---

---

---

---

---

• 5.1 Introduction
• 5.2 Women as consumers
• Access to finance
• 5.3 Women in the media
• 5.4 Comment

---

5. Images of Women

5.1 Introduction

The opportunities available to people, and their ability to take advantage of opportunities, vary considerably. It is generally accepted that the Western world presents greater barriers to people who are not of European descent, people who are physically or intellectually challenged, people who are not heterosexual, and women. As individuals, people will respond to barriers in different ways. In short, the factors that affect a person’s life chances include how the world views them, and how they view themselves.

This section of the report looks at the role of women as consumers, and the representation of rural women in the media.

5.2 Women as consumers

Knowing how women influence decision-making in rural enterprises, including farms, is important. Help and advice for operating a farm business can be more effectively targeted, and therefore more successful, if the channels of decision-making and the needs of women as consumers are better understood (James, 1990:35). This section looks at women’s responses to questions about how they find themselves treated as consumers of services.

A recent study (Mattingly and Partners, 1993) found that most New Zealand women value their financial independence for security, comfort and self-esteem. Younger women have grown up with the concept of independence, and older women have the benefit of experience. In the study, 98% of women agreed with the statement ‘It’s important that women are capable of organising their own finances’, and 86% with the statement ‘A woman should be financially independent’.

Financial decision-making in households varied, although 84% of women agreed with the comment ‘We pool all our financial resources together’. A large proportion of women administer the money, and 77% of women agreed with the comment ‘I do all the banking in our household’. The study found that:

Both directly and indirectly women use [their] position to manage how money is spent... The younger women tend to be direct in their influence, whilst the older ones have developed a range of strategies to achieve the same end (Mattingly and Partners, 1993:14).

Fleming and Easting (1994) have undertaken a scoping study in New Zealand looking at intra-household financial management and decision-making. The study involved in-depth interviews with women and men in households. They identified four major ways in which couples make decisions about money.¹ Although the number of rural couples was too small to analyse for significant differences or similarities, there did not appear to be any major differences between urban and rural couples. Patterns of difference were predominately between generations and ethnic groups. One main difference between farm and other households is that many farmers receive their income only once or twice a year, rather than the regular weekly to monthly basis of wage and salary earners and most other business proprietors. This can influence who has control over decisions on expenditure

The Mattingly and Partners study found:

The major organisations and institutions are not highly regarded by women. A combination of natural caution, historical prejudice against women and poor personal experiences all add up. As a result women will tend to put their faith in people rather than institutions and in the absence of any other criteria treat money like any other product (Mattingly and Partners, 1993:19).

Women clearly had more faith in friends, family or independent advisers than with advertisements and sales people. Seventy one percent of the women thought women ‘have different and special financial needs’ and 82% of women thought ‘attitudes to women in the financial arena still need to improve’. Women in the report wanted their concerns taken seriously and their experience had shown that they were more likely to get this from other women. A desire for trustworthy information meant an increasing reliance on word-of-mouth recommendations and networking. In the discussion about the implications of the information the authors state:

The ways in which most women judge and evaluate purchasing or financial decisions are different from those employed by men. Their enhanced need for security, their sense of vulnerability, their background of real and perceived discrimination modify the criteria they use. The greater variation in their lives through possible marriage, child bearing and divorce or separation adds a need for greater flexibility in their financial planning. Women tend to think ahead more. Women tend to be far more experienced and skilled shoppers than men. Daily they juggle utility with design, performance and reputation in making their purchasing decisions. They consistently work the value equation between enough quality for their needs and price, and they know when to walk away from a poor deal (Mattingly and Partners, 1990:33-34).

These findings were completely endorsed by the Southland women lawyers, bank managers and financial advisors interviewed in the course of this study. One said:

While I give no preference to women I do make sure that they feel comfortable about explaining all the circumstances which could affect their financial or business investment and therefore their lending requirements.

Two hundred and fifty rural women responded to questionnaires which accompanied the scoping report on the economic contribution of rural women (Rivers, 1992). While the comments from rural women in New Zealand are different from those in the Mattingly and Partners survey, patterns and trends are reinforced with similar experiences emerging. Women were asked whether they had experienced any discrimination when financing and operating their own businesses. They were also asked about any differences in the way in which rural men and women are treated by business people.

