“Torn in Many, Many, Many Different Directions:” Gendered Perspectives on Mental Health Among Canadian Farmers

Abstract

Farming is recognized as one of the most stressful occupations worldwide, with farmers experiencing heightened prevalences of chronic stress, depression, anxiety, and suicidality. However, there is limited research that has qualitatively examined gendered experiences of farmers’ mental health in Canada. This study explored Canadian farmers’ perspectives on mental health through a gendered lens to address this gap in knowledge. Seventy-five farmers and agricultural community members participated in semi-structured interviews centred on stress, mental health challenges, and help-seeking, conducted between 2017 and 2018. Data were analyzed thematically using a Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA+) approach. Three major themes were identified: identity, workload, and mental health support. Women farmers described persistent struggles to be recognized as “farmers,” highlighting how gender-assumptive language and agricultural norms undermined their identity and contributed to their mental distress. They also reported disproportionate workloads, often resulting in overwhelm, exhaustion, and diminished wellbeing. Finally, while men often positioned women as the preferred recipients of mental health education, women expressed that this expectation intensified their already heavy burden. Findings underscore that gendered roles and expectations in Canadian agriculture profoundly shape farmers’ mental health in that women’s contributions remain undervalued, and their mental health is further strained by both visible and invisible workloads and by expectations to safeguard family and community wellbeing.

1. Introduction

Farming is widely accepted to be an extremely stressful occupation. Across many studies globally, farmers have been identified as having increased prevalences of chronic stress [1,2,3,4], depression [5,6,7,8,9], anxiety [6,8,9], and suicidality [10]. Investigations have also identified that mental wellbeing statistics amongst farmers vary by gender, with women farmers having even higher prevalences of stress, depression, anxiety, and burnout compared to men farmers [11]. Previous research has reported that men who farm die by suicide at an increased risk compared to other occupations and women who farm [12]. However, research has also reported that women who farm are significantly more likely to think about suicide and attempt suicide compared to men who farm [13]. Additionally, among farmers who experience geographic isolation, women are four times more likely to experience depressive symptoms than men [14].

Although the field of research is growing, gender identity and its influence on farmers’ mental health have only been minimally studied in Europe and Africa, and North American studies are seriously lacking [13]. In fact, women’s health and wellbeing have been historically understudied, despite evidence that sex can impact the prevalence, frequency, and severity of many diseases [15]. In their 2024 scoping review focused on the health and wellbeing of women in farming, Wheeler and Nye highlighted a lack of research around reproductive health, caring responsibilities, and help-seeking and support, and found that overall, women farmers and farmworkers have been neglected as study cohorts. Within this limited body of literature, researchers have identified and highlighted unique risk factors and stressors that increase the risk of poorer mental health outcomes for women who farm. For example, work by Contzen et al. [16] reported that women feel undervalued in their farm roles, are taken less seriously than their male counterparts, and have a substantial unrecognized/unpaid workload that increases their level of stress. A study conducted in 2020 in the United States reported that risk factors for poorer mental health outcomes among farming women included time pressures and workload, environmental concern, external stressors from governments and markets, interpersonal relationships, and rural amenities [13]. Similarly, Becot et al. [17] found that juggling multiple roles on the farm with limited support deeply impacted the wellbeing of women who farm. Most recently, Proctor et al. [18] found that women are often perceived as incongruent with the male-dominated agricultural sector and can experience prejudice and harassment that negatively impacts their mental health as a result.

In light of these existing gaps and calls from researchers for studies to better understand the health and wellbeing of women who farm [9,19], the objective of this study was to explore Canadian farmers’ perspectives on mental health through a gendered lens. Gender is emerging as a powerful predictor of mental health outcomes [20], and improved understanding of the impacts of sex and gender on health has the potential to lead to better health and wellbeing for all, including understudied populations, such as women who farm. In this study, we used a Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA+) approach, where, in addition to gender, we acknowledged multiple other identity factors (such as race, ethnicity, religion, age, disability status, etc.) and how they overlap and intersect [21]. By acknowledging this intersectionality [22], we can better understand how these multiple identity factors and systemic barriers impact and shape the health, wellbeing, and experiences of women who farm. As a result, qualitative methodology was used to allow for nuanced understandings of the lived experiences of participants.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Recruitment

