This article was downloaded by: [University of Guelph] On: 17 November 2014, At: 08:43 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Agromedicine Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wagr20

Gendered Agricultural Space and Safety: Towards Embodied, Situated Knowledge a

Elias Andersson MSc & Peter Lundqvist PhD

b

a

Department of Forest Resource Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå, Sweden b

Department of Work Science, Business Economics & Environmental Psychology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Alnarp, Sweden Published online: 24 Jun 2014.

To cite this article: Elias Andersson MSc & Peter Lundqvist PhD (2014) Gendered Agricultural Space and Safety: Towards Embodied, Situated Knowledge, Journal of Agromedicine, 19:3, 303-315, DOI: 10.1080/1059924X.2014.916644 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1059924X.2014.916644

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Agromedicine, 19:303–315, 2014 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1059-924X print/1545-0813 online DOI: 10.1080/1059924X.2014.916644

REVIEW

Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 08:43 17 November 2014

Gendered Agricultural Space and Safety: Towards Embodied, Situated Knowledge Elias Andersson, MSc Peter Lundqvist, PhD

ABSTRACT. The changing conditions, technologies, and labor markets have shifted the gender division of labor on the farm. Women have taken on off-farm labor, but also increased their involvement in agriculture. The work and occupational risks of women have received less attention and are to great extent invisible. The spatial division between on-farm, off-farm, and domestic work is one contributing factor to the situation. The different situations and contexts of agriculture increase the need for knowledge regarding the processes and positions of farming. Through analyzing the literature on the topic, this study examined the gendered understanding of occupational health and safety in Western agriculture and how the embodied positions on the farm can affect women’s exposure to risks and their knowledge about injury prevention. The findings are being discussed and framed in a dialogue with a gender theoretical framework, with the aim to produce a more comprehensive understanding of health and safety in agriculture through improving and refining methods. The review stresses the need of further gender research and the incorporation of qualitative methods, to increase the knowledge and understanding of the gendered relations, bodies, and situated knowledge of agricultural spaces. KEYWORDS. Farming, gender, health, injury, occupational

INTRODUCTION In recent decades, farming has been restructured through growing commercialization, industrialization, capitalization, and emerging neoliberal policies.1,2 The process of

agricultural industrialization has brought an increased level of mechanization within farm production, driving a reshaping of the physical space, the social organization of labor, and the risk factors in agriculture.3,4 However, these structural changes are partly context dependent

Elias Andersson is affiliated with the Department of Forest Resource Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå, Sweden. Peter Lundqvist is affiliated with the Department of Work Science, Business Economics & Environmental Psychology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Alnarp, Sweden. Address correspondence to: Peter Lundqvist, PhD, Department of Work Science, Business Economics & Environmental Psychology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P.O. Box 88, SE-230 53 Alnarp, Sweden (E-mail: [email protected]). 303

Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 08:43 17 November 2014

304

GENDERED AGRICULTURAL SPACE AND SAFETY

and have varied in pace and extent. Average farm size is increasing in the European Union (EU) and North America, but the number of farms is still rather high, especially in the Nordic countries.5 Within Europe, farmers are struggling for independence and survival in a context of deprivation and dependency, often driven by further industrialization and deactivation.6(p151f) These processes have contributed to a strong downward pressure on local and regional food production.6,7 The changing conditions, together with a growing service sector, have shifted the gender division of labor on the farm. Women have primarily taken off-farm work and decreased their involvement in agriculture,8−12 but the reverse has also occurred, with increased engagement of women in farming, i.e., shouldering the responsibilities for farm work to minimize the dependence on hired labor while men take on more highly paid work, e.g., contract or driving work.13−15 However, despite these changes, research shows that there has been no significant renegotiation of the sexual division of labor in the household8,16–18 or on the farm.19 The farm work and domestic work done by women are still largely invisible,20−24 which is one of the main reasons for the lack of research on women’s work-related risks, health and injuries on the farm,25 and their absence from official statistics.26 The spatial division between on-farm, offfarm, and domestic work is one contributing factor rendering the work and occupational risks of women less visible. The spatial division and duality of farm production, with the farm and the household sharing the same space, also constitute a major challenge in understanding the transcending risks and in developing preventative measures, especially in the case of women. The analytic ambition of this article is to emphasize the need of transcending the dual dichotomies of paid/unpaid labor and public/private to adapt a more expansive and inclusive definition of work.27,28 To treat all labor undertaken, irrespective by whom, where, and how, as work enables a more adequate analysis of the situated positions of men and women in the spatial and temporal organization of farming.

Understanding the spatial body politics of agriculture is important for the design of appropriate tools, machinery, and prevention programs and for spatial and sexual organization.29,30 The increased levels of mechanization in agriculture have altered the space of farm production and of farm life. The introduction of new technologies has shifted the social and gender relations of work and the coding of specific tasks, e.g., milking.17,31,32 The changes in farm size, whether increasing or decreasing,33,34 have reshaped the spatial, temporal, and social conditions and relations in farming. The changing conditions and situations of agriculture in different contexts increase the need for knowledge regarding the processes and positions of farming. Studies on gender aspects of risk exposure and injury prevention in agriculture are relevant from three political perspectives: (1) democratic, i.e., equal rights and opportunities for men and women; (2) economic, i.e., reducing the incidence and associated cost of injuries; and (3) productivity, using diversity as a basis for innovation. However, the main purpose of gender analysis is to produce a more comprehensive understanding of health and safety in agriculture through improving and refining methods. This study examined the gendered understanding of occupational health and safety in Western agriculture and how the embodied positions on the farm can affect women’s exposure to risks and their knowledge about injury prevention. This was done by critically synthesizing and analyzing the literature on gender and occupational health and safety in agriculture. In order to contribute to existing knowledge of various positions, risks, and injuries of men and women in agriculture, the findings were discussed and framed in a dialogue with a gender theoretical framework based on the notion that the organization of our everyday world, and our perception of it, is gendered, situated, and embodied.35–38 The subject is constructed and experienced through our bodies and vice versa, providing insight to the articulation of agrarian social and material relations and the organization of agricultural spaces.37,39 Standing, embodied, in a material and local world, the subject constitute the standpoint

Andersson and Lundqvist

Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 08:43 17 November 2014

for knowledge production.37(p83) However, the body is not a passive and neutral entity,40 but something that is shaped and structured by conflicts and power in various processes of “body politics.”29 Thus, the study elaborated on situated knowledge of the general health and safety risks on the farm through examining the interrelationships between the material and the social,41 in a process that can support the development of more comprehensive, relevant, and targeted prevention and education programs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS The study drew upon research from the past two decades, published in peer-reviewed journals between January 1993 and April 2013. The primary focus was the context of Europe and Western countries, including the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. In the initial phase, more than 60 articles were identified through a search in Web of Knowledge and PubMed, based on a combination of the following keywords: agricultur∗ , risk∗ , gender, occupational, women, injur∗ , farm∗ . Some other keywords were also tested, but eliminated because they generated too wide or nonrelevant a sample in relation to the general criterion. A large number of articles were excluded in the search procedure because they did not meet the contextual criteria. In the second phase, additional articles were identified through citations in the articles identified in the first search. The review article by McCoy et al. was found to constitute a good secondary source of previous work on the occupational safety of women in agriculture.25 The material and results were thematically analyzed and are presented below based on the theoretical framework of the study, organized within three themes: sexual division of labor; embodied experiences; and situated knowledge. In the empirical material, the use and definition of the concepts “gender” and “sex” are inconsistent and the distinctions are not specified in most cases. In the present study, “sex” is mainly used to cover physical/biological aspects, whereas “gender” primarily refers to social aspects. However, due to the theoretical difficulties in

305

drawing a clear line between their uses in the supporting material, both of these concepts are generally used quite similarly. “Work” is another ambiguous concept, as explained further in the Results and Discussion.