Access to finance

While there is little published information on the access of rural women to finance for establishing/expanding their businesses, anecdotal information indicates that women tend to have greater difficulty obtaining such assistance than males. Again, in situations where women lack confidence, this can be perpetuated by the tendency of males to dominate the conversation — whether with bankers or with salesmen. For example, even where both partners are meeting the bank lending officer, the discussion tends to be dominated by male farm partners. Studies cited in the report for non-rural lending suggest that when decision-makers have incomplete or unclear information they tend to fall back on sub-conscious and personally internalised stereotyped beliefs and behaviours. With few women bankers, the bias tends not to favour women.

Many rural women commented that they have not had direct experience in trying to obtain finance, and others had not experienced any problems. For example:

	None, as I haven’t wanted to borrow for business. Also, farm has accountant who talks with us both re long term planning [retired teacher, homestay-host, reporter, age 50-64].
	None. We have a development agency in Golden Bay run by a female ex-Bank Manager, so we would feel quite happy about seeking assistance from her should the need arise [2 casual labourers and 1 unemployed clerk, 35-49].
	Have seen no noticeable discrimination. Assume if adequate figures/budgets were prepared, financial institutions would then only take account of personal factors such as stability, history, etc [farm consultant, age 20-34].
	I have been very fortunate in this respect. Sixteen years ago I became involved in developing and managing vineyards, the financial/budgeting side of the business being my responsibility. I was not aware of any discrimination from the bank manager, perhaps I was too young to notice, but I certainly had no problems communicating with him. [farming partner, Women’s Division Provincial President, age 20-34].

On the other hand, negative experiences were the most frequently referred to:

	About five years ago I was unable to open an account with Farmers without my husband signing a consent form. At the time I was receiving Family Support and a small wage. It was insulting [farmer, age 35-49].
	Unless you strike a female accountant, it is very difficult to establish financial credibility. This does seem to be changing with women becoming more involved in bank administration [farmer].
	No discrimination in latter years — but initially we could not borrow as a couple for our farm — the first loan was set up in my husband’s name. This has since changed and financiers will deal with either of us — but prefer both [farmer, Provincial President within Federated Farmers, age 50-64].
	One has to make it very plain that you are the one answerable if female. No one questions a male. I’ve done the farm accounts for years and run the business, but the accountant and banker usually request both my husband and I be present at meetings and interviews. Maybe it is less threatening for them [farmer, age 50-64].
	I state my own experience as a single woman trying to raise a loan to buy a house. Despite being on a very high wage, having no problems paying off loan repayments, the answer they gave when declining my application was that I was a single woman and therefore a bad risk. This was 20 years ago, but I imagine things may not have changed much in the present.
	Yes — when I opened an account in Nelson the third degree was given on my husband even though I was widowed and had run own accounts in Taranaki. When another firm wanted to know what we were worth, didn’t bother getting a card. The trouble is if everything is paid in cash no ‘credit record’ is built up [farmer/typist clerk, age 35-49].
	A daughter buying a house was instructed to take in a boarder and an interest free loan had to be legally structured. Wouldn’t have happened to a man! [dairy farmer, age 50-64].
	As a former financier, it would be fair to say that the unasked questions often go against female applicants. Personally, I have never been refused credit loans or mortgages for a single woman’s application [Chief Executive, age 20-34].
	Banks refusal to put women’s initials first on a combined account. This also applies to anything computerised. Housing Corp refusing loans to a woman living on her own [3 home executives, age 50-64].

Others commented on changes in the behaviour and attitudes of agencies:

Women are finding it easier now than a few years ago. If there is any money to borrow, in the past men have been looked upon as the bread winner [farmer, dressmaker, mother, unpaid voluntary worker, age 35-49].

And on the importance of women themselves being clear, firm and strong:

	One of our members, who farms still, and is married again, had been widowed just over 10 years or more, did have her struggles in a male dominated world, but because she was a very strong and positive person, she was able to survive [CWI Group, age ranges 20-65+].
	I haven’t come across this. I applied for and got a mortgage when I was divorced back in the 1970s! If women are passive and allow themselves to be pushed around or patronised or dominated, they will be discriminated against. Women have got to change their own attitudes [farmer in partnership with husband, age 35-49].