A partner working group, including farmers and members of the Canadian agricultural industry, assisted with recruitment for this study by distributing a recruitment poster to their networks and via their social media. Eligible individuals were scheduled for interviews when they contacted the research team. This sampling continued until a sample size of 75 individuals was reached. The research team identified this sample size as large enough to ensure that wide-ranging perspectives across agricultural roles and commodities were represented, to allow for meaningful interpretations of the data to be created, and to provide a thorough understanding of experiences related to the research objective [23,24]. Participants were purposively sampled [25]—to be eligible for the study, potential participants were required to be able to interview in English, be over 18 years of age, and be a member of the agricultural community (e.g., farmer, farm worker, crop advisor, agricultural banker, milk-truck driver). Participants of any gender were invited to take part in this study. Including a range of perspectives is crucial in gendered analyses, allowing for a more thorough analysis of gender relations and social structures as compared to studying women in isolation [26].

2.2. Data Collection

The lead author (B.N.M.H) conducted one-on-one, semi-structured, in-depth, qualitative interviews with participants between July 2017 and May 2018. Participants who resided within 200 km of the University of Guelph were offered an in-person interview, and those who were >200 km from the university were offered a telephone interview. Specific locations of the in-person interviews were selected by the interviewee to ensure they were comfortable. Most often, interviews took place at the interviewee’s farm, followed by the University of Guelph. Each interview was between 45 and 75 min and was audio-recorded. Topics within the interview guide (see Appendix A.1) included: personal wellbeing; farming stresses and their impacts; agricultural crises and mental health help-seeking; motivators and barriers to help-seeking; use of mental health supports; and perceived ideals for mental health supports. This method enabled the lead researcher to collect rich open-ended data by probing for context and exploring unexpected but relevant topics to gain a deeper understanding of participants’ lived experience [27,28,29]. The recordings were professionally transcribed verbatim, and all transcriptions were checked for accuracy by one author (B.N.M.H). Participants also completed a demographic survey prior to the interview.

The lead author (B.N.M.H) maintained an audit trail [28] to enhance study accountability, replicability, and auditability. They conducted the interviews, reviewed all recordings, and checked transcripts for accuracy against those recordings [30]. B.N.M.H also kept a reflexivity journal throughout the study period [31] to document their thoughts and actions.

2.3. Participant Demographics

The demographic survey was completed by 74 of the 75 participants. 37 participants identified as men, and 37 participants identified as women. All participants who completed the demographic survey identified as heterosexual. The average age was 57, with participants’ ages ranging from 25 to 78 years. Self-reported employment included farmers (51/74; 69%); agricultural industry staff (14/74; 19%); food animal veterinarians (6/74; 8.1%); and one participant (1.4%) each from agricultural government, academia, and journalism. Participants were enrolled on a first-come, first-served basis. Despite this, the research team worked to ensure diversity within the sample—participants included farmers from all major Ontario commodities, including grain and oilseed, dairy, beef, poultry (chicken, eggs, turkey), swine, sheep, goats, vegetables, and fruit. A wide range of agricultural lifestyles were also present in the sample. Farm owner/operators came from both large- and small-scale farms and used various practices (e.g., conventional, organic). Some participants’ sole occupation was farming, while others worked off-farm jobs in addition to farming.

2.4. Analysis

Three authors (B.N.M.H., A.S., A.Q.J.) conducted a collaborative thematic analysis, guided by principles in Braun and Clarke [32] and using both inductive and deductive approaches [33]. After these authors gained familiarization with the data, they open-coded and discussed five transcripts to produce initial code names and definitions to inform a codebook that was used to independently code transcripts. After each transcript had been coded by at least two authors, the research team met bi-weekly to search for themes, or groups of codes, and subsequently review, refine, define and name these themes. Then, two authors (B.N.M.H. & R.T.) further explored all gender-related themes using a GBA+ approach, which is defined by the Government of Canada as best practice [34]. Throughout the analysis, disagreements among authors were resolved through consensus after discussion. Visual memoing [35] was used to aid in decision-making throughout all steps of analysis.

The authors used Quirkos data analysis software (version 2) to support transparency during coding and to group themes. Quirkos was used to visualize, group, and map data, and to help authors manage data and collaborate effectively. Verbatim quotations from transcripts were used and are presented here to provide thick, rich description [23] of the study findings. A partner working group of approximately 30 agricultural farmers and industry professionals, member-checked [36] study results throughout the analysis. The research team held two meetings per year where they presented data and emergent themes; the partner working group was invited to provide feedback about whether the information presented rang true to their experience.