RESULTS Working in agriculture is considered one of the most hazardous occupations, with high numbers of nonfatal and fatal injuries.42−46 The farm is a workplace filled with potential risks of injuries and damage to general health. However, the farm is often more than just a workplace and can include children, older people, and visitors. The family farm is still the dominant production unit within agriculture, a situation that emphasizes the complexity of the agricultural space and the issue of farm safety. Greater participation by women in agricultural production over recent decades14,47,48 has also led to an increased rate of farm-related occupational injuries among women.49 There is thus a need for research on gender and agricultural farm safety.25 In such research, it is vital to bear in mind that women in agriculture do not constitute a homogeneous group50,51 and that various groups of women are occupy different positions: the self-employed farmer, family member, or hired labor, permanent or temporary, citizen or migrant worker, etc. The distinction between sex and gender differences and affects is difficult to unravel, given the multiple interactions between genes and environmental, material, and social factors.52 However, there are distinct sexual differences, e.g., the fact the women and not men bear children is not a social choice, whereas the organization of rearing a child is structured by heterosexuality and male dominance, a social choice.35,53 This highlights the fact that embodiment of farm work is both gendered and sexual.36

Sexual Division of Labor In the past, the agricultural work of women has received limited attention and to great extent has been invisible in research and ignored in policies.21,22,25 Work has mainly

Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 08:43 17 November 2014

306

GENDERED AGRICULTURAL SPACE AND SAFETY

been synonymous with the work men do,54 that which is considered productive,55 or that taking place outside the family and the domestic sphere.56 As a result of this sexual division of labor, the gendered experiences and risks of farm labor by women have been left unexplored. Thus, only a limited number of studies have examined the work-related injuries of women in agriculture to date, despite the increased emphasis placed on work-related issues in recent decades.21,25,57,58 The transformation of agriculture and rural employment opportunities has partly altered the gendered understanding of agricultural work and the male and female body in the rural context.13,17 As regards sexual differences in division of labor, females are more exposed to certain hazards, and therefore at higher risk of specific injuries and illnesses, than males in agriculture.59 The injuries and risk exposure of women are dependent on their position or role on the farm.25 An unequal division of labor and responsibilities embodies the positions and experiences of men and women in agriculture.60−63 Farming is a stressful occupation64−67 and the multiple responsibilities and large workload of women on the farm increase the stress level and create difficulties in balancing on-farm, off-farm, and domestic work.62,68–72 On the farm, there is a correlation between number of gender-specific injuries and the gender division of farm work.73−77 The proportion of fatal and nonfatal injuries for men and women reflect the spatial division on the farm,25 with men’s and women’s bodies defined as situated in separate spaces. Livestock have been identified as a major agent of injury for women,13,47,58,78 whereas machinery constitutes a major agent for men.58 Work on dairy farms is reported to involve the highest risk for women, with feeding and milking being the tasks causing most injuries.76,77,79−85 Based on their work in animal houses, dust-related respiratory diseases are also a major concern for women.86 The sexual division of labor arises from the flexibility of women’s labor, which results in women being expected to do “little bit of everything” on the farm and care for the family.60 This results in women having limited experience and

knowledge of the specific tasks and the safety precautions, increasing the risk during work76,87 and contributes to women’s labor and bodies becoming less visible.25 In general, women have less control over their work and their work situation88,89 and more often work part time.90 The temporal and spatial organization of farm work is not only gendered, but also racialized.91 Migrant workers are employed to a high degree in prolonged, repetitive manual work in highrisk industries and jobs.92 The work carried out by migrant farm workers is reported to be associated with a higher incidence of acute pesticide toxicity, injuries, and fatalities than the work of farmers.89,93 The work done by migrant workers on farms is also structured through gendered division of labor, which affects the situation, safety, and health of male and female migrant workers differently depending on context.89,94

Embodied Experience The sexual division of labor and the social perception of agriculture as a heterosexual male preserve excludes men and women from different positions on the farm.95,96 Farm knowledge and skills are embodied, i.e., are contracted and experienced through the body, in the process of socialization into farming and agricultural education.30,96–99 The traditional family ideal, formed by an interrelationship between marital and blood ties, shapes the gendered expectations and understanding of work and farming.100,101 The agricultural organization, the farm, is embodied through gendered and sexual practices. For example, these limiting positions and societal expectations exclude the male body of single farmers102,103 and the female body of daughters.30 However, the position of women in agriculture is shaped by the temporal and spatial context. Younger women have experiences and understandings of farm work that differs from those of older women.30 Women who have the sole or main responsibility for operating a farm also view their position differently depending on age.104 Women have anatomical and physiological differences that shape their experiences and risks during farm work. On average, females are shorter and have different body proportions

Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 08:43 17 November 2014

Andersson and Lundqvist

than men, with wider hips and shorter arms and legs.25 Women’s work capacity is lower on average as regards body strength,105,106 in both the lower back and upper extremities and aerobic capacity.107 With the mechanization of agricultural production, the importance of body strength has decreased, but the design of equipment and tools still favors the male body. This mismatch poses additional risks for women in agriculture.21,105,108 Technology has acted to increase the work capacity of the individual body, but the relationship between skills and technology has been shown to be a strongly gendered process.32,109,110 One consequence of the sexual division of labor is that the embodiment of men’s and women’s farm work takes place in different spaces and under different social and material conditions. This division has caused the materialized experience of farm work, its risks, problems, and consequences, to differ between men and women.78,111−113 Differences in exposure to the various spaces of the farm mean, e.g., that lower back disorders,114−116 symptoms in the wrists and hands,83 and injuries caused by livestock13,47,78,117 are more common among women than men. This spatial relationship between gender and injuries shapes the reported gender differences in embodiment of work and injury experience.47 Social understanding and perception of gender are interrelated with social determinants of health in both the domestic and occupational spheres.118 Pesticide use and exposure shape the embodied experience of agricultural work for both men and women. Men, especially older men, are reported to have higher pesticide exposure,119 whereas the effects of exposure among women working in agricultural environments are more pervasive, with negative consequences for themselves and their children and a host of negative reproductive outcomes.113,120–124 Hired farm workers, especially females, are reported to have a higher incidence of acute pesticide illness and injury than farmer-owners.93 However, pesticide exposure goes beyond the occupational sphere and is brought home through clothes and dust, thereby affecting the whole family.125−129 Wives of pesticide users have been reported to have more than twice the average risk of