Service agents and business people

Older women generally thought that the interaction between rural women and service agents was improving. Some women saw no problems at all either with personal style or the conveying of information.

My experience [is that] people treat me totally differently to how they used to treat me three years ago. Why? Because three years ago I established a branch of Women’s Division for the Gisborne East Coast region. We have a very high profile and have grown to become WD’s largest branch in New Zealand. Once I set down this path people’s attitude changed quite noticeably, particularly those of male friends. Conversations change, my comments are now taken seriously. The Eastland Garden Festival has amplified this. Again it gets back to being visible [farming partner, Women’s Division Provincial President, age 20-34].

I personally find that the stock firm employees in our area are very good and fully realise that there are a lot of well qualified women about. The machinery firms are generally very understanding and co-operative [householder, gardener and farmer, age 65+].

For many, intended or not, the approach of some service agents conveyed that women are unimportant. Although some women commented that women themselves need to become more assertive and clearer about the way in which they wish to be seen, it was equally evident that business people, on the whole, need to change their style and attitude. Sample comments include:

	They feel happy talking down to women and need to be taught how to communicate on the same level [three home executives, age 50-64].
	They always prefer to talk to the man who they consider is the farmer.
	The old boy’s network, or men’s talk, or they treat you like the little woman, and infer that you might like to ask the ‘boss’ what he thinks [farmer, age 20-34].
	I’m sure staff are aware of different treatment. The key problem is the perception that all women in a house are ‘housewives’ and all women in a shop or shopping are secretaries or shop assistants or the like [chief executive, age 20-34].
	When we sold our car that was in the woman’s name, the rep addressed my husband until he asked for the ownership paper where he saw my name only. He then had to try and talk to both, and take my comments. Stock firms are getting better, but women have always been in the back seat [farmer, dressmaker, unpaid voluntary worker, age 35-49].
	They are afraid to change. The manager "isn’t available", "maybe another time would be more suitable when you both can come", "is your father in, dear?" I had to prove to the tax department that I was capable of doing what I did on the farm before I could be a registered partner [farmer, age 50-64].
	Yes, businesses, especially stock firms have a different approach and different criteria when dealing with men and women, but I don’t know whether they are really aware of it. In a lot of cases where there is a farming partnership, the woman is equally conversant with facts as the male. A lot of salesmen, etc, always ask for the male partner and do not regard the woman as having any remote possibility of understanding them. They need to change their attitudes. There are of course the exceptions and even though few, they are a welcome change, and they treat women as intelligent beings. Hopefully they will increase in number.
	Some stock firms in the past were not keen to discuss farm business with me, but after 39 years on the farm - they realise I know something about what goes on and I will ring them if they do not conduct our affairs in a proper manner. Lawyers and accountants have improved somewhat, but they could also do better [farmer’s wife and former infant teacher, voluntary community worker and librarian at local school and church, age 50-64].
	A bias still exists. I feel that when I contact the stock firm etc, there is a certain guardedness - possibly my own fault. A positive attitude is necessary and a thorough knowledge of the subject is required to feel the respect of the male agent [farming partner, age 50-64].
	This does seem to happen quite often when the agent is not prepared to discuss business with the woman and prefers to wait until the husband is available. But on the other hand I have noted (from my own family) that where the woman seems to know something of the farm programme, it is more accepted [retired farmer, age 50-64].
	At best, most adopt a ‘protective’ attitude, somewhat bordering on condescension. At worst, totally ignore a woman’s existence [Chief Executive, age 50-65].
	Find stock agents can be patronising to the point of ignoring me. My neighbours have also found this to be the situation [farmer, priest, age 50-64].

Although the situation seems to be improving there is still considerable room for improvement.

