The daily lives of women family farmers in northwestern Rio Grande do Sul: the intersection of gender, work, and health

Abstract

Objective  To understand how the intersections between gender, work, and health are manifested in the daily lives of female family farmers in Rio Grande do Sul.

Methods  A qualitative study was conducted with 35 female family farmers from Barra Funda, Rio Grande do Sul. Data was collected through individual semi-structured interviews and analyzed using content analysis.

Results  The findings show that women’s work is characterized by the accumulation of productive, domestic, and care-related activities, resulting in double or triple workloads and reinforcing the invisibility of reproductive labor. Even when actively engaged in agricultural production, their activities are often classified as “help,” which reduces social and economic recognition. Work overload was associated with physical complaints, especially musculoskeletal disorders, and psychological distress, including reports of stress, anxiety, and sadness. Self-care is frequently postponed due to lack of time, fatigue, and insufficient support.

Conclusion  Gender, work, and health are deeply interconnected, indicating the need for public policies that are sensitive to gender inequalities in the context of family farming.

Keywords:
Agriculture; Women; Gender Perspective; Occupational Health; Qualitative Research

Resumo

Objetivo  Compreender como se expressam as intersecções entre gênero, trabalho e saúde no cotidiano de mulheres agricultoras familiares no Rio Grande do Sul.

Métodos  Estudo com abordagem qualitativa realizado com 35 mulheres agricultoras familiares de Barra Funda/RS. A coleta de dados foi realizada por meio de entrevistas individuais semiestruturadas. Os dados foram analisados com base na técnica de análise de conteúdo.

Resultados  Os resultados mostram que o trabalho feminino é marcado pelo acúmulo de funções produtivas, domésticas e de cuidado, configurando dupla ou tripla jornada e reforçando a invisibilidade do trabalho reprodutivo. Mesmo participando ativamente da produção agrícola, suas atividades são frequentemente classificadas como “ajuda”, o que reduz o reconhecimento social e econômico. A sobrecarga laboral esteve associada a queixas físicas, especialmente distúrbios osteomusculares, e a sofrimento psíquico, com relatos de estresse, ansiedade e tristeza. O autocuidado é frequentemente adiado devido à falta de tempo, cansaço e ausência de suporte adequado.

Conclusão  Gênero, trabalho e saúde estão profundamente interligados, indicando a necessidade de políticas públicas sensíveis às desigualdades de gênero no contexto da agricultura familiar.

Palavras-chave:
Agricultura; Mulheres; Perspectiva de Gênero; Saúde do Trabalhador; Pesquisa Qualitativa

Introduction

Family farming is characterized as a form of agricultural production organization in which the family simultaneously constitutes the unit of labor, management, and decision-making. In this context, productive activity is not limited solely to income generation but also involves social reproduction and the maintenance of the family in rural areas¹.

Worldwide, there are more than 550 million rural properties, of which about 90% belong to family farming². In Brazil, they represent 77% of all agricultural enterprises. In the state of Rio Grande do Sul, out of a total of 365,052 family farming establishments, only 43,893 were managed by women, according to data from the latest agricultural census conducted by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE)³, which highlights persistent gender inequalities in rural areas.

Gender is an analytical category that refers to the idea that the masculine and the feminine extend beyond biological sex. It encompasses social constructs regarding the roles appropriate for men and women in society, the social origins of their identities and subjectivities, and their organization within a power relationship⁴.

The sexual division of labor, a result of these social constructs, represents a type of hierarchical relationship, assigning men and women predefined roles with distinct value-laden connotations. In capitalist society, historically, men have been associated with productive work, carried out in the public sphere, remunerated, and socially valued, which has consolidated them as providers⁵,⁶.

Patriarchy is understood as a system of domination and subordination in which the man, usually the father, patriarch, head of the household, and provider, occupies the central position in the family⁷. This system has normalized the perception that women are primarily responsible for reproductive or care work, unpaid, confined to the private sphere, such as the home, and related to the tasks of sustaining life and social reproduction⁵,⁶.

When turning our attention to rural areas, where culture tends to be more conservative, gender inequalities are even more evident and embedded in the lives of many farming families⁸.

When passed down from generation to generation, these inequalities manifest as the devaluation and discrimination of women’s labor. They also manifest in limited access to productive resources and public policies, restrictions on decision-making, and rural succession processes, impacting their performance in agriculture⁸.

Gender norms and relationships also influence physical, mental, and social health and well-being⁹. The 8th National Health Conference (1986) proposed a broader understanding of health, viewing it as the result of conditions related to nutrition, housing, education, income, the environment, work, access to land, and health services¹⁰. The National Commission on the Social Determinants of Health (CNDSS) emphasizes that social, economic, and cultural factors directly influence the processes of illness¹¹.

Thus, work and gender, as social determinants, are fundamental to understanding how women’s health in rural contexts is impacted. There are few studies that explore, based on the experiences of women farmers themselves, how productive work, reproductive work, and health conditions are intertwined in daily rural life. By revealing the meaning attributed to the work performed by women family farmers, this study can contribute to the debate and the formulation of intersectoral public policies with the potential to strengthen rural work and promote better living conditions and health for these women.