307

leukemia and three times the average risk of myeloid leukemia.130 Women’s embodied experience and knowledge of pesticides lead to them being more concerned about exposure131,132 and taking more precautions at home.113 Another consequence of the sexual division of labor is that illness in women has greater effects on the family and care provision than illness in men,133 a situation of responsibilities that is embodied in the behavior, risk taking, and understanding of safety in women.72 The threat of harm and other types of violence, both to oneself and to family members, is embodied in women’s bodies.72,78 The multiple responsibilities of women in farming contribute to the gender difference in stress, which is reported to differ between different farm types.71,134 High stress levels are an acknowledged agent of injuries135−137 and mental problems in agriculture.138−140 Swedish female dairy workers report inadequate control, influence, and social support, poorer mental health, and higher stress levels than male workers.90 The restructuring of agriculture, with growing farm size76,80,117,141 and higher debt-to-asset ratio,142 has increased the economic stresses and risks of farming.143 The effects of stress go beyond the occupational sphere and affect all aspects of life.66 The pressure of balancing on-farm, off-farm, and domestic work situates the position of women on farms and contributes to high rates of depression among women.68,72,144,145 In addition, full-time work by women on the farm and in the household has been found to be associated with a higher risk of stress and injuries than when combined with off-farm labor.137 This might be result of women having greater responsibility for farm operations while their husband takes on off-farm employment, or their work on the farm increasing their burden.25 Studies on stress in farming report gender differences in coping strategies.146 Women seek support and help to a higher extent, whereas men often consume alcohol to deal with their stress. The interrelationships between the sexual division of labor, the spatial division, the multiple responsibilities, the technologies, and societal expectations shape the embodied experience and position of women and their perception of risk and safety in agriculture. The reported

308

GENDERED AGRICULTURAL SPACE AND SAFETY

gender differences in risk perceptions, safety consciousness, and coping strategies underline the situated position of farm safety and the embodiment of agricultural space.

been identified as an agent of change for family health on the farm.46,166 The engagement in safety prevention through the female body, without challenging the understanding of the male body and sexual division of labor, could be seen as a part of agricultural body politics.

Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 08:43 17 November 2014

Situated Knowledge The outcome of fatal and nonfatal injuries are shaped by the gendered notions of what constitutes risk,21,111−113 resulting in men having higher levels of dangerous risk taking and lower safety consciousness.87 Risk taking and masking discomfort, pain, and injuries could be seen as practicing body politics and reproducing the model of the male body as strong and superior.57,97,147 In an aging male body, masking and risk behavior become a greater challenge that increases the risk of fatal and nonfatal injuries149−151 and extends the recovery period.152 Among women, the tendency to report pain and illness and to seek health care is higher.93,153–156 The perception of safety technology and participation in prevention programmes are also gendered57 and dependent on how women define their position on the farm.21,157 Due to women not being included in networks and not being acknowledged as subjects in agriculture, their access to information and safety equipment is reduced.158−160 Men act as gatekeepers of access to information and knowledge,161 and language constitutes an additional barrier for migrant women.89 A consequence of the sexual division of labor is that women gain less embodied safety knowledge though agricultural work.87 Owing to this lack of knowledge, younger women are less likely to use personal protective equipment,159,162 whereas older men in general are reported to have a low use of protection. The access to information and the embodied knowledge of men, especially younger men, contributes to better use of equipment providing protection from dust, noise, pesticides, and tractor-related risks.162 A greater risk perception of pesticides and the use of personal protection are reported to be most strongly associated with chemical training.124,163–165 In targeted prevention programs, women’s multiple responsibilities and care have

CONCLUSIONS General research on occupational health and safety in agriculture has taken some important steps in recent decades and gender has become a more acknowledged issue.25 However, farm work is conducted in a large number of different contexts and few studies are available, so there are many weaknesses and knowledge gaps in the field. Gender analysis studies are also unequally distributed between different regions and contexts, mainly because the gender perspective is not yet an integral part of research and few researchers address the issue. Current knowledge is primarily based on quantitative studies, whereas the number of qualitative studies is low. The choices of research design and methods used have shaped the understanding and perception of gender in the field of farm safety. The quantitative studies primarily use multivariate analysis, in which sex constitute one variant among many. In many cases, the gender analysis in previous studies involves simply “controlling” for gender in the analysis.167 The main disadvantage with this type of variable-orientated, reductionist approach is that it primarily evaluates the relationship between individual factors. This gives the research a more descriptive nature and makes it difficult to generalize the results and to explore the contextual conditions. The power of gender analysis may be lost or undetected in the inclusion of a great number of possible variants. In later gender research, the impact of exposure has partly challenged some of the previous understandings of gender differences in safety, injury rates, and risk on the farm.47,93,151,168,169 In this analytical approach, gender is often conceptualized as a risk factor itself, in the same way as high numbers of working hours or machines. As Härenstam emphasizes, the focus on individual factors reinforces

Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 08:43 17 November 2014

Andersson and Lundqvist

an individualistic perspective and makes it difficult to acknowledge the organizational aspects of the occupational health.170 In many studies, gender constitutes a variable, together with others, in multivariate analysis, but without any further gender-based analysis or results. Gender should not be seen as an addition to on-going processes conceived as genderneutral, but as an integral part of those processes.36 Much research to date has been based on the empirical material contained in databases or surveys. The need for gender analysis is mainly seen through the binary category of men and women and is therefore ignored in maledominated populations171 or not analyzed separately.78,156 Qualitative methods constitute a vital complement to quantitative methods in the process of understanding the embodied experience of farm safety. Qualitative methods provide richer descriptions of situated injury events and embodied positions and perceptions of risk on the farm. However, research has established that there are some agents, such as animals,13,47,78,117 some spaces, such as animal houses,58,78 and some tasks, such as milking,76,77,79−83,85 that are associated with injuries to women to a larger extent than others. Research has also shown that some types of physical problems and injuries, particularly related to the back/spine114−116,172 and hands/wrists,83−85,105 are more common among women within agriculture. In general, the gender-integrated studies available to date are insufficient to reveal sex differences in occupational health and safety.52 In agricultural research, the use of different populations, methods of data collection, and definitions of gender, work, and injuries, and the fact that work is often carried out in different contexts, makes it difficult to combine a state of knowledge. The undefined use of concepts of gender, work, injuries, etc., also results in difficulties in comparing and generalizing the results. Women work fewer hours than men on the farm, which decreases their exposure to risks in a traditional understanding.168,169 Not taking exposure into account may result in important safety issues for women and their bodies going unexplored. However, the multiple responsibilities and tasks of women on farms also go beyond

