SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONDITIONS INFLUENCING LIVES OF HPI PROJECTS’ PARTICIPANTS’ IN POLAND, WITH EMPHASIS ON ROLES OF A MAN AND A WOMAN

Justyna Zwierzyk
Department of Organisation and Consumption Economics, Warsaw Agricultural University, Poland

ABSTRACT

The research was conducted for the Heifer Project International (HPI) Foundation – a non-government organization that supports development of small family farms. From August till October 2004 participants of twelve HPI projects from seven provinces filled in the questionnaire, which aimed at getting to know women’s and men’s situation as far as family and professional duties are concerned, and also when it comes to their involvement in social activities.

Key words: household, homestead, country, rural family, work division.

INTRODUCTION

Research concerning life conditions and social relations in rural environment was conducted for the Heifer Project International (HPI) Foundation. The HPI is a non-governmental and non-profit organization founded in 1944, in USA, in order to support fight against famine and poverty by developing animal production on the low commodity market. Bureaus of the Foundation exist currently in 35 countries. Since 1992, HPI acts also in Poland by helping owners of small-size family homesteads to overwhelm negative consequences of socio-economic transformation.

The HPI projects are designed for owners of low commodity market’s homesteads willing to cooperate in order to improve life conditions of their families and their local communities (associations, informal groups etc.).

Farmers who participate in the HPI projects:

• obtain livestock without a payment,

• have opportunity to participate in interesting trainings financed by the Foundation,

• are offered help in minerals and rich fodder supply and also in paying for veterinary care.

The most important principle of project realization is passing on the gift. It means that every participant of the HPI project, whom the Foundation gave an animal, becomes obliged to give the first female descendant of the obtained animal to the other rural family in need.

An important aspect of realizing the HPI projects is encouraging whole families, not single members of them, to take part. It is hard to define, during routine visits of the HPI workers in participants’ homesteads, to what extent this postulate is or should be realised. That is the reason why the Foundation decided to conduct research illustrating social conditions of the living of the participating families.

AIM AND METHODS

The aim of the research was to establish work division in a household and on a farm, and to trace decision-making process that functions among rural families. The issue of equality of men and women in performing social functions was also included. Moreover, the research included positive and negative conditions resulting from living in the country.

Research was conduced from August until October 2004, in villages situated in seven provinces (dolnoœlšskie, lubelskie, małopolskie, mazowieckie, opolskie, podkarpackie, œwiętokrzyskie). Research was conducted among participants of twelve projects who benefited from HPI help, and in total, it concerned 781 families. The majority of the researched were dairy cow-breeders (510 families), but also swine-breeders (170 families), rabbits-breeders (61 families) and sheep-breeders (40 families). In a few cases, farmers were given two animal species while taking part in one project. It is important to underline that people participating in the HPI projects represent the poorest group in the whole rural community, with material status below average in the community. The data was collected with usage of the questionnaire, while the participants were random.

WORK DIVISION IN A HOUSEHOLD

Time spent on housework

The first part of the questionnaire concerned a way of sharing housework by participants of the HPI projects. Basing on the collected data it can be stated that a woman is a central person in the household, and largely the only one or the main one who does the housework. Women needed around 4 – 6 hours a day for housework, while men spent 1 – 2 hours on home activities (graph 1).

Analysis of performed activities

A detailed analysis of activities of every family member lead to the following conclusions (tables 1 and 2).

• Women did the laundry, ironing, prepared meals, washed up and did everyday cleaning (such answers were given by around 90% of the respondents). Their duties were also: small everyday shopping, mainly buying foodstuffs, doing periodical cleaning up, although in the latter participated more often all household.

• Men took part in big periodical shopping and also took care of the children.

• Children helped their mothers in everyday cleaning up, washing up and doing small shopping (according to around 18% of the respondents).

• Parents or grandparents living together in a homestead helped generally in taking care of the children.

Decisions concerning work division in a household

The spouses (according to 54% of women and 51% of men) made decisions concerning work division in a household – as half of the respondents say – together. Although women were generally the ones who did the housework, only one fourth of them (25%) decided on that on their own. Co-deciding on work division in a household illustrates the traditional model of a rural family, with women doing the housework and men doing the farming. In multi-generational families decisions concerning work division were sometimes made by the whole household (12% of respondents), while lonely men were forced to decide themselves (around 10% of men).