In this sense, this article aims to understand how the intersections between gender, work, and health are expressed in the daily lives of women family farmers in Rio Grande do Sul.

Methods

Study design and theoretical framework

This is a descriptive-exploratory study with a qualitative approach. The epistemological perspective adopted was hermeneutics, according to which the whole is understood as an indeterminate “horizon,” subject to multiple interpretations. In this approach, truth is not attained through objectifying methods but is progressively revealed in the narrative as the subject approaches its essence¹².

The design and reporting of the study followed the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ)¹³.

Research team

The interviews were conducted by one of the study’s researchers, who was responsible for data collection and, at the time of the research, was a master’s student in the Graduate Program in Health and Rurality and currently holds a master’s degree in the field. She worked as a Social Rural Extensionist at the Rural Technical Assistance and Extension Company of Rio Grande do Sul – Southern Association for Credit and Rural Assistance (EMATER/RS-Ascar), in the municipality where the study was conducted. She identifies as female and has experience with family farming as well as training in qualitative research.

There was a prior relationship between the researcher and the participants, stemming from her professional work in the municipality, which facilitated access and contributed to building trust—an important aspect for data collection. The participants were aware of her professional role and the study’s objectives, which encouraged more open dialogue.

However, it is acknowledged that this proximity may influence data collection and interpretation; therefore, a reflexive stance was adopted throughout the study, aiming to identify and minimize potential biases and ensure methodological rigor.

Study context

Setting

The study was conducted in the rural area of Barra Funda, a small municipality in the Northwest mesoregion of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, with 2,498 inhabitants. Family farming is the foundation of the local economy: of the 234 rural establishments, 210 belong to this model, reinforcing its importance for the economy and the livelihoods of families³-¹⁴.

Sample

Sampling was intentional, guided by the participants’ relevance to the phenomenon under investigation and the possibility of comprehensive in-depth analysis, consistent with the hermeneutic perspective adopted. A total of 153 family farmers were eligible, registered in the National Family Farming Registry (CAF) or holding a Declaration of Eligibility for the National Program for the Strengthening of Family Farming (DAP), linked to the Ministry of Agrarian Development (MDA)¹⁵, residing in rural communities within the municipality and participating in EMATER/RS-Ascar initiatives between 2021 and 2023.

Participants

Inclusion continued until theoretical saturation was reached, when the empirical data began to show recurring themes and no longer generated new codes or themes, in accordance with the saturation criteria in qualitative research¹⁶. Ultimately, 35 women participated.

Exclusion criteria included cognitive limitations or communication difficulties that would compromise understanding or responses. No participant presented these conditions.

Data collection

Data collection took place in March and April 2024, through semi-structured interviews conducted by the principal investigator. Contacts were obtained through the municipal EMATER/RS-Ascar office, and invitations were extended by phone or messaging app, with prior scheduling. Of the 35 participants, 32 were interviewed in their homes, following the guideline that they be alone during the conversation, while three interviews took place at the EMATER/RS-Ascar office, according to the interviewees’ preference. The interviews lasted an average of 30 minutes, were audio-recorded, and transcribed in full. To ensure anonymity, code names consisting of the letter “M” followed by a sequential number were used.

The interview guide addressed topics related to land tenure, activities carried out on the property, division of productive and reproductive tasks, and participation in commercial production, available in Appendix A.

Data analysis

The analytical corpus consisted of 35 fully transcribed interviews, totaling 256 pages. The transcripts were returned to the participants for validation, allowing for confirmation and, when necessary, the addition of information; the validated versions comprised the final corpus submitted for analysis. The data were analyzed using thematic content analysis, operationalized according to the systematization described by Minayo¹⁷. The process involved pre-analysis, exploration of the material, and interpretation. During the pre-analysis, the corpus was organized, and skimming was performed to gain a general understanding of the content. Subsequently, an exhaustive reading was conducted, with identification and coding performed manually using visual markers. The codes were grouped by thematic similarity, forming clusters of meaning, which were then articulated into interpretive analytical categories.

This study presents the following categories: “Multiple tasks: the work of women family farmers”; “Work overload, health consequences, and self-care (or lack thereof).”

Ethical considerations

The research was approved by the Research Ethics Committee (CEP) of the Federal University of Santa Maria, under substantiated opinion No. 6,613,542 and CAAE 76518423.5.0000.5346, on January 15, 2024. All participants signed the Informed Consent Form (ICF), and all ethical aspects of research involving human subjects were respected.

Results and discussion

Of the 35 female family farmers in the study, 14 were between 50 and 59 years old, and 12 were 60 or older. The younger women represented a smaller group, with five women between 30 and 39 years old and four between 40 and 49 years old. Regarding education, 16 had not completed elementary school, four had completed it, 11 had completed high school, three had not completed high school, and one had a college education. Most self-identified as white (n = 30) and married (n = 27).

Marriage played a central role in land transmission, with access to property through marriage being common, and many women residing and working on land inherited from their husbands or in-laws. Most properties were less than 20 hectares in size, with labor provided predominantly by the couple (wife and husband/partner). The main sources of income were grain production and dairy cattle farming.

These characteristics already indicate that the organization of labor in family units was shaped by gender relations, inheritance, and marital dynamics, elements that influenced both women’s productive participation and their reproductive workload.

