gap.
Key Points of Perez’s Critique:
Data Uncertainty:
Evidence for the plough hypothesis is mixed. In Ethiopia, traditional folklore associates farming with men, yet lighter ploughs don't strictly necessitate upper-body strength, suggesting cultural and historical factors beyond mere physical strength influenced gender divisions.
Systematic Underreporting of Women’s Work:
Agricultural labor statistics often systematically overlook women's extensive contributions, classifying their tasks (like livestock rearing, gardening, or food processing) as secondary or domestic—leading to significant data gaps.
Definitional Biases:
Surveys define agriculture narrowly as “fieldwork,” excluding the extensive agricultural activities predominantly performed by women.
Misinterpretation of Women’s Productivity:
Official data often show women as less productive farmers due to structural barriers (limited access to credit, land, education, and technology). These constraints are systematically ignored, perpetuating gender inequity and obscuring women's true agricultural contributions.
Mechanization's Gendered Effects:
Agricultural mechanization tends to benefit male laborers, pushing men toward lucrative, non-agricultural employment, while often increasing women’s manual workload or excluding them entirely due to male-centric machine designs.
Failure of Development Initiatives:
Extension services and agricultural training programs overwhelmingly target men, rarely considering women's time constraints, literacy barriers, mobility restrictions, or actual agricultural practices—resulting in ineffective and inequitable interventions
