“Angry farmers”: but where are the women?

“Farmers’ anger”, “Farmers’ protest”, “Farmers’ blockade”. These press headlines highlight the invisibility of women’s participation and union expression in the agricultural sector in two ways: numerically, by signaling their absence from the media scenes and from the reasons for mobilization, symbolically, by reflecting the discontent of the profession considerations made only by men.

In 2020, women represent 26% of operational executives, a share that remains relatively stable. They are mainly present in livestock breeding and operate mainly in the small ruminant (goats, sheep for milk and meat), equine and poultry sectors, which generally belong to medium and small-sized economic structures.

Studies show that women are faced with social representations that can discredit their agricultural project: stereotypical visions of what “a farmer” is, questions of legitimacy, sexist comments from agricultural professionals, agricultural bodies such as land allocation commissions, banks , technicians, lessors/future transferors, agricultural development associations, etc. More generally, doubts persist about the ability of young people to start their own business and women are subjected to repeated tests of their abilities.

An observation that also contrasts with the feminisation of the three main directorates of the agricultural unions, at the helm of which Christiane Lambert works or has worked (for the FNSEA), Véronique le Floch (for rural coordination) and Laurence Marandola (for the Confédération paysanne ).

How can we shed light on this paradox of a profession that continues to be represented in male terms while women are increasingly present in decision-making areas and in governing bodies of the agricultural world?

Gender roles in mobilization

A first way to respond to this apparent contradiction is to focus on the place that women objectively occupy in the organization of protest events. Despite the monopolization of the word by men since the beginning of the mobilization, peasant women are not absent but the roles assigned to men and women are not the same: the former have commando actions and media power grabs, followed by operations of awareness.

The peasant women therefore invoke a “protest” style complementary to that of the men.

They present themselves as those who “detect” mobilized men, as in the case of the Gers Dému dam on 28 January where, on the initiative of the women farmers of the department, a day dedicated to women and families was organised. They also represent themselves as those who “detect” on farms, providing support behind the scenes, thus embodying the “honorable wives and faithful guardians” of the family community.

Their discourse is based on a moral and humanist way of arguing, rather than a directly political or trade union one. Although it aims at pacification of the excesses of male violence, their participation, since it is rare, has the aim of convincing public opinion of the depth of peasant “discontent”. Product of a relatively traditional conception of gender roles in the profession, this mobilization tactic (holding back/taking control/embodying a reassuring word) is also a source of mobilization strategically encouraged by the dominant organizations of the agricultural government and its more factions conservative.

Look more closely at low-intensity actions

A second response to provide is to look differently at the ways of promoting the agricultural profession. If the media puts the spotlight on repertoires of action with a strong protest dimension, an analysis of agricultural union work that is attentive to gender relations requires us to go beyond these strong moments of mobilization to further consider professional promotion actions called “low intensity”.

By this term we mean all the festive, recreational and recreational events in which the defense of the agricultural cause is built “discreetly”. In fact, with great regularity, farmers, gathered together, carry out actions to promote their targeted profession which is based on opening their professional territory to the public.

Let’s think about open days on farms, welcoming school groups, organizing agriculture-related activities during local agricultural fairs, sporting events or festivals, etc.

It is therefore not surprising that the operation called “on straw”, launched by the Vendée Rural Coordination the day after the announcement of the measures by Prime Minister Gabriel Attal, started with a farmer. Breaking with the usual burning of tires and spreading of sewage, the protesters present expressed their tiredness by singing songs, stripped behind a large banner.

A humorous register that is not new: the farmers had already posed in swimsuits in 2014 for the creation of a calendar whose profits had been donated to breast cancer research.

Agricultural mandates are increasingly attributed to women

Another form of women’s strong political commitment, yet little analysed, is their growing place within professional or trade union organisations.

The number of women farmers occupying positions of responsibility in agricultural organizations is certainly increasing. Thus, since 2012, the assemblies of the Chambers of Agriculture have seen the participation of a third of women. Overall, agricultural organizations seek to ensure that their boards are made up of at least 30% women, in order to achieve so-called “mirror” representation, i.e. descriptive representation.

However, a very strong glass ceiling limits the progression of women in the hierarchy of mandates. The number of women presidents of the departmental chambers of agriculture therefore remains very limited: to date there are three: Drôme, Lozère and Côtes-d’Armor.

It is also a glass wall that contributes to a stereotyped distribution of mandates between, on the one hand, an overrepresentation of women in functions relating to areas considered typically feminine (social, communication, diversification) and, on the other, the their virtual absence in the most prestigious economic and technical mandates. Within cooperatives that use agricultural machinery but above all in large industrial groups which nevertheless influence the strategic and economic orientations of the profession, women are still very little present.

Read also: “Ecofeminism”: when gender and ecology converge

Lack of resources

A set of factors explain this dichotomy. First, because they rarely inherit their businesses through family transmission, they believe they lack the key knowledge of the “environment” (mastery of land issues, technical data, unfamiliarity with the institutional environment of the profession) to assess suitability of a proposal, resolve disputes and be the voice of their counterparts.

Then, when they feel less capable of managing ideological referents, of expressing a union opinion and defending it and of publicly exposing themselves to the judgments of their peers, they feel distanced from the two central managerial and protest components of the agricultural union repertoire and less immediately embody the role of the “perfect” activist endowed with ambition, energy, vision and charisma. Finally, because they are less accustomed to taking on these functions, when they take the plunge they share a demanding definition of commitment that brings with it stress and feelings of discomfort.

Why then are some farmers and peasants exceptions? Because they are equipped with family, cultural and social resources that correspond to the qualities expected of the “good” trade unionist. Either they themselves are daughters of trade unionists and have been socialized since childhood into the role of agricultural managers, or they have had educational and professional experiences prior to agriculture which have allowed them to cultivate oratorical and argumentative ease or even to form negotiation habits with public authorities, such as Danielle Even, who was president of the Chamber of Agriculture of Côtes-d’Armor.

Finally, there remains one last hypothesis that should be verified more closely. Research shows that some organizational contexts favor women’s membership: when the value of mandates decreases or in the event of internal political conflicts.

It is, for example, the financial difficulties and militant exhaustion encountered by the UDSEA, the version of the Confédération paysanne of Finistère, after six years of management of the Chamber of Agriculture, which shed light on the appointment of a woman at the head of the union in 2001.

In these cases, competition for access to positions is less and the militant rise of women is facilitated. Is the current crisis situation that jeopardizes the agricultural profession therefore fertile ground for the involvement of women?

Clementina Comersociologist, IRISSO, Inrae

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Do you like our articles? You’ll love our podcasts. All our series, urgently listen to here.