Multiple tasks: the work of women family farmers

The daily work routine of women family farmers was characterized by a variety of tasks, ranging from the productive and reproductive spheres to caregiving. The expressions “a little of everything” or “a bit of everything” were mentioned by the participants when describing routines that involved everything from animal husbandry and agricultural activities to caring for the home and family.

[I do] a little of everything [on the farm]. Being a housewife means: doing laundry, making lunch, and taking care of household chores. Sometimes I help him [my husband] too; when he needs to go plant, I go, because now we’re on our own. Wherever he has to go, I go with him, because we’re partners (M33).

[My routine on the farm is] a little bit of everything. In the morning, for instance, I help my [husband] milk the cows, and at night, when he’s not there, I milk them myself. Then I go to the pasture to tend the cows and help him plant, build fences, and do a little bit of everything (M22).

Despite direct involvement in productive activities, such as the daily care of animals and farm work, these actions were described as “helping” the husband, viewed as complementary to men’s work, which is considered economically more significant. This pattern is consistent with other studies¹⁸-²⁰.

This pattern represented not only a linguistic construct but a mechanism for rendering women’s productive labor invisible. The classification as “help” diminished the economic and symbolic recognition of these activities and contributed to their exclusion from spheres of decision-making and social valuation.

Women’s “help” occurs at specific times, such as planting and harvesting, when there is greater demand for labor. During these periods, they take on tasks such as operating tractors, maneuvering equipment, tending the planter, and transporting the produce to storage or market. Some also mention indirect support, such as preparing meals or bringing food and water to the fields. The interview excerpts describe these facts:

My husband [is involved in farming]; that’s between him and [our son]. I go to help too, but it’s really them. I help take care of the planter during planting season, lifting the bags. And now during harvest too, I help make sure the machine doesn’t break anything, if it’s spilling soybeans, little things like that (M5).

I don’t go to the fields... it’s all mechanized. So [the women go to the fields] every now and then to fetch, bring, or take something... Yesterday my [husband] called: “Bring me some water here in the fields,” things like that [...]. It’s more over there with the milking and at home [where the women stay] (M19).

These accounts highlight the invisibility of women’s productive labor and the traditional division of roles, in which the productive sphere is assigned to men. Husbands and sons are identified as primarily responsible for farm activities, from purchasing inputs to marketing the produce. Even when they operate machinery or perform key tasks on the property, women rarely see themselves as protagonists, instead assuming the role of “helpers.”

The study by Herrera et al.²¹reinforces this perspective by noting that, from childhood through adulthood, the work of women farmers is often classified as “helping.” This pattern was also identified in Asia, where women were designated as “helpers,” while men were recognized as “farmers”²².

Family participation in daily work overlapped the productive and reproductive spheres, as men and women remain in the same spaces where they live and work, sharing different activities in an unequal manner. In some cases, women do not leave the home to perform productive activities. In this context, Herrera et al.²¹ highlight that the organization of women’s work involves actions beyond the productive sphere, including reproductive activities and other daily tasks that are difficult to classify within the productive/reproductive dichotomy.

In this dynamic, according to Paulilo²⁰, women, while performing daily activities, often did not perceive their work as part of the productive sphere. Although domestic and care work did not generate direct remuneration, it had economic cost and value from the perspective of managing and maintaining the family’s productive unit, sustaining the conditions necessary for the continuity of production and life in rural areas.

One of the productive activities with the highest female participation was dairy cattle farming, notable for the strong presence of women. They reported performing milking, feeding, sanitation, and herd management. Culturally, it is viewed as “women’s work,” since, in many rural contexts, upon marriage, daughters received a cow as a dowry. Knowledge of these techniques was passed down from mother to daughter from childhood, preparing them for this activity²³.

Even with changes in rural areas, milking remains, on most farms, a female responsibility, reflecting the traditional assignment of women to the private sphere, which includes the milking parlor. The gender division of labor is evident in cattle farming: internal tasks, such as cleaning and sanitation, involve greater female participation, while external activities, such as technical training courses, are carried out mainly by men²⁴.

This inequality is also evident in the transition from manual to mechanized production: when milk production is small-scale and primarily for family consumption, women take on most of the tasks. As production expands and becomes mechanized, with milking machines and other technologies, the work becomes predominantly male, and men come to control the marketing and the income generated²⁵. Thus, economic valorization redefines the social perception of work, reinforcing gender inequalities and highlighting the invisibility of women’s work when it is not directly associated with income generation.

Women’s participation in the public and productive spheres is also limited in decision-making on rural properties. The accounts revealed a separation between productive and reproductive spheres: women decided on domestic matters, such as the purchase of appliances, while decisions regarding crops, inputs, and investments remained the responsibility of men, as observed in the excerpts below:

Generally, the investment is up to them [husband and father]. They sit down and decide. The only thing we can decide on is something we buy for the house, like an electric oven. But when it comes to buying equipment [for farming], something like that, it’s usually them who handle it (M15).

The business [investment] for the home is decided by the women [me, my mother-in-law, and sister-in-law] and… out in the fields and in the sheds, it’s up to the men, the three of them [husband, brother-in-law, and father-in-law] together, usually. We [women] don’t have much say because [we] don’t know. And [the care] here at home is ours (M19).