The data used in this study have also been used by researchers to explore: the lived experience of high stress and/or poor mental health in Canadian farmers [37], factors associated with perceived stress among Canadian farmers [11], and perceptions of farmer help-seeking for mental health amongst farmers and people who work with farmers [38].

2.5. Ethical Considerations

The study protocol was approved by the University of Guelph Research Ethics Board (17–02-035). All participants provided informed consent prior to their participation. Participants were given an honorarium ($100 Canadian) for their participation. All data were de-identified; names, places, and other potentially identifying information were removed after transcription and prior to analysis.

3. Results

The results of the full-transcript analyses were reviewed for data related to gender and mental health, which were then gathered into three broad themes that will be discussed in detail below: identity, workload, and mental health support.

3.1. Identity

Participants across genders distinguished between two main identities for women who farm: “farmers’ wives,” an identity traditionally ascribed to women farmers, and “farmers,” which women farmers increasingly identified with. Participating women described feeling exhausted that they had to justify their identities as “farmers” instead of “farmers’ wives,” and that this constant justification negatively impacted their mental health. The identity of “farmer’s wife” was explained by many participating women as being associated with dismissal by agricultural industry members who would visit the farm looking for a decision maker. For example, “You’re the farmer’s wife? No, I’m the farmer… I’m the one to talk to about stuff, my husband has no idea.” Further, this assumed identity of a “farmer’s wife” was reinforced by women’s partners. One participating man shared that he recalled someone saying to him, “I think I’ve seen your wife with you every day for the last 30 years, doesn’t she farm?” and he replied, “No, she’s the wife, right?”

The assumption that women identify as “farmers’ wives” and not “farmers”, regardless of their contributions to the farm operation, was reinforced through acknowledgement by most participants across genders that women have not received recognition as farmers despite sometimes having farmed for generations. One participant explained,

“I think back to my grandmother who really ran most of the farm. That’s a long time ago now and I’m thinking how many years have I been so involved in farming? And we didn’t acknowledge that. It was always just a ‘farmer’s wife’ or whatever so, whereas my grandmother probably farmed more than my grandfather, you know?”

Language used by participants in their descriptions of “farmers” revealed varying levels of inclusion of women within the farmer identity. Almost all participants used he/him pronouns exclusively when referring to farmers. Masculine pronouns served as synonyms for “farmer(s)” (e.g., “the dairy guys,” “beef farmers—they’re a funny breed those fellas,” “what the farmer does not know he does not eat,” “that’s plenty for a farmer to do if he had to.”). One participating man clarified that his use of masculine pronouns was meant to be gender inclusive; “if I can use sheep guys as an example—and I use guys as a gender-neutral term.” However, participating men rarely addressed their use of gender-assumptive language. A couple acknowledged that assuming farmers are always men was inaccurate, but did not change their male-dominant language. For example, one participant said, “we’ve [farming men] got to watch [our speech] because producers can be male or female now.” Most men who participated in this study fell in the middle of this spectrum, using language indicating that “maybe [farm wives] should be called farmers as well.” A notable exception to the use of gender-assumptive language was one male farmer’s acknowledgment of the full partnership between him and his farming partner, sharing, “I should say that I have not farmed alone through my history there. My wife has been a full partner, and when we were dairying up until 1998, she was absolutely as active in it as I was…”

Despite frequent use of gender-assumptive language, many participants described having seen a big change in the agricultural industry in recent years. Participants described the current state of the agricultural industry as “not like before” when “the women supported the farm but [the farmer] was the guy and [farming] was macho… a lot of that [has] change[d].” This growing inclusion of women in the identity of “farmer” was attributed to advocacy by women who self-identify as “farmers” instead of “farmer’s wives.” As one woman described,

“…there’s been a huge shift, what I’ve watched in agriculture in the last 15 years, but definitely in the last 25 years, in the role of females has been coming out into being looked on as equal partners in the business…there’s a big movement of women basically demanding to be looked on as equal partners and bringing their skillsets to the table as managers, and that is a huge plus for agriculture, period.”