Work division in a household was influenced by many factors. Almost half of the researched acknowledge that the most important one is engagement of family members in farming. Mostly men engaged in tough work on the land, which limited their participation in housework. One fourth of the researched stated that being well equipped influenced work divisions in their homes. Household equipment enabled women to perform many activities and diminished the need of help from other family members. Amount of free time was less important but also mentioned by cohabitants, and that was observed mainly among families which do not follow strict work division. Above all, importance of interests and abilities of household members should not be omitted, which – as far as housework is concerned – was mostly related to women (table 3).

Evaluation of work division in a household

The majority of the researched were satisfied with work division in the household. A significant majority of the women were satisfied with taking over most of the duties and they treated such a situation as right (74% of women). To a large extent, this fact resulted from being accustomed to a traditional role division in a rural family. Apparently, 84% of men fully accepted such model of a family with a woman taking care of a household. While justifying their opinions, 38% of men and 29% of women stated, that there is proper work division in their households and that every person has certain activities to perform. Some researched women admitted to like such work and did not treat it as tough duty. On the contrary, it brought them a lot of joy and satisfaction. In few households (11%), all persons did the housework together. The majority of respondents did not want to change anything in their households, and the only factor contributing to work rationalization was additional household equipment.

About 21% of women were dissatisfied with division of housework. They were emphasising unjust work division which resulted in too many duties, psychological burden and frustration. Another underlined issue was lack of time for themselves and for the family.

WORK DIVISION ON A FARM

Time devoted to work on a farm

Spouses worked on the land together. Men were involved in the toughest activities, which took them around 8-10 hours a day. Women spent on the average 6 hours a day on activities connected to a farm (graph 2).

Sharing duties on a farm

Working on the land and plant cultivation was perceived as the toughest among all activities performed on a farm. Men were the main ones involved in these (68% of them said so). Rarely both spouses did perform these activities together (around 30% of the answers). In numerous families very often all household was involved in that. In the majority of families, either spouses or all household took part in harvesting. In around one fourth of the homesteads, where only men performed work on the land, harvesting was also the male activity. Tending and feeding animals were in most cases carried out by men and women, rather than men with support from other household member. In homesteads based on mutual help (40%) spouses did also the milking together, while in families based on strict work division this activity was feminised (35% according to men and 45% according to women). Selling agricultural products was perceived as mainly male activity (57% of cases), although to a large extent both spouses were involved in it (own participation in selling was confirmed by 47% of the researched women). The main female activity, from which men were almost excluded, was gardening (according to around half of the researched). More often children were the ones who helped (table 4 and 5).

Ways of making decisions connected to work division on a farm

In most of the cases, decisions connected to work division on a farm, as in a household, were made by spouses together, what was confirmed by 67% of women and 53% of men. This fact may demonstrate that in researched families exists the model of marriage based on partnership. Families with men traditionally deciding on homestead issues were also researched (around 30% of the questioned families). In a relatively few of them (10%) all household decided on work division on a farm, while women’s involvement in it was insignificant.

The majority of respondents (more than 60%) decided that physical strength is the most important factor when it comes to work division on a farm, for it is indispensable in working on the land. Then they indicated importance of interests and abilities connected to agriculture, which guarantee proper performance of several activities (that was essential for around half of the respondents). Some women (20%) stated that they treated their parents as models and replicated their vision in own homesteads. A few respondents lacked strict work division, performed certain activities taking free time, physical strength, and needs of the family into account (table 6).

Evaluation of work division on a farm

A considerable majority of the respondents were satisfied with work division in a homestead (84% of men and 73% of women). Their opinions indicated the fact that household shared duties fairly and rationally. Therefore there was no need to make any changes in work division, whereas call for new agricultural equipment and homestead modernization was stressed. A few disappointed respondents emphasised being burdened with duties and having no perspectives as far as homestead development is concerned.

While assessing who works more in the country, spouses were highly agreeable, what showed respect for partner’s work. The majority of researched stated that both sexes work equally hard (according to 70% of men and 67% of women).