309

the occupational sphere, resulting in a more transcending, complex situation and understanding of farm safety. To understand the gendered relations and effects on farm safety, it is important to take into account all individuals exposed, both directly and indirectly, to the work environment.173 Including farm wives/spouses in research is one possible step,174–176 as is exploring the relationship between family and hired labor and promoting alternative approaches and methods in farm safety research.177

DISCUSSION The complex and contextual gender relations of farm safety and differences between existing studies create difficulties in comparing and generalizing findings on the issue. This literature review does not provide a complete account of the body of research, but rather an insight into the status and future of gender research into farm safety. In the review, we examined the relationship between the gendered organization of farm work and the reported gender difference in farm safety, and its interrelationship with men’s and women’s embodied experiences of agriculture. In previous research, the close interlinkage between the degradation processes,178 the reorganization of the labor market, and the feminization of work in agriculture has been emphasized.13 Despite the need to acknowledge gender, there are other explanatory factors such as race, class, age, sexuality, etc., to consider in research on occupational health and safety in agriculture. It is often difficult to draw a line between the domestic and occupational spheres on the farm, especially as regards health and safety. The occupational research approach offers a limited and problematic basis for understanding the gendered space and organization of farming. This calls for a more holistic and comprehensive approach to examine the occupational risks and space of farm work on both men and women. For a more complete understating of the gendered positions of farm safety, this approach needs to be facilitated by a wider triangulation of

Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 08:43 17 November 2014

310

GENDERED AGRICULTURAL SPACE AND SAFETY

research methods, including both qualitative and quantitative knowledge in the research process. This review focused primarily focus on farm families and permanent labor in Western countries, so the complex relations of temporary migrant labor and the interrelation between gender and race were partly omitted. However, with the increased reliance on migrant and seasonal labor in agriculture,179–181 more attention must be paid to their situated positions and conditions in order to obtain a more extensive understanding of the social and spatial organization of farming.89 In a time of strong downward pressure on local producers and increasing participation by women, it is important to devise and apply a more comprehensive, contextual research approach based on interdisciplinary methods, in order to achieve a more situated understanding of agricultural health and safety and its embodied subject positions. Interdisciplinary methods offer great possibilities to further improve our understanding of the relationships between material and social, transcend binary categories, and overcome the borders of social and natural sciences.38,41 In rural sociology, the body has received limited attention98 and remains largely unexplored in agricultural work and the rural context.30,55,95,103,161,182 The body is something more than an inert, passive object, it is “an agential reality with its own causal role in making meaning.”183(p327) The shaping of different bodies through the intersecting forces of inequalities in the temporal and spatial organization of farming needs to be acknowledged and explored further in order to better understand the various positions and experiences of agricultural space. The favoring of the male body in agriculture, imposing its “universal authority, for every-body”40 could be seen as way of practicing body politics97 and therefore calls for more extensive studies to develop knowledge of safety consciousness and improved technological design. Understanding power relations as embodied and identifying the excluding processes and practices of agricultural space and its situated positions are vital in the development of political actions, such as targeted prevention programs and policies, to create more equal access to knowledge and the agricultural space.

REFERENCES 1. Alston M. Who is down on the farm? Social aspects of Australian agriculture in the 21st century. Agric Hum Values. 2004;21:37–46. 2. Bock BB. Introduction: rural gender studies in north and south. In: Bock BB, Shortall S, eds. Rural Gender Relations: Issues and Case Studies. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing; 2006:1–15. 3. Pinzke S, Lundqvist P. Occupational accidents in Swedish agriculture. Agric Eng Res. 2007;13:159–165. 4. Douphrate DI, Hagevoort GR, Nonnenmann MW, et al. The dairy industry: a brief description of production practices, trends, and farm characteristics around the world. J Agromedicine. 2013;18:187–197. 5. Djurfeldt G, Gooch P. Farm crisis, mobility and structural change in swedish agriculture, 1992–2000. Acta Sociol. 2002;45:75–88. 6. Ploeg JD van der. The New Peasantries: Struggles for Autonomy and Sustainability in an Era of Empire and Globalization. London: Earthscan; 2008. 7. Ploeg JD van der, Renting H, Brunori G, et al. Rural development: from practices and policies towards theory. Sociol Rural. 2000;40:391–408. 8. Kelly R, Shortall S. ‘Farmers’ wives’: women who are off-farm breadwinners and the implications for on-farm gender relations. J Sociol. 2002;38:327–343. 9. Deseran FA, Simpkins NR. Women’s off-farm work and gender stratification. J Rural Stud. 1991;7: 91–97. 10. Godwin D, Draughn P, Little L, Marlowe J. Wives’ off-farm employment, farm family economic status, and family relationships. J Marriage Family. 1991;53:389–402. 11. Weiss CR. Do they come back again? The symmetry and reversibility of off-farm employment. Eur Rev Agric Econ. 1997;24:65–84. 12. Almås R, Haugen MS. Norwegian gender roles in transition: the masculinization hypothesis in the past and in the future. J Rural Stud. 1991;7:79–83. 13. Stueland DT, Lee BC, Nordstrom DL, Layde PM, Wittman LM, Gunderson PD. Case-control study of agricultural injuries to women in central Wisconsin. Women Health. 1997;25:91–103. 14. Swedish Ministry of Rural Affairs. Det går långsamt fram: jämställdheten inom jord-och skogsbrukssektorn [Moving Forward Slowly: Gender Equality in Agricultural and Forestry Sector]. Stockholm: Jordbruksdepartementet, Regeringskansliet; 2004. 15. Pfeffer MJ. The feminization of production on part-time farms in the Federal Republic of Germany. Rural Sociol. 1989;54:60–73. 16. Blekesaune A. Family Farming in Norway: An Analysis of Structural Changes Within Farm Households Between 1975 and 1990. Trondheim: Department of Sociology and Political Science; 1996.

Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 08:43 17 November 2014

Andersson and Lundqvist

17. Brandth B. Gender identity in European family farming: a literature review. Sociol Rural. 2002; 42:181–200. 18. Blekesaune A, Haney WG, Haugen MS. On the Question of the feminization of production on parttime farms: evidence from Norway. Rural Sociol. 1993; 58:111–129. 19. Jennings G, Stehlik D. Agricultural women in central Queensland and the changing modes of production. Rural Soc. 2000;10:63–78. 20. Sachs CE. The Invisible Farmers: Women in Agricultural Production. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld; 1983. 21. Reed DB, Westneat SC, Browning SR, Skarke L. The hidden work of the farm homemaker. J Agric Saf Health. 1999;5:317–327. 22. Riley M. Bringing the ‘invisible farmer’ into sharper focus: gender relations and agricultural practices in the Peak District (UK). Gender Place Culture. 2009;16:665–682. 23. Walter G, Wilson S. Silent partners: women in farm magazine success stories, 1934–19911. Rural Sociol. 1996;61:227–248. 24. Shortall S. Women, farming and access to land. Irish J Sociol. 1997;7:111–118. 25. McCoy CA, Carruth AK, Reed DB. Women in agriculture: risks for occupational injury within the context of gendered role. J Agric Saf Health. 2002;8:37–50. 26. Javefors Grauers E. Kvinnor och män som jordbrukare: lantbruksbaserat företagande och olika stödformer för utveckling av landsbygden i ett genusperspektiv med exempel från Östergötland [Women and Men as Farmers: Agricultural-Based Entrepreneurship and Various Forms of Support for Rural Development From a Gender Perspective With Examples From Östergötland]. Stockholm: Verket för näringslivsutveckling (NUTEK); 2003. 27. Glucksmann M. ‘What a difference a day makes’: a theoretical and historical exploration of temporality and gender. Sociology. 1998;32:239–258. 28. McKie L, Gregory S, Bowlby S. Shadow times: the temporal and spatial frameworks and experiences of caring and working. Sociology. 2002;36:897–924. 29. Witz A, Halford S, Savage M. Organized bodies: gender, sexuality and embodiment in contemporary organisations. In: Adkins L, Merchant V, eds. Sexualizing the Social: Power and the Organization of Sexuality. London: Macmillan; 1996. 30. Bryant L. The “text-book farmers”: young women constructing occupations in farming. In: Lockie S, Pritchard B, eds. Consuming Foods, Sustaining Environments. Brisbane: Australian Academic Press; 2001:205–217. 31. Almås R, Gjerdåker B. Norwegian Agricultural History. Trondheim: Tapir Academic; 2004. 32. Sommestad L. Från mejerska till mejerist: en studie av mejeriyrkets maskuliniseringsprocess [From

311

Dairymaids to Dairymen: A Study of the Masculinisation Process of Dairy Profession]. Lund: Arkiv; 1992. 33. Morkeberg H. Working conditions of women married to self-employed farmers. Sociol Rural. 1978;18:95–106. 34. Djurfeldt G. More one-man farms and part-time employment—production forms in Swedish agriculture. Sociol Forsk. 1990;27:2–21. 35. Hartsock NCM. The feminist standpoint: developing the ground for a specifically feminist historical materialism. In: Harding S, Hintikka MB, eds. Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives on Epistemology, Metaphysics, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic; 2003:283–310. 36. Acker J. Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: a theory of gendered organizations. Gender Soc. 1990;4:139–158. 37. Smith DE. The Everyday World as Problematic: A Feminist Sociology. Boston: Northeastern University Press; 1987. 38. Haraway D. A manifesto for cyborgs: science, technology, and socialist feminism in the 1980s. Aust Feminist Stud. 1987;2:1–42. 39. Scott JW. Experience. In: Butler J, Scott JW, eds. Feminists Theorize the Political. New York: Routledge; 1992:22–40. 40. Cockburn C. In the Way of Women: Men’s Resistance to Sex Equality in Organizations. Basingstoke: Macmillan; 1991. 41. Haraway DJ. Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York: Routledge; 1991. 42. Thelin A. Fatal accidents in Swedish farming and forestry, 1988–1997. Saf Sci. 2002;40:501–517. 43. Pickett W, Hartling L, Brison RJ, Guernsey JR, Canadian Agricultural Injury Surveillance Program. Fatal work-related farm injuries in Canada, 1991–1995. CMAJ. 1999;160:1843–1848. 44. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries charts, 1992–2011. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0010.pdf. Published 2012. Accessed July 17, 2013. 45. European Commission. The Magnitude and Spectrum of Farm Injuries in the European Union Countries. Luxembourg: DG Health and Consumer Protection; 2004. 46. Donham KJ, Thelin A. Agricultural Medicine: Occupational and Environmental Health for the Health Professions. Ames, IA: Blackwell Publishing; 2006. 47. Dimich-Ward H, Guernsey JR, Pickett W, Rennie D, Hartling L, Brison RJ. Gender differences in the occurrence of farm related injuries. Occup Environ Med. 2004;61:52–56. 48. Lundqvist P, Stål M, Pinzke S. Ergonomics of cow milking in Sweden. J Agromedicine. 1997;4:169–176. 49. Hendricks KJ, Layne LA, Goldcamp EM, Myers JR. Injuries to youth living on U.S. farms in 2001 with comparison to 1998. J Agromedicine. 2005;10: 19–26.

Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 08:43 17 November 2014

312

GENDERED AGRICULTURAL SPACE AND SAFETY

50. Gasson R, Errington A. The Farm Family Business. Wallingford: CAB International; 1993. 51. Oldrup H. Women working off the farm: reconstructing gender identity in Danish agriculture. Sociol Rural. 1999;39:343–358. 52. Messing K, Mager Stellman J. Sex, gender and women’s occupational health: the importance of considering mechanism. Environ Res. 2006;101: 149–162. 53. Chodorow N. The Reproduction of Mothering: Psychoanalysis and the Sociology of Gender. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 1978. 54. Hill F. Farm women: challenge to scholarship. Rural Sociol. 1981;1:370–382. 55. Saugeres L. “She’s not really a woman, she’s half a man”: gendered discourses of embodiment in a French farming community. Women Stud Int Forum. 2002;25:641–650. 56. Delphy C, Leonard D. Familiar Exploitation: A New Analysis of Marriage in Contemporary Western Societies. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press; 1992. 57. Lovelock K. The injured and diseased farmer: occupational health, embodiment and technologies of harm and care. Sociol Health Ill. 2012;34:576–590. 58. Kallioniemi MK, Kymäläinen H-R. Women on Finnish dairy farms: hard work in the midst of traditions and changes. Rural Soc. 2012;22:78–89. 59. Nordstrom DL, Layde PM, Olson KA, Stueland D, Follen MA, Brand L. Fall-related occupational injuries on farms. Am J Ind Med. 1996;29:509–515. 60. Delworth U, Veach SD, Gorohe L. Clinical issues with farm women. In: Keller PA, Heyman SR, eds. Innovations in Clinical Practice: A Source Book. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange; 1988: 423–432. 61. Danes S, McTavish D. Role involvement of farm women. J Fam Econ Issues. 1997;18:69–89. 62. Gallagher E, Delworth U. The third shift: juggling employment, family, and the farm. J Rural Community Psychol. 1993;12:21–36. 63. Hemard JB, Monroe PA, Atkinson ES, Blalock LB. Rural women’s satisfaction and stress as family health care gatekeepers. Women Health. 1999;28:55–77. 64. Whitener L. Families and family life in rural areas. J Rural Health. 1995;11:217–223. 65. Shubert Walker L, Wlaker JL. Stressors and symptoms predictive of distress in farmers. Rural Fam Stab Change. 1987;36:374–378. 66. Bojar I, Humeniuk E, Owoc A, Wierzba W, Wojtyla A. Exposing women to workplace stress factors as a risk factor for developing arterial hypertension. Ann Agric Environ Med. 2011;18:175–182. 67. Wallis A, Dollard MF. Local and global factors in work stress: the Australian dairy farming examplar. Scand J Work Environ Health Suppl. 2008;6:66–74. 68. Keating NC. Reducing stress of farm men and women. Fam Relat. 1987;36:358–363.

