Dr Sunita Reddy is an associate professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi and author of two books, Clash of Waves and The Asian Tsunami and Post Disaster Aid.
This article attempts to demystify and simplify the gendered aspect of disasters.
The difference between sex and gender is unclear for many, and often the terms are interchangeably used or misinterpreted as having the same definition as biological sex. ‘Sex’ refers to the biological trait that society associates with being male or female, and ‘intersex’ gives recognition to the third gender. On the other hand, ‘gender’ is the cultural connotation attached to being masculine and/or feminine, which influences personal identities. It includes roles, responsibilities, and socially expected behaviours, which can be challenged and is being challenged lately. Sex is determined by birth, it therefore cannot be changed unless the person belongs to the third gender category, which goes beyond the binary of male–female, and the person wants a sex – reassignment surgery to change their sex. Gender, on the other hand, is learned through socialization; therefore, gender roles can be changed, and both male and female can do almost all things the other gender does, except for reproduction and childbirth, which is the privilege of women. Gender is thus not merely about physical differences, but also about social constructs regarding masculinity and femininity circulated in the community.
Why Gender Matters in Disasters
There is a pattern of gender differentiation at all levels of the disaster process: be it exposure to risk, on risk perception, in preparedness, in response, in physical impact, on psychological impact, and in recovery and reconstruction. Disaster studies have now started bringing to the surface a richer appreciation of inequalities and differences based on sex and gender. Over the years, literature emphasizes the extent of gender inequalities and socio-economic marginalization women face as compared to men, resulting in women bearing a disproportionate burden of the costs of disaster (Byrne and Baden 1995; Enarson 1998; Twig 2004; Bradshaw 2013). As the world learns from each new tragedy, gender relations are part of the human experience of disasters and may, under some conditions, lead to the denial of the fundamental human rights of women and girls in crises. Women have special difficulties in withstanding and responding to crisis situations (Chew and Ramdas 2005; SEEDS 2005).
Disaster studies rest on the social fact of gender being a primary organizing principle of societies and the conviction that gender must be addressed if we are to claim knowledge about all people living in risky environments. Theoretically, researchers in the area are moving towards a more nuanced, as well as a comparative, approach that examines gender relations in the context of other categories of social difference and power such as race, ethnicity, nationality, and social class.
Disasters systematically highlight gendered inclusions and exclusions at various stages, their occurrences, disaster preparedness, pre- and post-relief management, and the efforts to mainstream gender in disaster policy and practice. The Hyogo Framework for Action, 2005–15 (UN 2006) calls for a gender perspective to be integrated into all disaster reduction management plans, policies and decision-making processes. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–30 (SFDRR) further draws attention to the diverging ways in which women experience disasters and their increased vulnerability, but as far as delivering gender responsive strategy for disaster risk reduction (DRR), on the whole, it still missed the opportunity to include women in disaster policy and programming (Zaidi and Fordham 2021).
Knowing the gender differentials in the disaster cycle—starting from risk, exposure, relief, rehabilitation, reconstruction, and mitigation—and understanding their coping strategies and resilience is pertinent. There is a need to understand gendered vulnerabilities and gendered exclusions happening in society in general and during disasters in particular, especially when the society is unequal with varying experiences of women coming from different socio-economic backgrounds.
There are many micro-level qualitative studies which have documented how women are exposed to risks and vulnerabilities differently as compared to men. Five categories of gender-related disparities are identified: biology, responsibility for dependents, development of skills, clothing, and vulnerability to assault and trafficking. Often, in disaster documents, policies, and programmes, women are seen as vulnerable and at risk, being physically weak and tied down with children and other household responsibilities. Their attire and lack of life skills like running, swimming, climbing, contribute to more live lost than men. Gender analyses reveal that women in a patriarchal society are disadvantageous in terms of the social, economic, and political, especially those who come from a lower social class.
Double Disasters and Differential Impact
Earthquakes in the past have killed more women as compared to men. Some continuing factors have been being indoors, tied up with children, and restrictive attire. If they survive, they bear the brunt of additional responsibilities to make up for the absence of male member. The Nepal earthquake shows that among the 1.3 million affected by the earthquake about 53% were females. Similar was the case with tsunami and other disasters.
The impact of disasters is felt differentially within societies, and those most socially excluded and economically insecure bear a disproportionate burden over the long run. A study by Neumayer and Plümper (2007) at the London School of Economics and the University of Essex found that between 1981–2002, natural disasters in 141 countries killed significantly more women than men and that the worse the disaster, the bigger the gender disparity. Further, the double impact of disasters on women and girls add to the time burden (increase in working hours), increased violence, psychological impact, deterioration in reproductive and sexual health, increase in poverty and insecure employment, changes in networks and family support, and change in self-perception (Bradshaw and Fordham 2015).
It is also seen that women and children face more violence during and after disasters. It is imperative to document types of violence occurring throughout the disaster’s emergence and in the later phases, and whether overall levels of violence increased. The current pandemic has seen increased violence against women across the world, including in India. UN Women calls the increase in violence during Covid-19 ‘shadow pandemic’ . The National Commission of Women (NCW) received 13,410 complaints of crimes against women between March–September 2020 (7 months), of which 4,350 were about domestic violence . It is argued that violence against women during natural disasters must be understood within the context of the violence against women that prevails in societies at ‘normal’ times, which is exacerbated by disasters. Response therefore necessitates addressing both the social inequalities underlying women’s vulnerability to violence and specific factors that ‘trigger’ violence during disasters.