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

In researched families, most of decisions connected to both household and farm were made by the spouses together, which fully satisfied 80% of men and 79% of women and confirmed existence of the model of a family based on partnership, at least in most cases. According to the respondents, final decisions were made by persons mostly experienced in a certain domain, which diminished possibility of making bad choices (answers of 30% of men and 28% of women). A few disappointed respondents emphasised troublesome lack of participation and engagement of all family members in issues concerning homestead.

About 72% of the respondents stated that important financial decisions, such as taking up credit or raising a loan, were in most cases made by both spouses. Women and men decided also whether to buy expensive equipment such as furniture, hi-fi and household equipment (around 70% of the questioned), while in some families all household participated in making such decisions (20% of cases). Periodical shopping of regular value, such as clothes and footwear, was done together by spouses or only by women. Solely small everyday shopping, such as food, belonged in most cases to women and depended on their decisions (according to 78% of women and 63% of men).

Decisions concerning bringing up children and educating them were made by both parents. People raising children on their own made such decisions themselves. Both spouses together or with participation of all household chose also ways of spending free time. It’s crucial to emphasise that despite many duties connected to proper functioning of a household and a farm, the majority of people living in the country had some free time for entertainment or own interests (according to 64% of men and 62% of women).

When it comes to deciding on buying means of agricultural production or scheduling work on the land men played more crucial role. As their answers suggest, men also bought agricultural equipment and sold agricultural products on their own. On the other hand, women tend to emphasise their participation in these activities. In most cases both spouses together (around 60% of the researched families) made decisions concerning buying livestock.

While talking about “the head of a family” it turned out that such role is still ascribed to men, and such opinion was expressed by more than half of the questioned (61% of women and 57% of men). Small group of respondents acknowledged that such expression does not function in their families, for they make all decisions together (according to 16% of the researched). Being “the head of a family” meant first ensuring safety for all family and did not lead to making decisions on home budget. In most cases both spouses had money at their disposal (according to 56% of men and 51% of women), while 30% of women and 20% of men stated that mostly women controlled financial means (tables 7 and 8).

FUNCTIONS IN SOCIAL ORGANIZATIONS

Respondents from nine out of twelve researched projects were active in farmers’ associations. Approximately half of the researched declared participation in other social organizations. Around 40% of the researched did not take part in activities of any other organization, indicating lack of time as the main reason for it.

Women declared first of all being active in country housewives’ circles (23% of them), which gave them opportunity to meet other women and have a break in tedious housework. Mothers were also active in parent-teacher association, which enabled them to influence situation in school and – through direct contact with teachers – made them aware of successes and problems of their children.

Men were active in the Voluntary Fire Brigade (24% of them), which was motivated by will to help people in need and those in local self-governments (12%). When it comes to women, few of them were engaged in communal self-governments. As the researched people say (more than 40% of answers), too many home and professional duties contributed mainly to this situation. Low self-esteem and self-confidence (around 20% of researched women) also caused hardly noticeable activity of women in this field. Another issue was also expressing low interest – in comparison to men – in such activity, which was stated by 15% of the questioned. The conclusion from gathered opinions is that women did not sense discrimination in the field, for 66% of them stated that both sexes have equal chances in acting professionally, self-governmentally, economically and politically (table 9).

ADVANTAGES AND NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF LIVING IN THE COUNTRY

Almost all people researched were satisfied with living in the country (98% of men and 92% of women). Contact with nature, animals and living in healthy environment were perceived as the main advantages of the fact (98% of men and 92% of women). Possibility to produce own foodstuffs was also underlined (28% of women and 20% of men). Using “home-made” products enables family members to economize and guarantees foodstuffs of high quality. Other advantages of living in the country were less stress and hustle comparing to urban life conditions (graph 3).

Many persons questioned expressed will to work outside homestead (52% of men and 48% of women) in order to gain additional income, for respondents’ financial status was below average in the country and their life conditions were difficult. Money gained would be invested in development of homesteads, so as they become the main source of work and financial means. According to the respondents, mechanization and modernization of all homesteads would be advantageous. Developing agro-tourism and introducing ecological crop growing would be also beneficial.

