According to economist Ester Boserup, societies with historical reliance on the plough are likely to have less gender equality than those without that reliance. This plough hypothesis is based upon the fact that plough agriculture is less accessible to women because of the upper-body strength and capital investment it demands (by contrast, hoeing is less labor intensive and can more easily be combined with childcare). Research suggests that descendants of plough-based societies hold more sexist views, though the theory’s detractors claim that men dominate cultivation even in the absence of ploughs.

Perez highlights the data gaps on women’s participation in agriculture: Surveys are often not sex-disaggregated and when they are, questions are poorly worded and understate women’s involvement. Women’s productivity in agriculture is hindered by its male-based design. Labor-saving devices reduce demand for male labor, but do not assist traditionally female chores such as weeding. Educational programs do not reach women, as they often require land ownership. In designing helpful interventions, it is imperative that researchers speak to and gather data from women, yet they often do not.

The history of clean stoves provides a telling example.