Many women who self-identified as farmers described that gaining some recognition as farmers helped improve their mental health because greater representation challenges the assumption that men are farmers and women are farmers’ wives. As one participant explained,

“In the sheep world I don’t run into [being labelled a farmer’s wife] too often… [the agricultural industry is] changing and I’m lucky in that respect… the sheep industry, they’re great with women… you look at half the people that are doing something in the sheep world and they’re women so they’re very well represented.”

However, women explained that because “most organizations are men in the industry,” “[women’s mental health] has struggled more than the males simply because [we] have not had the opportunity to go out and speak.” The lack of communication between farming women due to little representation of women as farmers was described as detrimental to “getting over the stereotypes” of being “farmers’ wives.” For example, one woman described needing to justify her identity as a farmer instead of a farmer’s wife, saying,

“I think the pressure of being a mom and being a farmer, or giving that title to yourself that you are a farmer because well, you’re a woman and you’re the mom, are you just the farm wife? Or are you the actual farmer? I think it took me a long time to realize that no, just because I may be in the background doesn’t mean it’s not my farm. I own this, I worry about bills, I pay the bills. I’m a big part of a reason why we get the income. So, a lot of this paperwork is relied on getting done in order for the income to come in. That’s my job. So yeah, you are doing it. Just because you’re not out there physically doing some things or trying your best to do it doesn’t mean you can’t call yourself a farmer.”

3.2. Workload

Many participants described negative mental health impacts associated with the overwhelming expected workload of women who farm, and the low perceived value assigned to this work as a direct contribution to the farm by the broad agricultural industry, their husbands, and even other women/themselves. Some women who farm discussed “feel[ing] a lot like a single mother” because their partners’ time was spent outside the home, which left them with all the other responsibilities on the farm and in the home. Some women expressed that they felt their husbands chose to work this much, sharing that, “if it was up to my husband he would pretty much work I think 24 h a day, seven days a week” whereas others talked about their husbands’ amount of work being necessary, with one participant sharing, “…yeah I basically I raised the young kids by myself while he was out doing what he needed to do for our family.”

Participants also talked about the prioritization of men’s work above women’s; “he puts out his tasks and I kind of put my day around him,” and women being burdened with the “stress [of]…carry[ing] that mental load of the kids, and that mental load of the household, and the family,” as well as the workload of multiple roles on the farm. One farming woman described,

“Well my husband is not a computer guy, he’s not a paperwork guy. Only certain paperwork. Okay, so I’ve got to do all that, and I’ve got to remember all this, and you want me to remember what field is where? And what crop? And [he says] ‘Come on, you’re a farmer, you should know’. Yeah, but my kids’ crap is taking up space, and I just can’t focus, or I don’t have enough sleep this week…”

3.2.1. Added Farming and Mental Workload

Participants also described the difficult struggle, mentally and physically, of “adjusting to…the lifestyle” of being a woman who farms. They indicated that because of their gender, they were expected to “clean the house,” “do a lot of laundry,” “change the sheets,” “[go] grocery shopping,” “deal with the pets,” and “raise the kids,” in addition to their farm roles. This workload was described as essential “to enable the farm to work—even though [it] may not be [farming] related,” with some participants explaining that marrying a farming man was “not compatible really with having a full time off-farm job.”

A common topic among women who farm was the stress of “balancing everything” between “the children, their activities, chores” and farm work. Women described comparing themselves to other wives to determine whether or not they were “doing enough for the farm.” One woman questioned, “how come I didn’t [farm more] when I was having babies?” while another described “go[ing] back and forth, ‘am I good enough? Am I being helpful enough? Am I pulling my weight so to speak around here?’” One participating woman described the “ambitious task” of “dragging the kids with me when it’s −30 [degrees Celsius]” from farm to farm in order to get all of her work done, another saying her grandmother would “park the baby at the end of the row and plow, or do whatever [farming labour] and [also] make sure the kid was okay.” No participating men described these types of situations. Many women described being able to “really focus a lot more” and “help out more” with farm work, “now that I’m available…because the kids are older,” and the expectation to spend any extra time on farm work after household and child-rearing duties are fulfilled. One participant described this pressure, explaining,

“I used to say that his friends were his farm wife because I didn’t know as much—but again, I was raising babies, so I said, ‘do you know their shoe sizes? Do you know what size clothes they’re wearing? Do you know those numbers?’ My head can only hold so much, right? But, I still have to know all those numbers and… the barn numbers, the field numbers. Not as well as my husband with the fields, but I’m trying…”

In stark contrast to women’s descriptions of the mental health impacts of the overwhelming workload they are tasked with, only a few men talked about the workload placed on their wives. One participant shared, “If you let [stressors] get to you and they pile up that’s when you’re gonna get in trouble…and I see that …there’s quite a difference between my wife and I where she gets pretty uptight when things don’t go right, and I see that you can’t let that eat you up. You’ve got to shrug it off and carry on.”