These findings corroborate a study conducted in Portugal²⁶, which identified this dichotomy between public and private spheres, especially in decision-making, where formal and public spheres are dominated by men. Another study²² also observed male leadership in agricultural decisions, a result of gender norms and roles that act as a structural barrier to women’s access to technical knowledge, limiting their participation in production decisions.

Women’s central role in the private sphere was evident in the accounts as they described their daily work, centered on reproductive functions, such as domestic and caregiving activities. Cleaning, washing, ironing, cooking, and keeping the house organized make up a large part of the daily routine.

In addition to domestic tasks, the daily work of women in family farming is marked by caregiving. The interviewees reported caring for the home, animals, vegetable garden, yard, and family members. This caregiving also extends to feeding the family, not only through meal preparation but also through food production, based on cultivating vegetable gardens and raising animals for self-consumption. These findings corroborate the study²¹ which indicates that, in rural areas, caregiving activities are naturally integrated into the daily lives of family farmers, contributing to the well-being and health of family members.

Although often justified by characteristics considered natural to the sexes, the assignment of domestic and care work to women reflects a social construction of gender, not a biological determination²⁷. This construct has naturalized domestic work as an attribute belonging to the female psyche and personality, defining it as an intrinsic need or aspiration stemming from their supposed “nature”²⁸. This labor is disguised as a service performed in the name of love and marriage, creating the expectation that women will perform it naturally, enjoy it, and not refuse to do so²⁹.

Additionally, the results indicate that some female family farmers sought to supplement their income through non-agricultural activities, characterizing the phenomenon of pluriactivity. This term refers to the choice, on the part of rural family members, to engage in different activities, including non-agricultural ones, while maintaining their residence in the countryside and a productive connection to agriculture and rural life³⁰. Notable examples include the production and sale of homemade foods, such as bread, sweets, cheeses, and savory snacks, as well as handicrafts, the sale of goods, and the provision of services such as manicures and housekeeping, as noted in the interviews:

[...] I make my own things to sell: cookies, cuca, grostoli, bread. That’s some extra money I earn (M11).

[...] I make candies for parties. That’s extra income too (M17).

Definitely [the work she does is important for her income]. Whether it’s the fish or my savory snacks. So much so that, with the money from my snacks, I’ve bought a lot of things: my [daughter’s] laptop, a wardrobe, a bed, a table. A lot of things! A water filter, which isn’t cheap. Over the past four years, I’ve bought a lot of things (M13).

National and international studies confirm this pattern, highlighting the economic importance of non-agricultural activities and their association with women’s work³¹-³³. Although relevant to income generation, these activities originate in a cultural context, passed down from mother to daughter across generations, and remain associated with reproductive labor, without formal recognition, reinforcing the idea that the primary work is male.

However, the generation of extra income grants women economic autonomy, allowing them to acquire goods for the home and for their children, often items that, according to the logic of the traditional sexual division of labor, would fall to the husband, who is responsible for managing the family’s finances, but which are not prioritized. This autonomy also enables the purchase of personal goods, reducing situations of dependence or embarrassment.

However, increased economic participation does not alter women’s responsibility for organizing daily domestic life. The attention women devote to the demands of the home does not result from a natural predisposition, as if only mothers or wives could identify and meet the family’s needs. It is a social process of unequal assignment of responsibilities, in which women are trained, from childhood, to manage multiple tasks simultaneously, reinforcing the belief that only they possess such competence³⁴.

In this context, complementary income-generating activities neither replace nor reduce domestic and care work; they are added to other daily responsibilities, increasing women’s workload by intertwining with domestic, care, and productive work within family units. Thus, the financial autonomy achieved coexists with the intensification of the workday and the persistence of inequalities in the gendered division of labor.

Work overload, health consequences, and (lack of) self-care

The balancing of productive, domestic, and care work structures the daily lives of women family farmers and reveals the persistence of the gendered division of labor as the organizing principle of social relations in rural areas. The double or triple workday does not constitute an occasional overlap of tasks but rather expresses a structural logic that assigns women primary responsibility for care and social reproduction, even when they actively participate in agricultural production. This unequal organization of work has direct repercussions on health and well-being.

As a consequence of work overload, in addition to physical impacts, feelings of sadness, distress, and exhaustion emerge. The simultaneous performance of multiple work shifts imposes pressures and expectations on women within the family context, generating emotional tensions that often translate into psychological distress³⁵. These manifestations reveal the tension between socially constructed expectations surrounding the female role and women’s physical and subjective limits, highlighting how gender inequalities are also expressed in mental health.

The mental health of women farmers is shaped by this gendered organization of labor. Depression, anxiety, and stress, cited by the interviewees, align with findings indicating greater psychological vulnerability among rural women exposed to overload and the low social valuation of their work³⁶. Thus, mental illness must be understood in light of the social determination of health, in which gender acts as a structuring axis of inequalities.

