sociopolitical implications. Gender relations, in this sense, are useful in revealing the cultural (as opposed to biological) sources of socially appropriate masculinity and femininity (Shortall, 2002). Brandth (1995) noted in her study on masculinity and tractor advertisements that, even in the face of constant gender reorganization, male dominance remains firmly in place; and Silvasti (2003) writes that peasant communities maintain cultural scripts of patriarchy even as they adapt to meet the demands of modernization. Similarly, Saugeres (2002, p. 644) describes gender relations on farms and in rural communities as much more than a ‘state of mind’, but rather as ideologies reproduced through everyday activities – most of which remain patriarchal in nature. Little (2007, p. 853) links this to the ‘policing’ of sexual behaviours and the marginalization of non-heterosexual sexual practices within closely knit rural communities striving to ensure continuity in the values and morals they wish to reproduce. Five years after her study of NBK-nitt, Brandth (2002) attributed the male/female duality’s persistence in society to its roots in structures and institutions that allowed it to be taken for granted as the norm and woven into discourses of all types. These discourses shape ideals of rural women, so that they are pictured as wives and mothers with no option of choosing the route of the single, child-free business professional (Little and Austin, 1996). Northern Ireland is no exception to this phenomenon, and, as a 2004 report on gender equality indicators testified, is actually more conservative in views regarding marriage than the rest of the UK (Breitenbach and Galligan, 2004). Interestingly, Little and Austin (1996) propose that many rural women actually deeply value the very characteristics of rural life that limit their choices regarding occupation and domestic duties, viewing them as simply fulfilling expectations as sustainers of rural communities.
Many rural areas may hold to a code of morality which places women’s self-care and self-interest at the end of a long line of ‘strictly proscribed’ (and, at times, conflicting) duties of nurturance and care required by their family farm, family and/or community (Heather et al., 2005). Women’s acceptance in the community is determined by how well these differing gender identities and duties are carried out (Saugeres, 2002). This dynamic is made more complex by the fact that women’s internalization of these expectations leads them to feel responsible not only for their own family, but for other members of the community as well (Little and Austin, 1996). In Northern Ireland, this dynamic has been reinforced by ‘the Troubles’ as women adapted to care for families during times when husbands and brothers were imprisoned (Women’s Resource and Development Agency, 2008). Rural women may not recognize this as a form of subordination, but instead often label these expectations as simply an aspect of what it means to be part of a family rather than as gender roles (Heather et al., 2005).
The subordinated position of women in rural areas can be attributed to a multitude of factors, ranging from long-standing ideologies regarding gender identities, relations and roles, to the decline in the economic stability of rural areas. Women in these communities operate in multiple gender identities, relations and roles, in spite of the obvious difficulty and personal cost involved in doing so. Although the rural community has come far from its days of being solely associated with farming (Bock and de Haan, 2004), the unique circumstances of rural women living and working on farms make it necessary at this point to examine more specific literature regarding their experiences.
1.2.2 Farm women
With the current economic upheaval in rural areas of many Western countries, numerous changes are taking place (Little and Panelli, 2003). Rural development policies have played an important role in these changes by serving to make farmers a minority in many rural areas (Saugeres, 2002). As farm wives move into off-farm work in increasing numbers, in order to support their husband’s role as farmer, the effect on gender identities, roles and relations is evident (Shortall, 2002), but as the literature reveals, systems of subordination remain dominant and are compounded by the prevalence of ‘masculinist approaches’ to rural development policies (Bock and de Haan, 2004). Nevertheless, rural and farm women are far from powerless, as has been shown particularly in their successes as agents of rural development – in spite of opposition (Bock, 2004).
As with broader women’s studies literature, the study of women and farming reveals the presence of a debate around women, society and nature (biology), which has led to claims that the association of rural women with nature has perpetuated male domination by reducing women to simply another feature of the landscape in need of male control (Little and Panelli, 2003). In fact, Brandth (2002), in a review of literature on gender identity in European family farming, noted that the research she reviewed clearly displayed the presence of a hegemonic discourse. The source of this discourse has been explored in varying ways, leading Delphy (1984) to write that farm women’s relations rather than their actual work lie at the root of their exploitation as workers. Morris and Evans (2001) discuss ways in which hegemonic discourse is perpetuated by farm media. Shortall (1999) identifies the ownership of property as the fundamental issue. Silvasti (2003) notes the key role parents play in shaping children’s attitudes towards the traditional rural way of life. Additionally, Heather et al. (2005) identify women as one key source of their own subordination, as they exercise agency in reproducing the very systems that oppress them – a concept supported by Bock’s (2004b) assertion that farm women who took on entrepreneurial ventures would only continue to pursue those ventures if certain they would not interfere with their family and farm commitments.
Recent publications show that the majority of women on farms are still expected to be supportive of their husbands’ occupation in any way necessary – even at the expense of their health – while at the same time being portrayed as in need of a man’s protection (Bock, 2006). Kelly and Shortall (2002) describe how women contribute to this discourse through positioning their off-farm work as a ‘family household decision’ (p. 336), and viewing it as a means of ensuring their husbands’ mental health. Likewise, O’Hara (1994) purports that women’s work on farms is shaped through a series of negotiations that they make as to their priorities in relationship with the farm. Farmar-Bowers (2010) conceptualizes these negotiations as resulting from a sense of both personal responsibility to the family and the obligation to instil responsibility to the family in the next generation. Heather et al. (2005) attribute this dynamic to the deep integration of hegemonic discourses into the relationships between farm men and women.
Studies in at least six Western countries have shown that the unequal division of labour between men and women on farms is grounded in socially accepted definitions of masculinity and femininity (Bock, 2006). Morris and Evans (2001) claim that representations of masculinity and femininity that they studied in agricultural media echo this by showing a maintained gender division of labour even when women were central to, or equal partners in, business activities. This persistence in gender divisions of labour on farms has been influenced by the view of women’s bodies and work as ‘secondary’ and inferior to men’s (Saugeres, 2002), since it is done in the privacy of the home and is not as physical as men’s work (Brandth, 2002). Women’s work is thus made trivial unless it is done in direct support of men and their households (Little and Austin, 1996).
In