However, women explained the impact on mental health when the additional workload leads to overwhelm, with one sharing

“…you can write it down in three places and for everyone to see, but when… an appointment gets missed it’s all put on you, or a deadline for the farm gets missed that was your thing. That’s put on you. And then you beat yourself up about that, and it’s really hard.”

Many participating men praised women’s ability to “multi-task” and “see the big picture,” without acknowledging that this was necessary for the farm to succeed. One described that,

“Women generally can see more of that big picture, what’s happening at the farm, what’s happening with the family life, how are the kids doing? They deal with that day in and day out. How is John doing? What’s going on, right?”

Further, they attributed characteristics such as being “goal-oriented” and “focused” to farming men. Men described themselves as “being able to focus on one thing at a time” and described the rest of the work on the farm (e.g., being the primary caregiver, “farm-wife,” running a household) as “background noise,” which is left for women to “deal with”. This represented multifaceted burdens on many participating women, who described the overwhelming, compounding workloads in addition to farm-related tasks as a potential detriment to their mental health. As one participating woman explained,

“It’s hard to be supportive. It’s hard to own it that you’re being a farmer, and a mom, and a wife, and it’s hard to put all those together and really—and then keep your head straight, and your confidence level up, right? And be a good role model, and do this, and that, and the other thing, and I just find it‘s really hard to mix those things together… [crying] See? It brings tears to my eyes…”

3.2.2. Men’s Perspectives on Who Should Receive Mental Health Training

A specific line of questioning in this study related to how mental health training and supports should be disseminated in Canadian agriculture. Many participating men suggested that women should be responsible for relaying information about mental health to their husbands and their farming communities. Men further described that, in their view, which was in stark contrast to participating women, women “have more time to go to [mental health] training workshops,” with one participant sharing, “I don’t think a lot of farmers would take two days to go [to a mental health workshop]… but women might.” Many participating men also recommended “concentrating on women” to “influence their husbands” when discussing mental health supports, with one participant saying, “we can’t ignore the female component of the farm… so… that’s probably the best way to get at the guys.” Another participant explained,

“I think that there’s an opportunity with the wives. They come along, there’s the perfect opportunity to dedicate [mental health training] to the wives. Let the guys go to the production stuff [at the conference], here’s something in this conference that the women can respond to and it’s for them, and then train them [in how to provide mental health support]… That’s one way of getting at it—is the gals, right? They’re part of the solution.”

Participating men provided vague reasoning for why women are “probably easier to get at with the mental health, emotional things,” such as “they’re receptive to things like that,” or “they see and feel it more than the men,” and “gals are [just] better at it.” Although men discussed “program[s] to help support the wives” for the purposes of “train[ing] them to support and deal with the male component of the operation,” no participating men acknowledged that farming women may need mental health support themselves. Men explained that by training women in mental health awareness, “they can then support and better help their partners” and that mental health programs should be delivered to wives “only because they’re the ones that are gonna notice the change in their husbands first.”

Conversely, participating women described the potential negative impacts to their mental health if this “added work for women,” while they are already feeling overloaded, was the mainstream approach to improving farmers’ mental health. They described the added workload of taking mental health training on behalf of farming men as something that may be “forgotten about” after the session and had differing thoughts about having the “role with [in their] marriage [of] the [mental health] cheerleader.” There was also concern that the men would not benefit from the training themselves. As one woman explained,

“I think the men think, ‘well yeah, you just go to that [mental health workshop]’, or since I’m the paperwork end of it, ‘well okay, you go to that [mental health workshop], I’ll do this physical part of it’, right? So then [the men] stay back but then they’re missing out on those conversations too that needed to be had, but then when you come home, you’re distracted by whatever else like a barn being built on the farm, and kids, and life, and then it doesn’t get talked about as much, or it gets forgotten about.”