While talking about disadvantages of living in the country, respondents underlined lack of possibilities that city-dwellers have. First, they indicated lack of access to entertainment such as cinema, theatre or swimming pool (according to 52% of women and 44% of men). Moreover, widening the range of educational possibilities by developing schools and institutions organizing various courses, such as those existing in agglomerations, would be required (graph 4).

CONCLUSIONS

The collected data confirmed that rural women played main roles in a household and performed there most of the activities on their own. Their duties were closely connected to family life and included doing the laundry, ironing, preparing meals, washing up and everyday cleaning up, during which they were sometimes assisted by children. Men’s participation in housework was limited to help in doing bigger shopping a few times a month. All household participated regularly only in periodical cleaning up, connected to holidays or family ceremonies. Taking care of the children was divided between spouses and depended on the amount of time every of them could devote to the child, whereas in multigenerational families also grandparents living in the household took care of the children. Overall it can be uttered that household is a field “ascribed” to women. In spite of unequal housework division, dissatisfaction was not observed among the majority of women. They admitted that first owning modern household equipment would diminish burden of housework they experience. Women also underlined that they were better experts in the field than men were.

Low participation of men in housework resulted from necessity to perform tough activities on a farm, such as plant cultivation and selling agricultural products. Apart from physical strength, certain abilities were important and influenced work division on a farm. Women’s duty was to conduct supplementary works on a farm. Spouses did the harvesting together, often with help from the household, and fed animals. Around half of the respondents declared to do the milking together, while the rest of them admitted that women performed this activity alone. Gardening was the only sphere men were hardly involved. Women took care of it themselves or assisted by children.

In the majority of families, the spouses decided together on housework and farm-work division. Some of the questioned emphasised lack of strict work division and declared that all activities were performed depending on time, strength, abilities and needs of the whole family. Majority of the researched were satisfied with work division, no matter what it was like, and perceived it as fair and natural. The majority of both men and women stated that both sexes work equally hard in the country.

The conclusion may be drawn from the collected data that majority of respondents preferred model of marriage based on partnership and most of the decisions concerning family life were made together. Household decisions, such as purchasing expensive equipment, periodical shopping – mainly clothes and footwear, were consulted with one another. When it comes to a farm, buying agricultural equipment, livestock and choosing methods of selling agricultural products were discussed together. Such decisions like taking up credit or raising a loan were also made together. Bringing up and educating children depended on agreement of the spouses. Partners also made decisions concerning ways of spending free time or a household together. Buying means of agricultural production and scheduling work on the land were the only men’s issues, while women themselves decided on everyday shopping, mainly on buying foodstuffs.

While talking about “the head of a family” it turned out that this role is still associated with men. It may result from long-term functioning of patriarchal family structure, where men were responsible for securing family members’ existence and safety. However, nowadays being “the head of a family” does not mean men’s full deciding on home budget. In the majority of married couples, both spouses controlled financial means. In a few cases, when one of the spouses was controlling finances, such choice was justified by the fact that wife / husband was more frugal and in consequence able to control finances better.

Apart from family and professional roles, the conducted research analysed also civil functions of participants of the HPI projects. Apart from being member of farmers’ associations, around half of the researched declared participation in various social organizations. Contrary to men, the women researched were rarely active in local and communal self-governments. According to all the questioned, women had no time for social activity because of the amount of household and professional duties. Women were also less interested in such activity and had less self-confidence as far as social functions are concerned. It seems that stereotypes saying that women’s main obligation is to care for home influenced attitude of the questioned women. However, they did not sense discrimination and the majority of them perceived chances of either sex in fulfilling their duties as equal.

The majority of researched people were satisfied with living in the country and with all advantages resulting from that. The main benefits were close contact with nature and animals, living in healthy environment and possibility to economize while producing own foodstuffs. Another important issue, especially for men, turned out to be lack of hustle and stress. When it comes to disadvantages of living in the country, the respondents mentioned lack of possibilities to gain additional income, which is particularity important for owners of small family homesteads, and lack of access to education and entertainment typical for the city.

Responses to this article, comments are invited and should be submitted within three months of the publication of the article. If accepted for publication, they will be published in the chapter headed 'Discussions' and hyperlinked to the article.