Resilience and Coping Capacity of Women
Much has been written on the vulnerabilities of women in disasters, though not much has been documented regarding how women show greater resilience in coping, their managerial capabilities, and skills to deal with during and after disasters. Women act as engines of recovery not only in terms of disaster response but also in recovery phases. They keep the fabric of society intact due to their role as nurturers and caregivers. Along with her household chores of cooking, cleaning, and maintaining the house, she does multitasking, including rearing children and caring for the elderly. All this labour is unpaid and invisible.
A basic understanding of women’s work around the household and outside, as formal and informal workforce and paid and unpaid labour, is needed. Despite the potentially positive roles they can play, much of the policy interventions exclude women, and, what’s more, there is hardly any representation of women at any level of disaster management, from the national to local. There is a need for appreciation of the role of women not just in households, but also at the community, state, and national levels. The social construction of their identities as women, and daily life under extreme and routine conditions needs to be understood. Capturing women’s work dimensions and magnitude in terms of their contribution to the household, community, and society at large is imperative.
Literature shows women as vulnerable and needing special provisions, as given in the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) guidelines for vulnerable groups comprising women, children, the elderly, and chronically ill. But no literature shows the resilience women show before, during, and after disasters.
In recurrent flood-prone areas like Assam, Uttar Pradesh, and Bihar, women know what to store and where, and prepare for the forthcoming floods. They not only survive the floods each consecutive year, but are also able to do all chores of washing, cooking, cleaning, and feeding the family in the flooded areas.
Mainstreaming Gender in Disaster Risk Reduction
Learning gender relations as a part of the human experience of disasters leads to a blending together of the fundamental human rights of women and girls during a crisis. Since crises present an opportunity to break down gender barriers and prompts men and women to step out of their traditional places and roles, unequal pre-disaster gender roles can be changed.
There is a need for inclusion of gender in post-disaster relief, rehabilitation, and reconstruction of devastated regions. Capacity-building measures in terms of confidence-building, self-respect, self-esteem, self-dependency, mutual support, and trust and the rebuilding of communities need to be prioritized. Further, ensuring community participation and altering the gender stereotypes during post-disaster rehabilitation are very much required. One also needs to bee culturally sensitive towards women in dealing with relief and rehabilitation.
Why it is important to mainstream gender in disaster reduction and how it can be done?
The fact that a women or gender perspective has only very rarely been institutionalized in these practices suggests that both the conceptual underpinnings and the practical activities around institutionalization need to be further explored. A gendered understanding of disasters is not mere disaggregated data on men and women, but an integrated understanding and mainstreaming of men, women, and the third gender in all aspects of disasters.
It is important to mainstream gender into disaster reduction decision-making as a way of reducing disaster vulnerabilities of women. It is also importante to integrate it into disaster reduction policies and measures (Ginige et al. 2009). It is imperative to understand the diverse lived experiences of women, men, and the third gender on the aspects of disaster impact, response, and mitigation, keeping in mind various levels of intersectionality.
Elaine Enarson and P.G. Dhar Chakrabarti (2009) provide 57 steps from words to action in gendering DRR. It is a must-read and follow-up guide for engendering disasters and building the gender dimension at every stage and cycle of disasters. Further, we must recognize the resilience and coping capacities of women and see them in leadership roles by engaging women at every level in action on DRR. It is important to partner with women leaders from panchayat to district, state to national levels, and engage with them in all the aspects of disasters. To build a safe and resilient society, you cannot ignore women who constitute half the globe and raise the other half.
References
Bradshaw, S. (2013). Gender, development and disasters. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Bradshaw, S. and Fordham, M. (2015). Double disaster: Disaster through a gender lens. In A. Collins, S. Jones, B. Manyena, & J. Jayawickrama (Eds.), Hazards, risks, and disasters in society (233–56). Amsterdam, Oxford and Waltham: Elsevier.
Byrne, B., & Baden, S. (1995). Gender, emergencies and humanitarian assistance. Report No. 33 (commissioned by the WID desk, European Commission, Directorate General for Development). Brighton, UK: BRIDGE, Institute of Development Studies, Sussex University.
Chew, L., & Ramdas, K. (2005). Caught in the storm: The impact of natural disasters on women. San Francisco: The Global Fund for Women.
Enarson, E. (1998). Through women’s eyes: A gendered research agenda for disaster. Social Science, Issue on Disasters, 22(2), 157–73.
Enarson, E., & Chakrabarti, P.G.D. (2009). Gendering disaster risk reduction: 57 steps from words to action. In E. Enarson and P.G.D. Chakrabarti (Eds.), Women, gender and disaster: global issues and initiatives. New Delhi: Sage.
Ginige, K., Amaratunga D., & Haigh, R.P. (2009). Mainstreaming gender in disaster reduction: why and how? Disaster Prevention and Management, 18(1).
Neumayer, E. & Plümper, T. (2007). The gendered nature of natural disasters: the impact of catastrophic events on the gender gap in life expectancy, 1981–2002. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 97(3).
SEEDS (Yoner, A., Sengul A., & Gopalan, P.) (2005) Women’s participation in disaster relief and recovery. New York: Population Council.
Twigg, J. (2004). Disaster risk reduction: Mitigation and preparedness in development and emergency programming. Good Practice Review (9). London: Overseas Development Institute Humanitarian Practice Network.
Zaidi, R.Z., & Fordham, M. (2021). The missing half of the Sendai framework: Gender and women in the implementation of global disaster risk reduction policy. Progress in Disaster Science, 10.
