Gender shapes how populations and individuals experience conflict, pandemics, and natural disasters, and approach the interventions introduced by humanitarian actors in their aftermath.
The severity of an emergency is not only determined by its geography or intensity, but by the political, cultural, and economic forces at play which affect a person’s vulnerability. ‘Vulnerability’ relates to the intersectionality of characteristics such as gender, age, disability, socio-economic status, ethnicity, and caste; these aspects influence one’s ability cope with and recover from hardship. Gender, as a construct of behaviours and norms ascribed by society, produces socio-economic vulnerabilities which are exacerbated during and long-after crises.
Pre-existing inequalities cause women to suffer disproportionately during disasters, particularly in terms of mortality. Often relegated to the domestic sphere, women take on care-giving roles, lack economic and social mobility, and are excluded from decision-making processes and emergency planning – all of which contribute to the entrenched stereotype of women as passive victims.
Disasters can also trigger heightened domestic abuse, sexual exploitation, and violence, as well as a regression in health and education services – issues affecting all genders in distinct ways. Gender-blind humanitarian relief projects may even serve to exacerbate these issues. However, though discussion on gender and disasters typically focuses on women, it is important to note that men and non-binary individuals are also vulnerable to harmful coping mechanisms.
Gender-based prejudices stereotyping women as weak incapacitated victims in need of rescue are reproduced through media coverage of disasters, as well as government policies and humanitarian initiatives. Efforts to raise awareness of a crisis in order to gain funding are typically accompanied by images of destitute women bearing small children in their arms, reducing them to the category of a victim devoid of agency.
Women account for around 80% of the global refugee population, represent a disproportionate number of those living in poverty, and suffer a higher mortality rate than men during crises. However, whilst useful to illustrate the discriminative nature of crises, such generalised statistics homogenise narratives. Vulnerability intersects with income, education level, age, prior health conditions, and whether a woman is pregnant or a widow. Thus, those of higher socio-economic status may be less vulnerable. Equally, the role of a ‘saviour’ is foisted upon men and boys and leaves little space for nuance.
Still, cultural norms and gender roles deeply affect women’s ability to respond to emergencies. Gendered division of labour, particularly in conservative countries, sees domestic work more often assigned to women. This social structure resulted in more female casualties during the Latur earthquake of 1993 in Maharashtra, India, as they were in their house when it struck, whilst men were working in the fields. Women’s mobility is also hindered by social customs, as they are more likely to function as caregivers for children, the sick, and the elderly, and therefore remain behind to assist their escape.
After disaster strikes
Social inequalities underlying women’s vulnerability to violence are heightened post-disaster, whilst men increasingly turn to harmful coping mechanisms in response to their trauma. With the loss of homes and livelihoods, men feel that they can no longer fulfil their role as a ‘provider’. With studies showing men are more likely to repress their emotions, they turn increasingly to gambling and alcohol abuse. These coping strategies increase the likelihood of domestic abuse being used as a way of reasserting dominance.
Poorly designed humanitarian initiatives may aggravate gendered vulnerabilities to violence. In temporary camps, sexual attacks occur in poorly lit toilets and on long walks to collect water. Overcrowded accommodation also leaves women and children more vulnerable to violence. The lack of gender-awareness entrenched in humanitarian relief programmes stems from the absence of women at local and senior levels in NGOs and governments, and therefore in the planning and designing of refugee settlements. Thus, while women remain invisible to policymakers, their needs are neglected, and their roles as the chief providers of food and emotional security are not highlighted.
Nevertheless, disasters can occasionally provide space for women to disrupt gender norms and develop agency. Disasters can be ‘windows of opportunities’ to work towards gender equality, as women have the chance to empower themselves through using relief funds to leave abusive relationships, and to gain new skills or develop leadership skills through collective action. Whilst it is crucial to view women as more than just victims, these ‘opportunities’ still intersect with class and prior economic status, and may not exist for most women.
Ultimately, all genders are affected and constrained by societal norms in humanitarian emergencies. Women are burdened with the responsibility of caregiving, and dislocated from employment opportunities and social networks, whilst men are saddled with the pressure to provide. Conservative attitudes and the collapse in social order leave women and children subject to violence. Their lack of social and economic independence can enhance their vulnerability, which can in turn be perpetuated by humanitarian initiatives devised without female participation or gender nuance.
However, generalising all women as victims only serves to entrench this harmful stereotype; there must be greater acknowledgement of how women contribute to rescue and rebuilding work in times of disaster.
0 Comments