Between societal expectations and the realities of shared farm labor. Good morning, everyone. Todays lecture and on invisible farmers. And what were going to do today is take a historical overview to look at women and womens role in u. S. Agriculture. And the title for the lecture today on invisible woman actually comes from a 1983 book, ancient in your mind, but a book thats over 30 years old by carolyn sachs. And sachs book was really groundbreaking in that she was one of the first to examine the contributions of women to u. S. Agriculture and it was this work that helped launch work by sociologists and other social scientists, rural historians and so forth to look at the contribution of women that had largely been invisible up until this time. So this is a nod to their groundbreaking book. So one of the Big Questions weve been asking in this class, and posing since the first day that we meet is why should we study women in agriculture . Why not just study agriculture . Why should we take a gender lens and think about the different roles that men and women play . Why . Thats what weve been asking. Thats one of the Big Questions, right . And so what weve been arguing, what ive been arguing and what other scholars argue is that why we want to study women in agriculture specifically, why we want to take a gender lens and not just talk about agriculture in general is that women have always played a really Critical Role in feeding us, in clothing us, and sustaining rural communities, either farm families, increasingly help fuel our society. And this is everywhere. Not just in the u. S. When we just talked about agriculture, womens critical contribution was largely invisible. When we did see it, and well talk about this in the lecture, when we did acknowledge it, when we did see it, it often wasnt valued the same as mens contribution. Okay . And in some cases, it simply wasnt counted at all, okay . In addition the other component that weve been arguing over why should we study women in agriculture, why should we take a gender lens, is because theres an important gender gap in agriculture. Women dont have the same accesses to resources that men do. They dont have the same access to Productive Resources like land and capital, they dont have the same access to opportunities in leadership and education and so forth. And if we want to respect gender gap, first we have to understand what is the issue, whats the problem . If you dont know about it, you dont know how to solve it, okay . For us to solve it, we specifically have to think about men and women and gender relations. Thats what weve been arguing in this class. So what we want to do today is we are posing two questions, and these are questions were going to be answering throughout the lecture, throughout the semester, so two questions. Why have women and their contributions been visible and why and how is there a gender gap within agriculture. These are the two Big Questions. Today were going to look at three examples to examine these questions. Were going to look at farm identity, were going to look at farm ownership, and were going to look at farm labor. And specifically today were going to take a Historical Perspective on this. So moving forward with the semester, were going to unpack these issues as they are today, but for us to understand how we got to where we are today, we want to look at what is what do these examples look like historically. Thats our goal today. And what im going to be arguing today based on the social science and the historical literature that has looked at women, womens invisibility, the gender gap, what im going to be arguing is that there are many Different Reasons for this but one important reason is this idea of the agrarian ideology. And by ideology, what we mean is a set of beliefs that underpin our politics and economy. So this ideology is a set of beliefs. And the agrarian ideology which im going to unpack in a few minutes but fundamentally whats critically important for you to remember is that this ideology in terms of thinking about the family farm assumes that the family farm is split into two different spheres, the farm and the household. And within these two different spheres, women and men play very different roles. Two spheres with men and women playing two different roles. So as an ideology, because ideologies are not necessarily grounded in truth. One of the things were going to be looking at is how powerful this ideology is and yet when we look at the reality on the ground, it doesnt really reflect what we see in terms of the family farm in the u. S. So to put some boundaries on what were talking about today, our focus is on the family farm and were really going to be looking, were going to be picking out the history of the family farm since the 1860s and really from the time of the homestead act. Those are our boundaries. If were thinking about the family farm, it has some important geographical dimensions. The family farm is most represented in the midwest where we are here in iowa in the great plains. And it largely affected white men and women. So on thursday were going to turn our attention to the experience of africanamerican women which also had an important dimension in the south in terms of slavery and sharecropping agricultural. What were talking about is not a universal experience among every women everywhere, but has some important historical and geographical and structural dimensions to it. So what do we mean when we talk about the agrarian ideology and the family farm . So agrarianism is a very old ideology, thousands of years old. And this ideology is rooted in the belief that farmers have economic and political primacy over other industries. That farming is the most valuable, the most moral of all industry and all economic endeavors. So in the u. S. When we think about agrarianism, its Thomas Jefferson, our third president , who most clearly embodies the idea of agrarian ideology. So Thomas Jefferson spoke about agrarianism, he wrote about it and was perhaps the most influential in shaping this idea. So when jefferson talked about agrarianism, he framed it specifically in relation to family farms. Jefferson as we all know was actually a slave owner. Perhaps theres some irony there. But in terms of developing the republic in the u. S. , jefferson argued in favor of, you