In 1970, an economist named Ester Boserup hypothesized that differences in gender roles observed today have their origins in different modes of agriculture practiced in pre-industrial societies. Specifically, people whose ancestors lived in societies that used plows will tend to think that women should remain in the home to a greater extent than those whose ancestors used hoes or digging sticks.
Given the important role of soil preparation in agriculture, which accounts for about one-third of the total time spent in agricultural tasks, societies that traditionally practiced plough agriculture—rather than shifting cultivation—developed a specialization of production along gender lines. Men tended to work outside the home in the fields, while women specialized in activities within the home. This division of labor then generated norms about the appropriate role of women in society. Societies characterized by plough agriculture, and the resulting gender-based division of labor, developed the belief that the natural place for women is within the home. These cultural beliefs tend to persist even if the economy moves out of agriculture, affecting the participation of women in activities performed outside the home, such as market employment, entrepreneurship, or participation in politics. (Alesina, Guiliano, and Nunn 2013, 470–71)
This paper amasses an astonishing amount of data to confirm this hypothesis. Here is the conclusion.
a tradition of plough agriculture accounts for 6% of the total variation in FLFP [female labor force participation –mjg] and 9.1% of the residual variation left unexplained by the control variables. For the share of firms with female ownership, traditional plough use accounts for 11% of the total variation and 11.6% of the residual variation. For women’s participation in politics, historical plough use explains 3% of the total variation and 4.2% of the residual variation. (Alesina, Guiliano, and Nunn 2013, 499)