Gella, A. and Tadele, G. (2015) ‘Gender and Farming in Ethiopia: An Exploration of Discourses and Implications for Policy and Research Independent researcher (gender and development specialist)’, Ethiopian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 11(2), pp. 1–28.
The central theme of the study is the gendered identification of farming with masculinity and its negative implication on women. In Ethiopian history, farming activities have been indicated as a man’s business whereby women are relegated to care services and helpers of men who perform real farming. Women, in fact, engage in labor-intensive agricultural activities including land preparation, weeding, harvesting, and transporting the harvests. They are also exclusively responsible for backyard gardens, cleaning animal yards, milking, and milk processing, and looking after poultry. However, their active participation in wide-ranging activities of agricultural activities doesn’t entitle them to farmer positions on equal status with men.
The study was based on two qualitative studies of rural youth conducted in three farming communities in Ethiopia in 2011 and 2012.
According to the finding of the study, the primary reason why the farming activity is described as men’s role is traditional ox plough which uses associated with physical appearance attributed exclusively to masculinity, and women are considered as lacking the ability to properly handle the plough. Though ploughing is associated with perceived physical strength, the author argued that the use by Ethiopian farmers is very simple and don’t require intensive labour for their operation. Rather the problem is embedded in gender-based labour divisions and taboos in the indigenous theory that women’s participation in farming activities would decrease the amount of crops produced and the stereotype against the physical capacity of women that considered as frail, delicate, deficient, and lacking; and as a result, women farmer are never seen as having bodies which enable them to farm in the same terms as men.
During this study, the authors found a rare case whereby a woman crosses the traditional boundary and ploughed their own land, and such occurs only where there is an absence of men in the household, and the women are widowed. The author confirmed that nowhere in the literature or study observations of married women who plowed alongside their husbands is found. The study also found that men farmers have been organized into kebele-level ‘development teams’ whereby model farmers take three to five other farmers and help them to be as good a farmer as they have become; however, there have been no equivalent teams for women. Moreover, legal and policy reforms have not adequately addressed the issue of gender in farming. Though the land certification program has been hailed for its tremendous achievement and represents a significant step forward in addressing issues of equal ownership, it has not challenged the male-centric gender order in any way. The agricultural extension program has also thus far mainly focused on men. Two to four agricultural extension workers, referred to as Development Agents (DAs), with expertise in crop cultivation, livestock and dairy, and natural resources management are based in each kebele to provide guidance and training to local farmers. In the vast majority of cases, these DAs are men and provide their training and guidance to ‘model farmers’ who also happen to be men. Finally, the author argued that policy actors shall realise transforming the agricultural sector shall involve bringing about transformative changes in gender and gender relations.