69. Berkowitz AD, Perkins WH. Stress among farm women: work and family as interacting systems. J Marriage Fam. 1984;46:161–166. 70. Teather EK. The double bind: being female and being rural: a comparative study of Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Rural Soc. 1998;8:209–221. 71. Deary IJ, Willock J, McGregor M. Stress in farming. Stress Med. 1997;13:131–136. 72. Carruth A, Logan C. Depressive symptoms in farm women: effects of health status and farming lifestyle characteristics, behaviors, and beliefs. J Community Health. 2002;27:213–228. 73. Lee BC, Jenkins LS, Westaby JD. Factors influencing exposure of children to major hazards on family farms. J Rural Health. 1997;13:206–215. 74. Hawk C, Donham KJ, Gay J. Pediatric exposure to agricultrual machinery. J Agromedicine. 1994;1:57–74. 75. Marlenga B, Pickett W, Berg RL. Agricultural work activities reported for children and youth on 498 North American farms. J Agric Saf Health. 2001;7:241–252. 76. Nordstrom DL, Layde PM, Olson KA, Stueland D, Brand L, Follen MA. Incidence of farm-work–related acute injury in a defined population. Am J Ind Med. 1995;28:551–564. 77. Virtanen SV, Notkola V, Luukkonen R, Eskola E, Kurppa K. Work injuries among Finnish farmers: a National Register linkage study 1996–1997. Am J Ind Med. 2003;43:314–325. 78. Bolwerk CA. The culture of farm work and it’s implications on health, social relationships and leisure in farm women and men in the United States. J Cult Divers. 2002;9:102–107. 79. Hwang S-A, Gomez MI, Stark AD, St. John TL, May JJ, Hallman EM. Severe farm injuries among New York farmers. Am J Ind Med. 2001;40:32–41. 80. Zhou C, Roseman JM. Agricultural injuries among a population-based sample of farm operators in Alabama. Am J Ind Med. 1994;25:385–402. 81. Douphrate DI, Fethke NB, Nonnenmann MW, Rosecrance JC, Reynolds SJ. Full shift arm inclinometry among dairy parlor workers: a feasibility study in a challenging work environment. Appl Ergon. 2012;43:604–613. 82. Jakob M, Liebers F, Behrendt S. The effects of working height and manipulated weights on subjective strain, body posture and muscular activity of milking parlor operatives—laboratory study. Appl Ergon. 2012;43:753–761. 83. Stal M, Moritz U, Gustafsson B, Johnsson B. Milking is a high-risk job for young females. Scand J Rehab Med. 1996;28:95–104. 84. Stål M, Hansson G-Å, Moritz U. Upper extremity muscular load during machine milking. Int J Ind Ergon. 2000;26:9–17. 85. Pinzke S, Stål M, Hansson G. Physical workload on upper extremities in various operations during machine milking. Ann Agric Environ Med. 2001;8:63–70.

Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 08:43 17 November 2014

Andersson and Lundqvist

86. Molocznik A, Zagorski J. Exposure of female farmers to dust on family farms. Ann Agric Environ Med. 2000;7:43–50. 87. Westaby JD, Lee BC. Antecedents of injury among youth in agricultural settings: a longitudinal examination of safety consciousness, dangerous risk taking, and safety knowledge. J Saf Res. 2003;34:227–240. 88. Thelin AG. Working environment conditions in rural areas according to psychosocial indices. Ann Agric Environ Med. 1998;5:139–145. 89. Habib RR, Fathallah FA. Migrant women farm workers in the occupational health literature. Work. 2012;41:4356–4362. 90. Kolstrup C, Lundqvist P, Pinzke S. Psychosocial work environment among employed Swedish dairy and pig farmworkers. J Agromedicine. 2008;13:23–36. 91. Preibisch K, Binford L. Interrogating racialized global labour supply: an exploration of the racial/national replaceme of foreign agricultural workers in Canada. Can Rev Sociol. 2007;44:5–36. 92. McCauley LA. Immigrant workers in the United States: recent trends, vulnerable populations, and challenges for occupational health. AAOHN J. 2005;53:313–319. 93. Kasner EJ, Keralis JM, Mehler L, et al. Gender differences in acute pesticide-related illnesses and injuries among farmworkers in the United States, 1998–2007. Am J Ind Med. 2012;55:571–583. 94. Edmunds K, Berman H, Basok T, Ford-Gilboe M, Forchuk C. The health of women temporary agricultural workers in Canada: a critical review of the literature. CJNR. 2011;43:68–91. 95. Little J. ‘Riding the rural love train’: heterosexuality and the rural community. Sociol Rural. 2003;43:401–417. 96. Bryant L. Marking the occupational body: young women and men seeking careers in agriculture. Rural Soc. 2006;16:62–79. 97. Silvasti T. Bending borders of gendered labour division on farms: the case of Finland. Sociol Rural. 2003;43:154–166. 98. Brandth B. Embodying family farm work. In: Bock BB, Shortall S, eds. Rural Gender Relations: Issues and Case Studies. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing; 2006. 99. Feldman S, Welsh R. Feminist knowledge claims, local knowledge, and gender divisions of agricultural labor: constructing a successor science. Rural Sociol. 1995;60:23–43. 100. Shortall S. Women and Farming: Property and Power. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan; 1999. 101. Whatmore S. Farming Women: Gender, Work and Family Enterprise. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan; 1991. 102. Nordström Källström H. Mellan trivsel och ensamhet: om sociala villkor i lantbruket [Between