On the physical level, the recurrent musculoskeletal disorders among the participants highlight how the female body becomes the primary instrument for sustaining family reproduction and agricultural production. Back pain, hernias, osteoarthritis, and knee injuries are associated with long working hours, heavy lifting, poor posture, and the absence of adapted technologies³⁶,³⁷. A study conducted in India also identified a high prevalence of low back pain (68.78%), as well as discomfort in the neck, shoulders, elbows, and hands, associated with repetitive movements and poor ergonomics³⁷.

This scenario reveals that the organization of agricultural work, historically designed based on male parameters, tends to overlook the specific physical characteristics of women, increasing their exposure to occupational risks.

[...] These joint problems and other issues I have, it’s all from working so hard. [Working with] the cows is really hard; we worked for over 20 years… it was all manual labor, there were no facilities, and there was no proper barn [...] And so, that really took a toll on me, lifting heavy weights, not taking care of myself, working nonstop; I didn’t have a day off and I had nothing (M30).

Oh yes [the work affected my health]: pain in my legs, in my knee. We [my husband and I] had a water cooler; I’d milk the cows, I had 12 of them, and then I’d lift the pail to fill the other one inside, and my knee gave out (M6).

The higher prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders among women over 50 reveals cumulative wear and tear over the course of a lifetime. Although aging entails physiological changes, it is necessary to recognize that advanced age also represents a longer period of exposure to working conditions marked by overload and precariousness. Illness, therefore, cannot be reduced to biological aging, but must be interpreted as the result of work trajectories marked by gender inequalities.

The unequal gender division of labor appears explicitly in the accounts describing the multiplicity of roles assumed: farmers, caregivers, educators, homemakers, and those responsible for intergenerational care. This accumulation of responsibilities highlights that reproductive work remains predominantly female, even when women are involved in agricultural production, leading to longer working hours and increased workload.

It’s not just taking care of the house; there are things on the property, there are the children, sometimes we’re teachers, there are fathers-in-law, mothers-in-law, there are parents who are getting older, and there are times when we’re caregivers (M2).

Sometimes, yes, [I feel overwhelmed] when things pile up; it’s not easy (M5).

Oh, we get so tired, my goodness, sometimes, with the milk, the whole house, and sometimes when I have my orders, it’s really a real burden (M11).

This situation directly impacts the time available for self-care. Self-care tends to be postponed in favor of family and work demands, highlighting that women’s time is socially appropriated by the needs of others. This accumulation of roles compromises these women’s availability and willingness, revealing how the gendered organization of work also structures the use of time. Thus, they tend to postpone self-care and devote time and energy to urgent demands, to the detriment of actions beneficial to their lives, such as healthy eating, physical activity, rest, and leisure³⁵,³⁸.

As much as possible, we take care of ourselves, but, as we say, there’s so much going on that we sometimes end up not taking care of ourselves (M9).

I’ve been putting off joining a gym for a year now, but I still haven’t found the time (M2).

These accounts reveal a contradiction: women who are socially responsible for caring for everything and everyone, yet who are rarely the recipients of care. The neglect of self-care does not necessarily stem from individual disinterest, but from structural barriers that cut across the relationships between gender, work, and health and make it difficult to prioritize self-care in rural daily life. International studies point to obstacles such as lack of time due to family responsibilities and accumulated fatigue, as well as the absence of social support from formal services, such as daycare centers or nannies³⁹.

Regarding social support, it is essential to understand that it is not limited to the existence of public facilities or institutional services but encompasses family and community support networks capable of redistributing responsibilities and, consequently, freeing up time for self-care. However, among women family farmers, such networks were often structured along gendered lines: when support materialized, it was generally offered by other women—mothers, grandmothers, mothers-in-law, or older daughters—highlighting the persistence of care work within the female sphere itself. Although relevant, social support does not always promote an effective redistribution of tasks between men and women; on the contrary, it can reinforce the gendered division of labor and the central role of women in sustaining daily life.

The challenges in the relationships between health, work, and gender experienced by these women highlight the need to strengthen and expand public policies on work and health that address gender inequalities and are more accessible to their life contexts. In this sense, the National Policy for Comprehensive Health of Rural, Forest, and Water Populations represents a step forward by recognizing the territorial, social, and cultural specificities of rural populations and by proposing expanded access to health actions and services⁴⁰.

One of the study’s limitations relates to the initial difficulty in accessing the participating women, which was overcome with the support of EMATER/RS-Ascar, a factor that was fundamental to enabling the research to be conducted in the region.

Conclusion

This study analyzed how gender, work, and health intertwine in the lives of women family farmers in Rio Grande do Sul. The results show that these women’s lives are shaped by rural conditions and by the gender inequalities that permeate and structure their daily lives.

Despite their significant participation in agricultural activities, women’s work is still viewed as “help,” perpetuating a patriarchal logic that relegates women to a secondary role in family farming. The gendered division of labor persists, associating women with the domestic and care spheres, while the productive sphere remains symbolically masculine, which contributes to the invisibility of the work they perform.

The multiplicity of tasks in the reproductive, productive, and care spheres generates an overload that compromises these women’s health and self-care, highlighting how gender inequalities are concretely embedded in experiences of illness. In this context, it is essential to strengthen public policies on labor and health that incorporate a gender perspective and address the inequities that permeate the interrelationships between work and health in rural areas.