5.3 Women in the media

How men and women behave, perceive themselves and are perceived depends on many factors - personal goals, skills, access to personal development and exercise of choice, group and community support, behaviour, and the way in which they are presented in the media. The western world’s view of women, and women’s views of themselves, therefore affect their opportunities and chances. Advertising and the media play a role in forming women’s view of themselves, and in reinforcing the world, or stereotypical, view. According to a woman who has long been involved in the media, the prejudices and traditions of newsrooms are not supportive of women or issues that concern women:

Attitudes in some news rooms continue to be offensive, inhibiting progress for women journalists and for women in general. One in every two women now work in paid employment, but this is certainly not reflected in the coverage of issues such as pay equity, child care and role-sharing. In the business pages women get scant coverage in spite of the fact that nearly a third of all employers in New Zealand small businesses are women (Webber, 1993).

Women are generally not sufficiently represented in the various forms of media, nor are their accomplishments adequately covered by journalists. Webber (1993) cites two studies that investigated media coverage of women’s sport. One study found that "no paper analysed devoted more than 20 percent of its total sports coverage to female sport" while the other study found that women received 11 percent of newspaper sports coverage and 20 percent of television coverage (Webber, 1993:47).

Ruth Liepin’s (1996) analysis of the selective coverage of agriculture by the rural print media shows how stereotypical behaviours, power positions, and people’s perception of what is ‘important’ in agriculture, is reinforced. Analysis shows that "males populate the visual and rhetorical representations of agriculture almost exclusively... [and] it shows the near silence imposed on ..women" (Liepins, 1996: 5).

The rural newspapers and publications analysed showed the domination of two types of masculine traits in their words and pictures: male assertiveness, education and authority (men as scientists, economists and agricultural leaders); and male farmers as active, physically strong and managerially decisive. The men were dealing with ‘important’ activities and products centred on markets, scientific advances and physical labour. Alongside the dominant representation of agriculture and masculinity, women were marginalised and relegated to "domestic, relational and subservient femininity" (Liepins, 1996). One outcome of this bias is that while the media covers aspects of outdoor and physical activity, there is little mention of information management, accounting tasks, or liason with processors and industry personnel.

One of the reasons for the low and stereotypical coverage of women by the media is the dominance of men in senior positions in the media industry. Although many women are now journalists, very few are in positions of senior management (Webber, 1993). The media industry can also be very sexist. In her discussion of prejudice and the media, Webber describes the environment she entered as an 18 year old. Women were commonly told their chances of advancement would improve if they slept with the chief reporter. Webber drew attention to how some provincial newspapers can be more prejudiced and limiting than others:

In Dunedin the Jagpro [New Zealand Journalists and Graphics Process Union] women’s subcommittee worked for years to persuade the editor of the Otago Daily Times to use the honorific Ms. On the Southland Times they’re still battling with male photographers to remove pin-up calendars from around the office walls. And, until the paper went under, male executives on the Christchurch Star kept a ‘bonking’ list, adding women to it and crossing them off when they were perceived to be unavailable (Webber, 1993:49).

Two rural publications were examined in order to gain some insight into the way in which women are portrayed. This seemed important because the way in which women are portrayed reinforces public perceptions of women’s lives. We know now that women’s lives are considerably richer and more varied than 40 years ago. We know too that women wish to be accepted for the people they are — whether homemaker, mother, farmer, international business person, dentist, vet, small business operator with a growing export business — or a combination of some of these things. The important issue is for women to define who they are themselves.

Issues of Straight Furrow and NZ Farmer were examined between 1990 and 1993, and both had limited coverage of women. We looked at the number of times men, women, both together or married couples were mentioned in a random selection of 18 issues.

NZ Farmer tended to mention married couples more than Straight Furrow. There were few stories of women either on their own or as groups in both rural newspapers. Women were mentioned in stories covering issues such as facial eczema, chemicals not being the most effective controller of weeds, tapestry weaving, rural women’s information networks, a veal agreement, and the Women’s Division Federated Farmers name. Stories covering men’s activities included freezing works competitions, rural delivery fees, the power crisis, the Meat Board marketing focus, TB education, sheep and goat breeding, and payouts to farmers. Married couples were mentioned in farming awards (sheep or dairying) and innovative developments (like new milk shed projects, show jumping, and horse trading with Japan).

One of the women who responded to the questionnaire sent out with the scoping report commented that:

	Although more women own farms or are in farm partnerships [than previously], their efforts remain nearly invisible. A quick survey of four recent different agricultural publications to ascertain the extent to which rural women are portrayed by, and to, the community by this type of media through photographs and advertisements showed the following count -
	Men	90
	Women	16
	Family Groups	2

About 14 contributors of articles were women.

