A certain event remains vivid in my mind, even decades later.

One morning, my paternal grandmother woke as she always did—before the sun had fully risen, before the day had announced itself. Her routine was steady and unremarkable, as most women’s labour often is: necessary, repetitive, and rarely acknowledged.
Her day revolved around farming on her small but precious piece of land or carrying out chores in the homestead. If the task for the day involved going to the farm, she would wake early to return before the sun grew too hot. In rural Kiambu, where I grew up, this rhythm was familiar.
When she went to the farm, she carried cow manure, balanced carefully, knowing it would nourish the soil and sustain the crops. When she returned home, she carried fodder for the cow. Nothing was wasted. Everything had a purpose.
I especially remember her passing by our home to share sugar cane or sweet potatoes, as grandmothers often do—small gestures that carried warmth, care, and continuity.
On that particular day, she went about her daily routine. It was an ordinary day.
Or so it seemed.
That afternoon, she arrived at her home—a homestead she shared with her co-wives and several children and grandchildren—only to find a family gathering already underway. This, too, was common at my grandparents’ home.
My grandfather had a habit we loved as children. We would wake up to find one of our cousins knocking on the door with a message. The instructions were usually two-fold: one for my father and one for us, the children.
To my father:
“Grandfather has asked you to go to the village.”
Although we were already in the village, we referred to my grandfather’s home as gĩcagi—the village.
Then the cousin would turn to one of us and say:
“All of you, you were also told to come later.”
We understood immediately. That message meant there would be roast meat.
We did not need a special occasion to celebrate. Any weekend could turn into a feast. We would join other relatives, conversations would spill across the compound, and as children, we loved these gatherings. They meant laughter, stories, and—most importantly—meat. Goat or beef roasting over an open fire was the unmistakable signal that the day was special.
My grandmother must have felt a sense of anticipation as she walked into the compound, greeted by the familiar, inviting smell of a meal already in preparation. After hours of labour, what a welcome reward that must have felt like.
But her joy was short-lived.
She walked to the cowshed.
It was empty.
At first, she stood still in confusion. Then the realisation dawned.
This was not just a gathering with goat meat.
It was a large feast.
A cow had been slaughtered.
Her cow.
Her only cow.
The animal she fed every day.
The cow whose manure enriched her land.
The cow whose milk contributed to her nutrition.
The cow whose potential sale represented security in times of need.
The cow was gone.
What she had not been told—what she had not been consulted on, was that a decision had already been made. The cow had been slaughtered, and the feast was already underway. The head of the household had decided, and that was not up for discussion.
A family celebration, it turned out, was financed by her labour, her asset and her livelihood—quietly appropriated.
I still remember her crying.
This story is not unique. It is deeply familiar across rural Africa and in different versions across the world.
For generations, women have been central to agricultural systems—planting, weeding, harvesting, feeding livestock, managing manure, preserving seeds, and safeguarding household food security. Yet decision-making authority often rest elsewhere, with the male family member.
Assets may be described as belonging to “the family,” but control frequently lies with men or senior household members. Livestock has long been a gendered asset. In Africa, cattle represent wealth, status, and social capital. They are used to pay school fees, settle debts, host ceremonies, pay bride price or signal prestige.
Yet even when women are the primary caretakers, their ownership is often conditional.
Women may have access to the cow—its milk, its manure, and the daily responsibilities associated with its care—but not control over the cow itself. They may not decide when to sell it, slaughter it, or use it as collateral. In some cases, if the cow is sold, they receive no share of the proceeds.
The cow is hers to feed, but not hers to decide.
For my grandmother, that cow was not simply an animal.
It was a livelihood.
It was income.
It was insurance against hardship.
It was a source of soil fertility that sustained crop yields season after season.
In many households, such an asset can determine whether a family remains resilient or becomes vulnerable. Losing it without consultation was not only emotionally painful, it was economically consequential.
And yet, culturally, the cow was also considered part of the family. It had a name. It was spoken to. It shaped daily routines.
I remember the cow in our own household growing up. She was called Kairitu, which means “girl.” She was a good dairy cow—not producing large quantities of milk, but milk of excellent quality. Some neighbours would reserve milk in advance when she was expecting, knowing its value.
My mother managed the milk and made decisions about the income generated from it. My father supported her, particularly when specialised veterinary services were required from Thika—the nearest town to our village—if the local veterinarian could not resolve the issue.
That experience revealed an important contrast: women can manage resources effectively when decision-making authority is recognised. That cow was the main reason mum had a source of income despite not having formal work. Most of the other farm produce was used as subsistence, to feed the household.
Yet in my grandmother’s case, the final decision rested elsewhere. My grandfather had the authority.
What struck me most, even as a child, was not only the loss itself, but the silence surrounding it.
No explanation was offered. No apology was expected.
Her labour had been taken for granted.
Her contribution absorbed into the collective.
Her voice was absent from the decision.
Life moved on. Meals were eaten. The gathering continued.
The event became a story retold over the years—
“the day granny found her cow had been slaughtered.”
I do not know how many other decisions she could not make. But this one remains with me.
May she rest in eternal peace.
This is how inequality often operates—not through dramatic confrontation, but through everyday practices that become normalised over time.
Women in agrifood systems require more than access.
They require control.
They require decision-making authority.
They require recognised ownership.
Access to land, finance, and inputs is necessary, but insufficient without the ability to determine how those resources are used.
Without control, women remain exposed to the same quiet dispossessions my grandmother experienced.
Her story reminds us that development is not abstract.
It is lived in everyday decisions.
It appears when a woman returns from the field expecting continuity and instead encounters loss.
When assets she depends on disappear through decisions she was never part of.
When systems rely on her labour but deny her authority.
The cow that was not hers ultimately tells a larger story about power, gender, and agriculture.
Who truly owns productive assets?
Whose voice determines how those assets are used?
What does “family ownership” mean when decision-making is unequal?
Why this story matters in the international year of the woman farmer
The International Year of the Woman Farmer (IYWF) 2026 invites us to do more than recognise women’s contributions to agriculture. It requires confronting the structural inequalities that shape those contributions.
My grandmother’s story sits squarely within this reality.
Across regions, women have always been farmers—food producers, livestock keepers, seed custodians, and land managers. Yet their work has frequently been framed as assistance rather than leadership, labour rather than authority.
The result is a persistent gap between responsibility and power.
Women feed households and manage productive resources yet often lack control over the assets that sustain livelihoods. This imbalance is not incidental; it is embedded in social norms, inheritance systems, and institutional practices that determine who can decide, who can benefit, and who can accumulate assets.
The cow that disappeared from my grandmother’s shed illustrates this structural gap. It reflects a system where women’s agricultural labour is indispensable but undervalued, where ownership is informal and revocable, and where decisions are made in spaces from which women are excluded.
These dynamics remain visible today:
- In livestock markets where women produce animals but rarely control sales
- In land tenure systems where use does not translate into ownership
- In value chains where women absorb risk but capture limited returns
Marking the IYWF without addressing these realities would be incomplete.
Recognition must extend beyond visibility to accountability. It must challenge norms that allow women’s productive assets to be mobilised without their consent. It must position women not only as farmers, but as economic actors with enforceable rights.
This year is therefore not only about honouring women farmers today.
It is about acknowledging the women of the past—like my grandmother—whose labour sustained households and food systems while their authority remained constrained.
Their experiences remind us that gender equality in agriculture is not new work.
It is unfinished work.