3.3. Mental Health Support

Participating women also discussed the lack of mental health supports targeted towards women in farming. One woman explained that “there’s more support for men than there is for women” because “most organizations are [made up of] men in the industry.” She explained,

“Men are more involved in more of the committees and organizations and different aspects… they have their meeting discussing the industry and… at the end of all those discussions they then discuss more personal and just have more of an open communication… and just interact more where I think as wives we just don’t have that communication, that togetherness and I don’t know how we do that to really be together, to openly talk…”

Many women expressed the “need to have more support groups to be able to get together and talk, share our feelings.” Women talked about the “massive value” of support groups for women in farming to help maintain their mental health. For example, one woman described the benefits of “even just to be able to express” her feelings to a group of farming women, saying “I can just say something and it’s not my husband who’s going ‘oh, it’ll be okay’—and it’s like ‘no, it’s not okay.’ I just need to say something and let it out, and it feels better.” Participants also described the benefits of hearing the experiences of other farming women in these groups. One woman explained,

“It was just really heartening to hear there were times when she was absolutely bawling into the phone and she didn’t know if it was gonna work, and they were up to their eyeballs in debt and they were afraid they were gonna—just okay, so I’m not completely off my rocker, I’m not doing everything wrong, … this is just as hard for everybody else, and I think… that would be really helpful just to know that others are experiencing the same thing. … Like, yeah this isn’t easy. This is a really hard road…”

4. Discussion

The results of this study highlight gendered differences in Canadian farmers’ experiences of farming, mental health, and wellbeing supports in Canada, demonstrated through identity, workload, and gendered roles on-farm. Overall, these gendered differences impacted farming women more negatively compared to farming men and were identified at both the internal/individual and external/community levels, including the challenge farming women face when defining and fighting for their identity on the farm; the lived experience of being a woman within the broad agricultural community as dismissive and exclusive with the communities’ language around who is identified as a “farmer”; the gross undervaluing and overuse of farming women’s mental resources to maintain the mental health of their families and their farming communities; and the glaring lack of mental health support aimed at and designed for women who farm.

4.1. Identity

Women are performing skilled agricultural labour but are not being socially recognized as “farmers,” which is negatively impacting their mental health [39]. In this study, many participants assumed that women identified as “farmers’ wives” rather than “farmers” regardless of their contributions on farms, and most participants acknowledged that, generally, women have not received recognition as farmers despite many actively participating in on-farm work. Smyth (2018) argues that identity coherence is a key predictor of psychological wellbeing; therefore, this mismatch between women’s labour contributions (as “farmers”) and their social recognition (as “farmers’ wives”) is likely to produce identity strain that is linked to stress and reduced self-efficacy [39]. This mismatch between labour contributions and social recognition is also evident in the gender assumptive language that was used by participants in our study when discussing who a “farmer” was, and when discussing farm-related work. This language was used formally (e.g., names of agricultural associations like the Cattlemen’s Association) and informally (e.g., referencing “dairy guys” when talking about dairy farmers). Occasionally, challenges to gender assumptions were met with a dismissive/blasé attitude, which may serve to perpetuate traditional gendered approaches to farming and can further harm farming women’s sense of identity and belonging, with subsequent impacts on mental health.

Further, in Canada, there have been recent debates around gendered language and farming, which have been met with both vitriol and support [40,41]. In this example, a motion to rename the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association to something gender-neutral was struck down, being defeated by the majority of the board. Further, the past chair spoke strongly against the resolution, indicating “cattlemen” does not refer to men but is just “a term that’s been used for a long time,” and “We’re all over this damn liberal shit. We’re being crazy here” [40]. Previous work has shown that often, when it comes to terminology reform, male and female sceptics alike ‘shrug off’ a need for change, dismissing any linguistic modernization as mere political correctness. Yet, this approach is neither helpful nor appropriate [42]. When individuals are informed that masculine generics (“he/him”) are meant to include all genders, using these male pronouns leads those exposed to them to imagine men [43,44]. Using gender-fair language has been proposed to reduce both discrimination and gender stereotyping, which, within the context of agriculture, and as indicated by participants in this study, can help improve women’s identity, belonging, and mental health. Even if there is recognition that women are “farmers,” combining this with the continual use of gender assumptive language supports a subtle and even subconscious resource to continue to enact gender discrimination. This must be addressed to be truly inclusive of women as “farmers.” Gender shapes how work translates (or, in the case of farmwork, fails to translate) to identity [39]. Because identity coherence, perceived competence, and recognition are foundational to psychological wellbeing, gender fundamentally alters how farmwork is experienced mentally and emotionally [39]. Advocating for the agricultural sector to use gender-inclusive language and visuals in their documentation, advertising, and protocol development is a concrete step that can help to improve farmers’ mental health within Canada. We were unable to explore differences in lived experience amongst other minoritized populations in this study due to a relatively homogenous participant pool of White, cis-heterosexual farmers; however, with the recognition that racially and ethnically minoritized and LGBTQIA+ communities experience threats to identity, belonging, and mental health, this is a warranted area of inquiry.