It is also recommended that EMATER/RS-Ascar, the Municipal Health Secretariat, and the University collaborate through reflective collective practices that enable women to reframe their work, strengthen their autonomy, and promote health in their daily lives.

References

• ¹ Van Der Ploeg JD. The new peasantries: rural development in times of globalization. 2nd ed. London: Routledge; 2018.
• ² Lowder SK, Sánchez MV, Bertini R. Which farms feed the world and has farmland become more concentrated? World Dev. 2021;142:105455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105455
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105455
• ³ Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística - IBGE. Sistema IBGE de recuperação automática - SIDRA: censo agropecuário 2017. Rio de Janeiro: Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística; 2019 [citado 20 jul 2025]. Disponível em:
• ⁴ Scott JW. Gênero: uma categoria útil de análise histórica. Educ Realidade. 1990;16(2):71-99.
• ⁵ Conselho Nacional de Justiça (BR). Protocolo para julgamento com perspectiva de gênero. Brasília: Conselho Nacional de Justiça; 2022 [citado 25 jul 2025]. Disponível em:
• ⁶ Fernandez BPM. Teto de vidro, piso pegajoso e desigualdade de gênero no mercado de trabalho brasileiro à luz da economia feminista: por que as iniquidades persistem? Cad Campo. 2019;26:79-103.
• ⁷ Saffioti HI. Gênero, patriarcado, violência. 2a ed. São Paulo: Expressão Popular; 2015.
• ⁸ Bello LO, Baiyegunhi LJS, Danso-Abbeam G, Ogundeji AA. Gender decomposition in smallholder agricultural performance in rural Nigeria. Scientific African. 2021;13:e00875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2021.e00875
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2021.e00875
• ⁹ Organização Pan-Americana da Saúde - OPAS. Equidade de gênero em saúde. Washington, DC: Organização Pan-Americana da Saúde; 2025 [citado 13 jul 2025]. Disponível em: https://www.paho.org/pt/topicos/equidade-genero-em-saude
  » https://www.paho.org/pt/topicos/equidade-genero-em-saude
• ¹⁰ Ministério da Saúde (BR). 8ª Conferência Nacional de Saúde: relatório final. Brasília: Ministério da Saúde; 1986 [citado 13 jul 2025]. Disponível em:
• ¹¹ Comissão Nacional sobre os Determinantes Sociais da Saúde - CNDSS. As causas sociais das iniquidades em saúde no Brasil. Brasília: Comissão Nacional sobre os Determinantes Sociais da Saúde; 2008 [citado 13 jul 2025]. Disponível em:
• ¹² Nietsche EA, Leopardi MT. Fenomenologia. In: Leopardi MT, editor. Metodologia da pesquisa na saúde. Santa Maria: Pallotti; 2001. p. 98-100.
• ¹³ Souza VR, Marziale MH, Silva GT, Nascimento PL. Tradução e validação para língua portuguesa e avaliação do guia COREQ. Acta Paul Enferm. 2021;34: eAPE02631. https://doi.org/10.37689/acta-ape/2021AO02631
  » https://doi.org/10.37689/acta-ape/2021AO02631
• ¹⁴ Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística - IBGE. Mapa municipal de Barra Funda - RS [Internet]. Rio de Janeiro: Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística; 2022 [citado 28 jul 2025]. Disponível em: https://geoftp.ibge.gov.br/cartas_e_mapas/mapas_municipais/colecao_de_mapas_municipais/2022/RS/barra_funda/A0_4301958_MM.pdf
  » https://geoftp.ibge.gov.br/cartas_e_mapas/mapas_municipais/colecao_de_mapas_municipais/2022/RS/barra_funda/A0_4301958_MM.pdf
• ¹⁵ Ministério do Desenvolvimento Agrário e Agricultura Familiar (BR). Extrato DAP. Brasília: Secretaria Especial de Agricultura Familiar e do Desenvolvimento Agrário; 2025 [citado 13 jul 2025]. Disponível em: https://smap14.mda.gov.br/extratodap/
  » https://smap14.mda.gov.br/extratodap/
• ¹⁶ Fontanella BJ, Ricas J, Turato ER. Amostragem por saturação em pesquisas qualitativas em saúde: contribuições teóricas. Cad Saude Publica. 2008;24(1):17-27. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-311X2008000100003
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-311X2008000100003
• ¹⁷ Minayo MCS. O desafio do conhecimento: pesquisa qualitativa em saúde. 14 ed. São Paulo: Hucitec; 2014.
• ¹⁸ Masson D, Bastien EB. The relational dynamics of becoming popular feminist subjects: the World March of Women and rural/peasant women's organizing in Brazil in the 2000s. Lat Am Perspect [Internet]. 2021;48(5):42-58 [citado 2025 jul 28]. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1177/0094582X211015171
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0094582X211015171
• ¹⁹ Paulilo MI. O peso do trabalho leve. Ciênc Hoje. 1987;5(28):64-70 [citado 30 jul 2025]. Disponível em: https://www.faed.udesc.br/arquivos/id_submenu/1416/opesodotrabalholeve.pdf
  » https://www.faed.udesc.br/arquivos/id_submenu/1416/opesodotrabalholeve.pdf
• ²⁰ Paulilo MIS. Trabalho familiar: uma categoria esquecida de análise. Rev Estud Fem. 2004;12(1):229-52. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-026X2004000100012
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-026X2004000100012
• ²¹ Herrera KM, Desconsi C, Birochi R, Pacífico DA. Trabalho e gestão das mulheres na agricultura familiar: uma análise a partir de estudos feministas e de gênero. Rev Econ Sociol Rural. 2024;62(3):e281922. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9479.2023.281922pt
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9479.2023.281922pt