know, taking the land that was taken from native americans, that it should be disposed of among people who wanted to work it. So if you wanted to work the land, you should have the right to own your own property. So Thomas Jefferson is in favor of widespread ownership of what are we doing to do about this . Okay. So Thomas Jefferson was in favor of widespread ownership of the land. So whats important when we think about how influential this ideology was is that if we think today when most think about farming, they think about family farming. There have been many different structural forms of agriculture in the u. S. Were going to talk about, again, slavery, sharecropping on thursday as an example. So part of the way we can appreciate how influential agrarian ideology was is that because it influenced our idea, our perception that farming is predominantly family farming where the people who own the land should work the land. So agrarianism was what scholars called a gendered ideology. In thinking about the family farm, jefferson put forth the view that the family farm was two different spheres. So even if we call it family farm, were thinking of this unit. But he had this unit of it being two different spheres. The farm and the household. And within those spheres, women and men would play very different roles. So here his view, which, again, its incredibly influential, his view was that men would be the property owners, men would be the agriculture producers. If you own property that gave you the right to engage in Civic Affairs for the early part of our history, also to vote, and that women, this sphere would be the household. They wouldnt own property and they would be responsible for caring for the house. They wouldnt be engaged in agriculture production. And that their role was really to support the endeavors of the male farmer. Okay . So this was jeffersons argument. So jeffersons his view of dispersion of the land and control of that land by family farmers really you know, when we think about our history here in the u. S. , really its the homestead that we think of as being the fruition of this agrarian view of land settlement. I know we all learn about the homestead act which was enacted in 1862. This gave anyone who wanted to work the land including women the ability to own 160 acres, they were given that land for free, so long as they worked it. They stayed on it for five years and so forth they were entitled to it. This was a really important act mostly in the midwest and the great plains. If we look at farm numbers, what we see is this act together with other things, development of the railroads, markets, and development of institutions like universities and so forth. What we saw after that was the explosion in the number of farms. In 1860 we had less than 2 million farms in the u. S. By 1935 when it peaked, we had almost 7 million. 6. 8 million. That was the peak of the number of farms. So this was an incredibly important act together with a whole number of other endeavors that led to the family farm. But, again, the family farm was viewed as having these distinct spheres with these distinct roles for men and women. So, what scholars argue is that when we think of the agrarian ideology, and, again, were going to illustrate this through examples today, is this ideology has been extremely influential. If we look at our social institutions, if we look at policies, laws, education and so forth, we see it reflected in those. If we look at attitudes and values and believes with an individual or familial or community or societal, we see this ideology permeating through our attitudes and beliefs. Again, this idea, okay, that within the family farm, the family farm has primacy. We value it normally. But within that, we have clearly different roles for men and women who operate within different spheres. So were going to look at three different examples to illustrate the agrarian ideology and our goal today is to bring it back to those questions we pose. What we want to try and think about is what effect has this agrarian ideology has on, one, womens invisibility within agricultural, and, two, the gender gap. So if we think about why does it matter that the farm is separated from the household. How does that influence womensr gap . Thats what were going to be thinking about. First were going to look at agrarian identities, and were going to look at a short clip of a commercial of so god made a farmer. Maybe i should ask how many of you have not seen this commercial . Okay . Okay. A small hand full have not seen this commercial. So this was a commercial that ran during the 2013 super bowl. It was advertising does anyone even remember what it was advertising . Dodge trucks. What kind of trucks . Dodge. Dodge . Dodge ram. Dodge ram trucks. At the end of the commercial, youll see a truck. I think you see other trucks as well. So it ran during the super bowl, and it was an incredibly emotional and impactful commercial. People loved it. Since that time theres been over 23,000 views of this commercial. Articles have been read about it. People slovloved this commercia. Were going to watch it. I want you to think about the images in the commercial, but i also want you to think about the language thats being used. So what youre hearing is actually a speech by paul harvey who was a conservative radio broadcaster, and the speech is from 1978. So we can see that its a few decades old and is being used. And as we watch it and as we listen, what i want you to think and you can jot down some notes because youre going to come back and share it with the rest of the class. One of the reasons i like to show this video is i think its a really nice example of the agrarian ideology. And so think about how is the farmer represented . How is the identity of the farmer represented . What kinds of traits are associated with the farmer . How are men and women represented in this commercial . Okay . And on the eighth day god looked down on his planned paradise and said i need a caretaker, so good made a farmer. God said i need somebody willing to get up before dawn, and then go to down and stay past meeting with a meeting at the school board so god made a farmer. God said i need somebody willing to stay up all night with a newborn colt and watch it die and dry his eyes and say maybe next year. I need somebody