Participants in our study also identified that advocacy by women in agriculture is the primary reason that women in farming were being acknowledged, if at all, within the language of being a “farmer.” This advocacy was not attributed to men, which may present an opportunity for men in agriculture to contribute to improving farmers’ mental health. Building awareness throughout the agricultural community that gender-inclusive language can help improve farming women’s mental health may help justify and advocate for the linguistic changes required to make this change.

4.2. Workload

Beach (2013) argued that gendered structures within family farming households create unequal distributions of autonomy, recognition, and labour, which influence mental health outcomes [45]. In line with this, we found that farming men and women within our study assigned a low value to the expected work of women on farms. First, participating men described roles like bookkeeping, child rearing, cooking, cleaning, and grocery shopping as “background noise” on the farm. This type of work falls into the category of cognitive labour, or the “thinking work” [46], whereby individuals monitor and anticipate the needs of their households and family members. Research has shown that cognitive labour is more unequally distributed than physical household labour, with women shouldering larger shares of cognitive labour, resulting in negative implications to their wellbeing [46,47]. Cognitive labour is also often invisible [47]. Similarly, women’s farm work has historically been ignored [48], with farming women commonly referred to as the “unpaid and invisible workforce” [16] and “essential but masked” [49] because many of their contributions to the farm do not directly earn income. Regardless of gender, the lack of inclusion of “family career work,” such as childcare, household maintenance, scheduling, etc., in the definition of who a “farmer” is may contribute to the low value assigned to this work. Because this work has traditionally been conducted by women on the farm, women are commonly underrepresented in research [50,51] and in census data globally, because these women often do not self-identify as “farmers” [52]. Glazebrook and colleagues [52] argued that “the invisibility of women’s labour is both a symptom and driver of bias against women farmers and their marginalization globally.” The work of women farmers—in the fields, barns, farm offices, and homes—needs to be recognized and documented to improve the future wellbeing of women.

The low value of women’s unpaid work was further reinforced by women participants within this study, who commonly questioned whether they were “doing enough” on the farm despite feeling overwhelmed by their unpaid workload. Participating women described a desire to take on greater income-earning farm work, reflecting the shift in the agricultural industry away from traditional family farming, in which men are the owner–operators of the farm, and women are responsible for childcare and household work [16], and towards recognition of women as primary and equal farmers. However, no participants in this study discussed a complementary increase in unpaid/invisible work by farming men, which raises the question of feasibility. While women’s employment can reduce their physical labour, cognitive labour tasks have a tendency to “stick” to women and resist transferring to men in the same household, increasing women’s mental load and negatively impacting their wellbeing [46]. Gender directly structures labour load, and thus stress exposure—the increased mental load due to managing on-farm and farm household tasks—is a well-documented predictor of chronic stress, emotional exhaustion, anxiety disorders, and depression [45]. The association between negative mental health outcomes and women’s “triple shift” of income-earning farm labour, unpaid farm labour, and off-farm work [53,54,55,56] may also be amplified by women farmers taking on greater income-earning farm work if men farmers do not offset this work imbalance by taking on an equal amount of unpaid work. Persistent gendered expectations around labour and authority shape fundamentally different mental health experiences for men and women [45]. It is important for equal value to be assigned to work (both inside and outside the home) as the gendered division of labour continues to change on family farms [16] to improve the mental health of women farmers. Future research should explore facilitators and barriers to men’s uptake of unpaid labour and/or other means of attending to the work required for optimal functioning of the farm and home.