• ²² Carnegie M, Cornish PS, Htwe KK, Htwe NN. Gender, decision-making and farm practice change: an action learning intervention in Myanmar. J Rural Stud. 2020;78:503-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.01.002
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.01.002
• ²³ Menasche R, Belém RCG. Gênero e agricultura familiar: trabalho e vida na produção de leite do sul do Brasil. Rev Raízes. 1998;17(17):135-42. https://doi.org/10.37370/raizes.1998.v.138
  » https://doi.org/10.37370/raizes.1998.v.138
• ²⁴ Estevam DO, Salvaro GIJ. Entre a casa e a sala de ordenha: a dupla jornada de trabalho de mulheres na produção leiteira no sul catarinense. Rev Bras Eng Biossist. 2020;12(2):1-16. https://doi.org/10.3895/cgt.v16n47.16048
  » https://doi.org/10.3895/cgt.v16n47.16048
• ²⁵ Lorenzoni, C. Violência das relações de gênero e classe: uma interpretação a partir das mulheres camponesas do Rio Grande do Sul. Libertas. 2007;(ed. esp.):82-98.
• ²⁶ Gomes D, et al. Women in family farming: evidence from a qualitative study in two Portuguese inner regions. Front Sociol. 2022;7:1-13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2022.939590
  » https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2022.939590
• ²⁷ Ferrito B. Direito e desigualdade: uma análise da discriminação das mulheres no mercado de trabalho a partir dos usos do tempo. São Paulo: LTr; 2021.
• ²⁸ Bertolin PTM, Garcia JS. Nos passos de Héstia: a naturalização do trabalho não remunerado das mulheres. In: Bussinguer ECA, Bertolin PTM, Vieira RSC, organizadoras. Feminismo, trabalho e direitos humanos: diálogos entre grupos de pesquisa. Vitória: FDV; 2020 [citado 5 ago 2025]. p. 27-52. Disponível em: http://repositorio.fdv.br:8080/bitstream/fdv/941/1/Livro_feminismo_trabalho_direitos_humanos_ebook.pdf
  » http://repositorio.fdv.br:8080/bitstream/fdv/941/1/Livro_feminismo_trabalho_direitos_humanos_ebook.pdf
• ²⁹ Federici S. O ponto zero da revolução: trabalho doméstico, reprodução e luta feminista. São Paulo: Elefante; 2019.
• ³⁰ Schneider S. A pluriatividade no meio rural brasileiro: características e perspectivas para investigação. In: Grammont HC, Martinez Valle L, organizadores. La pluriactividad en el campo latinoamericano. Quito: Flacso; 2009. p. 132-61.
• ³¹ Spanavello RM, Jesus M, Bandeira RRC, Costa CA. Mulheres rurais e atividades não agrícolas no âmbito da agricultura familiar. Desenvolv Quest. 2019;17(48):1-13. https://doi.org/10.21527/2237-6453.2019.48.250-265
  » https://doi.org/10.21527/2237-6453.2019.48.250-265
• ³² Adejo EP, Ajibade YE, Adejo EG, Ibrahim FA. Analysis of women participation in non-agricultural income-generating activities in rural communities of Zone B, Kogi State, Nigeria. J Agric Crop Res. 2021;9(4):104-11. https://doi.org/10.33495/jacr_v9i4.21.111
  » https://doi.org/10.33495/jacr_v9i4.21.111
• ³³ Bidoli TD, Abiyong PA, Mudiare PN. Assessment of the use of agricultural and non-farm income generating skills among women farmers in Kaduna State, Nigeria. Niger J Rural Sociol. 2021;21(2):12-9. https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.347382
  » https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.347382
• ³⁴ Moraes LLM, Pontes NLMT, Sieber SS, Funari J, Nascimento NMS, Marques PL. Metodologias, trabalho e uso do tempo: compreendendo a rotina de mulheres rurais. In: Melo HP, Moraes LLM, organizadoras. A arte de tecer o tempo: perspectivas feministas. Campinas: Pontes; 2021. p. 171-207.
• ³⁵ Santos IF, Netto L. Implication of multiplicity of assignments on women's health. Res Soc Dev. 2021;10(12):e376101220415. https://doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v10i12.20415
  » https://doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v10i12.20415
• ³⁶ Beserra L, Hennington EA, Pignatti MG. Condições de trabalho e saúde de trabalhadoras rurais: uma revisão integrativa. Saúde Debate. 2023;47(137):298-315. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-1104202313721
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-1104202313721
• ³⁷ Dev A, et al. Risk of musculoskeletal disorders in female farmers and its socioeconomic determinants in Kashmir valley. Clin Epidemiol Glob Health. 2025;31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cegh.2024.101871
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cegh.2024.101871
• ³⁸ Piollia KC, Decesaro MN, Sales CA. O (des)cuidar-se como mulher ao ser cuidadora do companheiro com câncer. Rev Gaúcha Enferm. 2018;39:e2016-0069. https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-1447.2018.2016-0069
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-1447.2018.2016-0069
• ³⁹ Baradaran-Binazir M, Zavvarkabeh R, Heidari F. Exploring the experience of rural women toward community-based approaches associated with physical activity: a qualitative study. Women's Health Bull. 2021;8(3):161-9. https://doi.org/10.30476/whb.2021.90638.1110
  » https://doi.org/10.30476/whb.2021.90638.1110
• ⁴⁰ Ministério da Saúde (BR). Política nacional de saúde integral das populações do campo e da floresta. Brasília: Ministério da Saúde; 2013 [citado 8 ago 2025]. Disponível em: https://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/publicacoes/politica_nacional_saude_populacoes_campo.pdf
  » https://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/publicacoes/politica_nacional_saude_populacoes_campo.pdf

