![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dragonlady7via http://ift.tt/1PygE0f:
scientific-women:
biodiverseed:
stunnybee:
biodiverseed:
I often think of that study about stereotypes, wherein children are asked to draw a scientist, and they almost unilaterally draw a bearded white man.
I think if you asked most children to “Draw a Farmer,” you would by-and-large get the same result.
It’s odd, because globally, women are about half of the formal agricultural workforce, and we produce (and cook!) the majority of the world’s food.
I remember my grandmother had a vegetable garden that was about half an acre large. She produced, canned, and prepared the vegetables the family actually ate, whereas my grandfather farmed barley and wheat and took care of the animals. They were both doing intensive agricultural labour, but the difference is he had the chance and to earn money for his work. It’s more than a mere division of labour: it’s a division of capital and freedom that squarely favoured my grandfather. He was “the farmer,” and she was “the farmer’s wife.”
That historical barrier between informal and formal work–and the perceptions of the relative value of both–is a huge part of why women are lagging far behind in factors like property and equipment ownership.
It was a division of labor and frankly every family has that in one form or another. It doesn’t mean women are being put down, it just means that more women tend to devote themselves to caring for the home and family while more men work to provide financial stability to the family. I’m sure your grandfather did not force your grandmother to do what she did.
Maybe he didn’t (I mean, he did, because he’s extremely traditionally religious), but the law sure did.
“British law [in Canada] gave a husband wide authority over his wife’s property and made no provision for division of assets. Although Married Women’s Property Acts were passed in the late 19th century in most common-law provinces, giving women the right to control their own property, the laws made no provision for the equitable division of property held by the spouses in case of marriage breakdown or death. Nor did they improve the economic situation of women and children (see WOMEN IN THE LABOUR FORCE).
Accordingly, the Matrimonial Property Acts passed in most provinces near the end of the 1970s provided for equal division of property on dissolution of marriage. Passage of these acts followed the uproar caused by the MURDOCH CASE, whereby Mrs Murdoch was awarded very little following 25 years of marriage as an Alberta farm wife. This case exemplifies the impression that in the area of family law women have been treated most clearly as dependants.”
- The Canadian Encyclopedia: Women and the Law
The fact that early in her life she couldn’t get a bank loan without her husband’s signature makes me wonder what her life would have been like if she were single, or gay, or even if she wanted a divorce.
I find it awfully convenient that so many women have only ever wanted to do housework/care for the family.
My sister and her husband just bought a farm. In 2015. The local paper covered it. And REFERRED TO HER AS THE FARMER’S WIFE. IN THE ARTICLE. IT WAS THE ONLY MENTION OF HER.
2015. New York State.
To his credit, he was equally horrified. But this was done unironically.
2015. They literally used that phrase. Farmer’s Wife. That’s her job title. Holy shit.
scientific-women:
biodiverseed:
stunnybee:
biodiverseed:
I often think of that study about stereotypes, wherein children are asked to draw a scientist, and they almost unilaterally draw a bearded white man.
I think if you asked most children to “Draw a Farmer,” you would by-and-large get the same result.
It’s odd, because globally, women are about half of the formal agricultural workforce, and we produce (and cook!) the majority of the world’s food.
I remember my grandmother had a vegetable garden that was about half an acre large. She produced, canned, and prepared the vegetables the family actually ate, whereas my grandfather farmed barley and wheat and took care of the animals. They were both doing intensive agricultural labour, but the difference is he had the chance and to earn money for his work. It’s more than a mere division of labour: it’s a division of capital and freedom that squarely favoured my grandfather. He was “the farmer,” and she was “the farmer’s wife.”
That historical barrier between informal and formal work–and the perceptions of the relative value of both–is a huge part of why women are lagging far behind in factors like property and equipment ownership.
It was a division of labor and frankly every family has that in one form or another. It doesn’t mean women are being put down, it just means that more women tend to devote themselves to caring for the home and family while more men work to provide financial stability to the family. I’m sure your grandfather did not force your grandmother to do what she did.
Maybe he didn’t (I mean, he did, because he’s extremely traditionally religious), but the law sure did.
“British law [in Canada] gave a husband wide authority over his wife’s property and made no provision for division of assets. Although Married Women’s Property Acts were passed in the late 19th century in most common-law provinces, giving women the right to control their own property, the laws made no provision for the equitable division of property held by the spouses in case of marriage breakdown or death. Nor did they improve the economic situation of women and children (see WOMEN IN THE LABOUR FORCE).
Accordingly, the Matrimonial Property Acts passed in most provinces near the end of the 1970s provided for equal division of property on dissolution of marriage. Passage of these acts followed the uproar caused by the MURDOCH CASE, whereby Mrs Murdoch was awarded very little following 25 years of marriage as an Alberta farm wife. This case exemplifies the impression that in the area of family law women have been treated most clearly as dependants.”
- The Canadian Encyclopedia: Women and the Law
The fact that early in her life she couldn’t get a bank loan without her husband’s signature makes me wonder what her life would have been like if she were single, or gay, or even if she wanted a divorce.
I find it awfully convenient that so many women have only ever wanted to do housework/care for the family.
My sister and her husband just bought a farm. In 2015. The local paper covered it. And REFERRED TO HER AS THE FARMER’S WIFE. IN THE ARTICLE. IT WAS THE ONLY MENTION OF HER.
2015. New York State.
To his credit, he was equally horrified. But this was done unironically.
2015. They literally used that phrase. Farmer’s Wife. That’s her job title. Holy shit.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2016-01-17 12:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-01-19 06:49 pm (UTC)