4.3. Mental Health Support

Although women who farm are reported to have poorer mental health compared to men who farm, they are also tasked with maintaining the mental health of their partners and families, increasing their mental and emotional burden [9]. Many farming men in our study suggested encouraging women’s attendance at farmers’ mental health workshops to improve the mental health of all farmers. However, these participants did not suggest this attendance to improve the mental health of women farmers, but with the intention that these women would later convey the information they learned to their male partners. This expectation may be rooted in the concept of kinkeeping, where one family member (often a middle-aged woman) [57,58,59] keeps family members in touch with one another, coordinates family support, and serves as an informational gatekeeper [57,58,60]. One central role of kinkeepers is to act as a repository of family medical information [61]. This notion that women are responsible for taking care of men’s mental health is also consistent with previous research on mental health and medical help-seeking in farming populations [38]. For example, we [11] found that male farmers would not seek mental health support or find mental health resources if not encouraged to by their wives. For medical help, Cole and Bondy [62] reported that male farmers’ wives and daughters were deemed responsible for recognizing that their husbands and fathers needed care and to encourage them to seek help, but that younger generations of male farmers are more likely to seek help on their own. Farming women may even be seen as ‘leaders’ in maintaining their family’s mental health, which is, in itself, a gendered experience. Pini (2005) argued that women leaders are expected to be more communicative, be relational, manage group harmony, and provide emotional support [63]. This informal role adds additional invisible emotional labour beyond their formal duties on the farm, in the home, and in the workplace, increasing stress exposure [63]. Increasing efforts to educate farming men on their mental health and encourage help-seeking may not only improve their own mental health and increase their own sense of agency but could also improve women farmers’ mental health by relieving women of this burden of responsibility.

A troubling finding within the current study was that no participant who suggested women-centric mental health learning commented on the benefits of attending mental health workshops to women as farmers themselves. Our questions related to disseminating and optimizing mental health training and supports for “farmers”. Yet, the reasoning that women should go to mental health workshops was described solely in terms of relaying this information back to their husbands, which may reflect an unrecognition of the myriad stressors affecting farming women and/or participants’ dismissal of women as farmers. Despite disproportionately high attendance at mental health workshops [11], women may not apply information learned to themselves if they feel it is only intended for their husbands, not to mention that this also adds to women’s workload. Alston et al. [48] argue that the continued under-representation of women in decision-making roles on agricultural committees and organizations negatively impacts women farmers’ mental wellbeing and may contribute to women feeling like “agricultural outsiders” despite contributing to the farm. Increasing the visibility of women in farming may indirectly increase retention of important mental health information delivered via workshops, as women apply knowledge and strategies learned to themselves as farmers instead of solely to their husbands. Additionally, those developing mental health resources for farmers should recognize unpaid labour as farm work to aid in the application of material to women farmers’ lives.

4.4. Strengths and Limitations

The objective of this qualitative study was to provide a deep, contextual understanding of the gendered experience of mental health for farmers in Ontario, Canada. A rigorous approach to data collection and analysis, including reflexivity [64], an audit trail [30], and collaboration contribute to the strength of this study.

As we used a convenience sampling technique for data collection, our sample was predominantly White, not all genders were represented in this study, and participants’ relationships were described as heteronormative. We recommend that future work sample purposively to include perspectives from Black, Indigenous, and People of Colour, and LGBTQIA2+ communities. Additionally, these data were collected prior to the COVID-19 pandemic; therefore, the impacts of the pandemic are not explored.

5. Conclusions

Gendered differences around the lived experience of farmers’ mental health were pervasive within this study. Participating women struggled to clearly define their identity within the agricultural community compared to men. As has long been recognized, our results also further highlight that women who farm experienced feelings of underappreciation for their unpaid/invisible work and contributions to the farm (on top of their farm-related tasks), and importantly, this disregard commonly led to feelings of overwhelm and high stress, with some participating women self-reporting more significant struggles with their mental health as a result. These negative impacts were exacerbated by the gender-assumptive and dismissive language practices across the agricultural community. This study also identified that women are perceived by the agricultural community as the gatekeepers for mental health within their families and are commonly burdened as the individual responsible for identifying mental health struggles and knowing how and when to intervene. Without also increasing the mental health literacy amongst farming men, farming women may be at increased risk of chronic stress, depression, and burnout. While there has been progress made to include women within Canadian agriculture, there must be further concerted efforts to cultivate an agricultural community in which farming women are equally valued.