• Information on the academic work:
  This study is based on the master’s thesis by Edinéia Gopinger, titled: “Gênero, trabalho e saúde no cotidiano de mulheres agricultoras familiares (Gender, work, and health in the daily lives of women family farmers)”, submitted in 2025 to the Graduate Program in Health and Rurality at the Federal University of Santa Maria, Palmeira das Missões Campus.
• Data availability:
  The data supporting the results of this study, derived from qualitative interviews with women, are not publicly available to preserve the confidentiality and anonymity of the participants.
• Statement on the use of Artificial Intelligence:
  During the preparation of this article, the artificial intelligence tool ChatGPT (OpenAI), version GPT-5.3, was used for language review, abstract generation, and translation. The authors declare that they reviewed and validated all content.
• Presentation at a scientific event:
  The authors report that the study was not presented at a scientific event.
• Funding:
  The authors declare that the study was not subsidized.

Semi-Structured Interview Guide

1. Sociodemographic profile

• What is your age?

• What is your occupation?

• Do you have children? If yes, how many?

• What is your marital status?

• What is your level of education?

• How do you self-identify in terms of race/ethnicity?

• Are you retired? If yes, what type of retirement?

• Have you ever worked or do you currently work outside the farm? If yes, where and why?

• What is your approximate monthly family income? Do you receive any benefits?

• Do you drive a vehicle? Do you have a driver’s license?

2. Characteristics of the property

• What is the size of the property?

• How was the property obtained (purchase, inheritance, widowhood, etc.)?

• How many people live and work on the property? Who are they?

• What is the main source of income of the property?

• What are the main economic activities carried out?

3. Daily routine and family work dynamics

• What is your occupation/work/activity on the property?

Who performs and how are the following tasks carried out:

• Domestic activities (cleaning, laundry, meal preparation)?

• Who decides what will be prepared for meals?

• What is your role in family food preparation?

• Which foods are produced for self-consumption? Who is involved in this production?

• Care of vegetable gardens and orchards (planting, maintenance, harvesting)?

• Care of animals (chickens, cows, calves, etc.)?

• Crop management (planting, harvesting, fertilization, handling)?

• Grocery shopping?

• Purchasing inputs, equipment, and animal medications?

• Commercialization of production?

• Who makes decisions about investments, financing, and productive activities?

• How do you assess your involvement in commercial production?

• Do you consider your work important for the property’s income? Why?

4. Health and gender

• How would you rate your health?

• Do you have any health problems? Which ones?

• Do you use continuous medication? Which ones?

• What care do you take regarding your health? Do you undergo routine exams?

• Do you have access to health services? Do you face any difficulties?

• How often do you seek healthcare services?

• Have you ever felt overburdened by work?

• What are your leisure activities?

• For you, what is violence against women?

• Do you know of cases of violence against women in your community?

• Would you know how to help a woman in a situation of violence?

• Are you familiar with the Maria da Penha Law?

• Is there a difference between violence in rural and urban areas?

• Are there spaces in the community to discuss health and violence among women?

• Do you consider the existence of such spaces important?

Opinion on the following statements:

• “In a fight between husband and wife, no one should interfere.”

• “It is in men’s nature to be violent.”

• “The man should be the head of the household.”

5. Social participation and gender perception

• Do you participate in any association, union, group, or collective?

• How do you feel about being a woman in family farming?

• Do you believe that rural women experience prejudice or discrimination?

Edited by

• Responsible editors:
  Camila Maria Cenzi https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3277-2972. Fundação Jorge Duprat Figueiredo de Segurança e Medicina do Trabalho – FUNDACENTRO
  Leila Posenato Garcia https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1146-2641. Fundação Jorge Duprat Figueiredo de Segurança e Medicina do Trabalho – FUNDACENTRO
  Lúcia Rotenberg https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4132-2167. Fundação Oswaldo Cruz – FIOCRUZ
  Tânia Maria de Araújo https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2766-7799. Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana – UEFS

Data availability

The data supporting the results of this study, derived from qualitative interviews with women, are not publicly available to preserve the confidentiality and anonymity of the participants.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  17 July 2026
• Date of issue
  2026

History

• Received
  31 July 2025
• Reviewed
  15 Feb 2026
• Accepted
  18 Feb 2026