313

Comfort and Solitude—The Social Conditions at Swedish Farms]. Uppsala: Department of Urban and Rural Development, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences; 2008. 103. Little J, Leyshon M. Embodied rural geographies: developing research agendas. Prog Hum Geogr. 2003;27:257–272. 104. Haugen MS. The gendering of farming: the case of Norway. Eur J Women Stud. 1998;5:133–153. 105. Stål M, Hansson G-Å, Moritz U. Wrist positions and movements as possible risk factors during machine milking. Appl Ergon. 1999;30:527–533. 106. Ahonen E, Venäläinen JM, Könönen U, KlenK T. The physical strain of dairy farming. Ergonomics. 1990;33:1549–1555. 107. Astrand I. Aerobic work capacity in men and women with special reference to age. Acta Physiol Scand Suppl. 1960;49:1–92. 108. Industrial Accident Prevention Association. Personal protective equipment for women: addressing the need. Available at: http://www.iapa.ca/pdf/2006_ppe_ women.pdf. Published 2006. Accessed July 20, 2013. 109. Pini B. Farm women: driving tractors and negotiating gender. Int J Sociol Agric Food. 2005;13:1–12. 110. Brandth B. Rural masculinity in transition: gender images in tractor advertisements. J Rural Stud. 1995;11:123–133. 111. Elliot-Schmidt R, Strong J. The concept of wellbeing in a rural setting: understanding health and illness. Aust J Rural Health. 1997;5:59–63. 112. Stoecklin-Marois M, Hennessy-Burt T, Mitchell D, Schenker M. Heat-related illness knowledge and practices among California hired farm workers in the MICASA Study. Ind Health. 2013;51:47–55. 113. Strong LL, Thompson B, Koepsell TD, Meischke H. Factors associated with pesticide safety practices in farmworkers. Am J Ind Med. 2008;51:69–81. 114. Meyers JR. Injuries Among Farm Workers in the United States 1995. Cincinnati, OH: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; 2001. 115. Fathallah FA, Miller BJ, Miles JA. Low back disorders in agriculture and the role of stooped work: scope, potential interventions, and research needs. J Agric Saf Health. 2008;14:221–245. 116. Kolstrup C. Work-related musculoskeletal discomfort of dairy farmers and employed workers. J Occup Med Toxicol. 2012;7:23. 117. Pickett W, Brison RJ, Niezgoda H, Chipman ML. Nonfatal farm injuries in Ontario: a population-based survey. Accid Anal Prev. 1995;27:425–433. 118. Sen G, Östlin P, George A. Unequal, Unfair, Ineffective and Inefficient—Gender Inequity in Health: Why it Exists and How We Can Change It. Stockholm: WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health; 2007.

Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 08:43 17 November 2014

314

GENDERED AGRICULTURAL SPACE AND SAFETY

119. Eng A, ‘T Mannetje A, Cheng S, et al. The New Zealand Workforce Survey I: self-reported occupational exposures. Ann Occup Hyg. 2010;54:144–153. 120. Coronado GD, Vigoren EM, Thompson B, Griffith WC, Faustman EM. Organophosphate pesticide exposure and work in pome fruit: evidence for the take-home pesticide pathway. Environ Health Perspect. 2006;114:999–1006. 121. Garry VF, Harkins M, Lyubimov A, Erickson L, Long L. Reproductive outcomes in the women of the Red River Valley of the North. I. The spouses of pesticide applicators: pregnancy loss, age at menarche, and exposures to pesticides. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2002;65:769–786. 122. Nickerson K. Environmental contaminants in breast milk. J Midwifery Women Health. 2006;51:26–34. 123. Pastore LM, Hertz-Picciotto I, Beaumont JJ. Risk of stillbirth from occupational and residential exposures. Occup Environ Med. 1997;54:511–518. 124. Goldman L, Eskenazi B, Bradman A, Jewell NP. Risk behaviors for pesticide exposure among pregnant women living in farmworker households in Salinas, California. Am J Ind Med. 2004;45:491–499. 125. Simcox NJ, Fenske RA, Wolz SA, Lee IC, Kalman DA. Pesticides in household dust and soil: exposure pathways for children of agricultural families. Environ Health Perspect. 1995;103:1126–1134. 126. McCauley LA, Lasarev MR, Higgins G, et al. Work characteristics and pesticide exposures among migrant agricultural families: a community-based research approach. Environ Health Perspect. 2001;109:533–538. 127. Lu C, Fenske RA, Simcox NJ, Kalman D. Pesticide exposure of children in an agricultural community: evidence of household proximity to farmland and take home exposure pathways. Environ Res. 2000;84:290–302. 128. Curl CL, Fenske RA, Kissel JC, et al. Evaluation of take-home organophosphorus pesticide exposure among agricultural workers and their children. Environ Health Perspect. 2002;110:A787–A792. 129. Thompson B, Coronado GD, Grossman JE, et al. Pesticide take-home pathway among children of agricultural workers: study design, methods, and baseline findings. J Occup Environ Med. 2003;45:42–53. 130. Sperati A, Rapiti E, Settimi L, Quercia A, Terenzoni B, Forastiere F. Mortality among male licensed pesticide users and their wives. Am J Ind Med. 1999;36:142–146. 131. Castorina R, Bradman A, McKone TE, Barr DB, Harnly ME, Eskenazi B. Cumulative organophosphate pesticide exposure and risk assessment among pregnant women living in an agricultural community: a case study from the CHAMACOS cohort. Environ Health Perspect. 2003;111:1640–1648. 132. Alavanja MC, Akland G, Baird D, et al. Cancer and noncancer risk to women in agriculture and pest control: the Agricultural Health Study. J Occup Med. 1994;36:1247–1250.

133. Angelov N. Kvinnors och mäns sjukfrånvaro. Uppsala: Institutet för arbetsmarknadspolitisk utvärdering (IFAU); 2011. 134. Kolstrup C, Stål M, Pinzke S, Lundqvist P. Ache, pain, and discomfort. J Agromedicine. 2006;11:45–55. 135. Thu K, Lasley P, Whitten P, et al. Stress as a risk factor for agricultural injuries. J Agromedicine. 1997;4:181–191. 136. Kidd P, Scharf T, Veazie M. Linking stress and injury in the farming environment: a secondary analysis of qualitative data. Health Educ Behav. 1996;23:224–237. 137. Simpson K, Sebastian R, Arbuckle TE, Bancej C, Pickett W. Stress on the farm and its association with injury. J Agric Saf Health. 2004;10:141–153. 138. Elenza C. Survival strategies for rural mental health centers. J Rural Community Psychol. 1988;9:77–84. 139. Constantine MG. Stress in rural farm women: implications for the use of diverse mental health interventions. J Psychother Independ Pract. 2001;2:15–22. 140. Lunner Kolstrup C, Kallioniemi M, Lundqvist P, Kymäläinen H-R, Stallones L, Brumby S. International perspectives on psychosocial working conditions, mental health, and stress of dairy farm operators. J Agromedicine. 2013;18:244–255. 141. Simkin S, Hawton K, Fagg J, Malmberg A. Stress in farmers: a survey of farmers in England and Wales. Occup Environ Med. 1998;55:729–734. 142. Geller JM, Ludtke RL, Stratton T. Nonfatal farm injuries in North Dakota: a sociological analysis. J Rural Health. 1990;6:185–196. 143. Melberg K. Farming, stress and psychological well–being: the case of Norwegian farm spouses. Sociol Rural. 2003;43:56–76. 144. Scarth RD, Stallones L, Zwerling C, Burmeister LF. The prevalence of depressive symptoms and risk factors among Iowa and Colorado farmers. Am J Ind Med. 2000;37:382–389. 145. Stallones L, Leff M, Garrett C, Criswell L, Gillan T. Depressive symptoms among Colorado farmers. J Agric Saf Health. 1995;1:37–43. 146. Gunn KM, Kettler LJ, Skaczkowski GL, Turnbull DA. Farmers’ stress and coping in a time of drought. Rural Remote Health. 2012;12:1–16. 147. Treaster DE, Burr D. Gender differences in prevalence of upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders. Ergonomics. 2004;47:495–526. 148. Hartsock NCM. Money, Sex, and Power: Toward a Feminist Historical Materialism. Boston: Northeastern University Press; 1985. 149. Browning SR, Truszczynska H, Reed D, McKnight RH. Agricultural injuries among older Kentucky farmers: the Farm Family Health and Hazard Surveillance Study. Am J Ind Med. 1998;33:341–353. 150. Nilsson K, Pinzke S, Lundqvist P. Occupational injuries to senior farmers in Sweden. J Agric Saf Health. 2010;16:19–29.

Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 08:43 17 November 2014

Andersson and Lundqvist

151. Rautiainen RH, Ledolter J, Donham KJ, Ohsfeldt RL, Zwerling C. Risk factors for serious injury in Finnish agriculture. Am J Ind Med. 2009;52:419–428. 152. Hartman E, Frankena K, Oude Vrielink HHE, Nielen M, Metz JHM, Huirne RBM. Risk factors associated with sick leave due to work-related injuries in Dutch farmers: an exploratory case-control study. Saf Sci. 2004;42:807–823. 153. Soldin O, Mattison D. Sex differences in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2009;48:143–157. 154. Keogh E. Sex differences in pain. In: Moore RJ, ed. Biobehavioral Approaches to Pain. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2009:125–148. 155. Moore RJ. Biobehavioral Approaches to Pain. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2009. 156. Brumby SA, Willder SJ, Martin J. The sustainable farm families project: changing attitudes to health. Rural Remote Health. 2009;9:1012. 157. Hassanein N. Networking knowledge in the sustainable agriculture movement: some implications of the gender dimension. Soc Nat Resour. 1997;10:251–257. 158. Schulman MD, Evensen CT, Runyan CW, Cohen LR, Dunn KA. Farm work is dangerous for teens: agricultural hazards and injuries among North Carolina teens. J Rural Health. 1997;13:295–305. 159. Reed DB, Browning SR, Westneat SC, Kidd PS. Personal protective equipment use and safety behaviors among farm adolescents: gender differences and predictors of work practices. J Rural Health. 2006;22:314–320. 160. Leckie GJ. ‘They never trusted me to drive’: farm girls and the gender relations of agricultural information transfer. Gender Place Culture. 1996;3:309–326. 161. Bryant L. Gendered Bodies, gendered knowledges: information technology in everyday farming. Soc Sci Comput Rev. 2003;21:464–474. 162. Schenker MB, Orenstein MR, Samuels SJ. Use of protective equipment among California farmers. Am J Ind Med. 2002;42:455–464. 163. Arcury TA, Quandt SA, Austin CK, Preisser J, Cabrera LF. Implementation of EPA’s Worker Protection Standard training for agricultural laborers: an evaluation using North Carolina data. Public Health Rep. 1999;114:459–468. 164. Elkind PD, Pitts K, Ybarra SL. Theater as a mechanism for increasing farm health and safety knowledge. Am J Ind Med. 2002;42(S2):28–35. 165. MacFarlane E, Chapman A, Benke G, Meaklim J, Sim M, McNeil J. Training and other predictors of personal protective equipment use in Australian grain farmers using pesticides. Occup Environ Med. 2008;65:141–146. 166. Jones MS, Luchok KJ, McKnight RH. Empowering farm women to reduce hazards to family health and safety on the farm. J Agromedicine. 1998;5:91–98. 167. Messing K, Punnett L, Bond M, et al. Be the fairest of them all: challenges and recommendations for the

315

treatment of gender in occupational health research. Am J Ind Med. 2003;43:618–629. 168. Mongin SJ, Jensen KE, Gerberich SG, et al. Agricultural injuries among operation household members: RRIS-II 1999. J Agric Saf Health. 2007;13:295–310. 169. Gerberich SG, Gibson RW, French LR, et al. Injuries among children and youth in farm households: Regional Rural Injury Study—I. Inj Prev. 2001;7:117–122. 170. Härenstam A. Exploring gender, work and living conditions, and health—suggestions for contextual and comprehensive approaches. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2009;35:127–133. 171. Hartman E, Oude Vrielink HH, Huirne RB, Metz JH. Sick leave analysis among self-employed Dutch farmers. Occup Med. 2003;53:461–468. 172. Osborne A, Blake C, Fullen BM, et al. Risk factors for musculoskeletal disorders among farm owners and farm workers: a systematic review. Am J Ind Med. 2012;55:376–389. 173. Cordes DH, Rea DF. Farming: a hazardous occupation. Occup Med. 1991;6:327–334. 174. Inskip H, Coggon D, Winter P, Pannett B. Mortality of farmers and farmers’ wives in England and Wales 1979–80, 1982–90. Occup Environ Med. 1996;53:730–735. 175. Alavanja MCR, Akland G, Baird D, et al. Cancer and noncancer risk to women in agriculture and pest control: the Agricultural Health Study. J Occup Environ Med. 1994;36:1247–1249. 176. Blair A, Zahm SH. Agricultural exposures and cancer. Environ Health Perspect. 1995;103(Suppl 8):205–208. 177. Fenton GD, Brasier KJ, Henning GF, Radhakrishna RB, Jayarao BM. Occupational health characteristics of women on dairy farms in Pennsylvania. J Agromedicine. 2010;15:7–15. 178. Braverman H. Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. New York: Monthly Review Press; 1974. 179. Jentsch B. Migrant integration in rural and urban areas of new settlement countries: thematic introduction. Int J Multicul Soc. 2007;9:1–12. 180. Reynolds SJ, Lundqvist P, Colosio C. International dairy health and safety. J Agromedicine. 2013;18:179–183. 181. Hagevoort GR, Douphrate DI, Reynolds SJ. A review of health and safety leadership and managerial practices on modern dairy farms. J Agromedicine. 2013;18:265–273. 182. Brandth B. Agricultural body-building: incorporations of gender, body and work. J Rural Stud. 2006;22:17–27. 183. Hames-García M. How real is race? In: Alaimo S, Hekman SJ, eds. Material feminisms. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press; 2008:308–339. 184. Grosz E. Space, Time, and Perversion: Essays on the Politics of Bodies. New York: Routledge; 1995.