who can shape an ax handle and make harness out of hey wire, planting time and harvest season will finish his week and put in another 72 hours, so good made a farmer. God said i need somebody Strong Enough to clear trees and gentle enough to wean pigs and tend who will stop his mower for an hour to splint a leg, so god made it farmer. He had to plow deep and straight, seed, weed, weed, plow, plant, tie the fleece and strain the family. Someone who would build a family with soft strong bonds of sharing. Who would laugh and then sigh and then reply with smiling eyes, when his son says that he wants to spend his life doing what dad does. So god made a farmer. I cut it off. Sorry, george. So take a minute. Chat with your neighbor or not, but think about how the agrarian ideology is captured in this film and think about how farmers are represented. How they found the identity of the farmer, and how its represented. Dont worry about writing down too much. Its more just jot notes to think about. Who wants to volunteer and tell us what you saw or what you heard . In terms of how the farmer and farming is represented . What are some immediate things . I mean, the audio is directed extremely toward men since all it does is reference the farmer and the male, but the images come back and it shows females doing odds and ends work. Its extremely bipolar to whats being presented. The text and the images focus largely on men. Very nice. I felt like at the beginning it started with nongender language. It needed to be someone who. I think toward the end we got into the more man ideal, but i think it did still shine a light on women, especially since this was from back in 1978. Not nearly as much as it could have, but i dont think they were ignored either. Women werent entirely excluded from an in effect the language at the beginning was all and collusive and thinking about it historically. I think even the language is very not gender bias until it says and when the young boy looked at his dad and said i want to do what dad does. Thats when you get the fact that its a male. But its just that image in our mind and the masculine voice, and that voice is very deep. It kind of gives you the idea that the farmer is a male. Because the images they show a variety of different people from older men and women who are hardworking and you could tell they spend their days in the field to the next generation of the former standing in front of the fields. I think its kind of the voice that says something. Thats a nice point. All the ways we pick things up. How different might we have interpreted this image . If it had been a womans voiceover and its paul harvey, a man, but perhaps that automatically makes us think that what were talking about is men. Nice. The gender bias, even with the one part, i feel like every dad, everywhere wants his son to grow up to be just like him. I think a stockbrokers dad probably wants his kid to be like well, i want my kid to think im pretty cool. I dont catch a lot of gender bias, but its hard to take something made in 1978 where it was very male dominated traditionally and turn it into something where we are now, but i think it was paul harvey that they wanted to use just because of the tradition of what he was. He was so well known for his ad marketing and what not. Influential. Part of it is because were looking at this historically. Theyre taking a historical speech and putting it onto contemporary images. Did anyone have another take on how thinking about the different spheres, were talking about family farming. So last year what we saw was the farm. Right . What sort of images of the household did we see in terms of the family farm with a house as integral . Right . Integral to family farming. Also the video showed some of women and men in the house together. They bring food to the guys in the field and go back and work on the house. They bring the family together through the house. Yeah. But its the male, the head of the household and the language is bringing them together. I think what shes saying, per that language, it says as part of the farmers job is to mend the family together. So its almost talking about the same person. So if you already think there is gender bias between that and then you kind of see them as the head of the household, versus the Woman Holding everything together. Yeah. Okay. Very cool. So one of the things when we think about family farming, the household is integral. Well talk about that as we move through the lecture. The household is less visible in this image. The focus is on the productive aspect. If you look at women, were talking about family farming. Family farming. Women, i think there are three images of women out of the 18. Someone counted them up once. Okay . There are some women. But theres not many of them. So men are dominant in the images. And again, as one you of commented, the image we see is the boy will take over the farm, and, of course, most of us as was mentioned, you know, often want our children to take over what weve done, but we can also interrogate that which is what were going to do. So if we think about the agrarian ideology, and this clip the intent of it was to really help illustrate how both historically, because you guys pointed out that the speech is historical. 1978. Both historically but even today, the power of the agrarian ideology. Where we see these spheres differently, and we see the roles of men and women on family farms as quite distinct. And we can think about that in terms of the identity of the farmer. So when we talk about farmers, when we talk about family farming, the farmer is typically identified as male. Okay . So we have these strong images of men often working independently. You know, working outside. Working with crops and livestock and machinery. These are the primary images that we get of the family farm. That the farmer is a male. And when we think about the traits that are associated with the farmer, they are masculine traits. Things we associate with men often being very strong, being independent. Being tough. Being persistent. You could see the men in the images. They were creative with the different challenges. They were resilient in overcoming the challenges that nature and others presented to them and so forth. And part of this helps us, again, come back to that idea of agrarianism