An article (Ferguson, 1993) about Kelly Utting in April of 1993, however, is typical of the type of special interest stories about rural women which appear from time to time. The article discusses how Utting is a top competitor in the sheepdog trials — despite her inability to whistle. The article also covers the reaction of other people of a female trialist:

She doesn’t know why so few women are involved in sheepdog trials but said she got a mixed reception when she began competing at 11 years. "Some of the guys didn’t like it then but now they have got used to it and they give me a lot of encouragement" (Ferguson, 1993).

Another article, discussing a novel and useful synthetic feed bag designed by a woman, used a fashion modelling theme:

And now, the winter calf collection. This season’s new look features the laminated polypropylene feed bag with adjustable neckline, as created by Sarah Liddell, marketing manager for manufacturer NRM Feeds (Listener, July 23 1994).

The innovative and practical aspects of the feed bag (its strength, that it will not fall to pieces in the rain, and that it serves as a cover for young calves when empty) are discussed last.

A rural Northland woman also kept track of coverage by rural media of rural men and women. She noted that in general the majority of images were male. Commenting on the powerful impact that visual images may have, she said:

Women carrying out their usual activities in the rural community are not featured at all. Men doing their usual activities are featured. This bias denies and devalues the role of rural women, without whom the fabric of much rural life would collapse.

Women become more newsworthy when they do things traditionally viewed as male, such as managing meatworks, farming alone, winning directorships. As someone else at Masterton [Paddocks to Parliament Rural Women’s Seminar] pointed out, articles about women doing these kinds of activities indirectly devalue the usual role of rural women which remains invisible in the media (W T Brown, personal communication, 1993).

A 1992 AGB McNair survey of the readership of farming publications reported in Straight Furrow (July 14, 1993) shows a high (70-95%) readership of several rural newspapers. This wide coverage of readers suggest that the kinds of messages presented, both overt and hidden, are significant for both for the well-being of farm households and for the future of agriculture.

5.4 Comment

In 1985 the Southland newsletter Barbed Wire included the following:

What’s in a name?

Too many rural women have met the salesman or stock agent who, whilst relishing the cuppa and cakes she has provided, will totally ignore her input into the conversation regarding the family scene! Too many have heard the voice at the other end of the phone, insisting that he has to speak with her husband, only to find that the message was a request for a National Party donation, or cheque-butt information — with which project the wife is probably dealing anyway (Barbed Wire No.7, December 1985).

Discussion groups and responses to the scoping study questionnaire (see 5.2 above) show that in the years since 1985, change is occurring only very slowly.

The Mattingly and Partners (1993) study argued that women influence the decision making of households and farms in ways that are often unrecognised. It is therefore in the interests of service agents to adopt more modern attitudes and behaviours. In 1993 the findings of the Mattingly and Partners study were reported in a Management magazine, with warnings for marketers to offer flexible services, talk to rather than at women, and avoid any transparent and patronising false flattery (Hansen, 1993).

The media’s portrayal of farming may be inhibiting agricultural indistries and rural communities’ ability to adapt to change.

The societal need for continuity and transmission of dominant values may be particularly acute in times of rapid social change... Then, individuals may not only need some familiarity with the past, if the society is to survive, but they must also be prepared to meet changing conditions (Tuchman, et al 1978).

The low and limited representation of women by the media is not helping women establish themselves as members of the rural economic community in their own right. Articles that focus on the everyday work of men, while nearly ignoring the everyday work of women, tend to keep women’s contribution invisible and therefore unacknowledged. Ruth Liepins (1996) research shows that not only do words and pictures present powerful images, but by overemphasising the contribution made by men to agriculture, and failing to recognise the contribution made by women, the rural media is currently supporting power relations and inequalities which are not conducive to healthy rural communities and economically viable industries.

Contact for Enquiries

Rural Affairs Coordinator
Sector Performance Policy
MAF Policy
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
PO Box 2526
Wellington
NEW ZEALAND

Phone: +64 4 894 0675
Fax: +64 4 4 894 0745
Contact this person