Natural Disasters: Vulnerability, Risk, Reconstruction and Gender

http://whatstrending.com/news/18953-earthquake-devastates-nepal

It is believed that this week the death toll from Saturday’s tragic earthquake in Nepal will rise to up to 4000 people. Natural disasters are often catastrophic, particularly in their inevitability, scale and lack of accountability. Despite evidence that environmental problems such as climate change increase the possibility and magnitude of natural disasters there is no one to blame for these lost lives. From existing research there is evidence that gendered dynamics play out at all levels of natural disaster analysis: risk vulnerability, response and reconstruction. Despite there being little research into the area speculation and some research suggests that in the first place, due to the gendered division of labour, women are more likely to suffer fatal ramifications of earthquakes: due to gender roles they tend to be inside houses and built structures that collapse as opposed to being out in the open. Following earthquakes or natural disasters that destroy suitable shelter, women face severe problems surrounding gender norms of privacy. For example a WHO report linked significant increase in infections in girls who couldn’t hang their menstrual rags anywhere private without shelter or women who lost clothes simply unable to go out in public post-disaster. Death in itself may cause significant upheaval of gender norms: if one or other of a parent is lost in these disasters whereby if a mother is lost a father will have to take on the caring duties whilst if a father is lost a mother will have to become the breadwinner. Aid collection is similarly gendered in that the image of a suffering women is considered to be substantially more emotive than one of a man.

Most of these speculations are just that in that there is no concrete evidence to suggest gender plays an integral role in natural disasters. Therefore, rather than considering causes or gendered dynamics in the disaster it is more practical to assess how the reconstruction of Nepal’s devastated towns and livelihoods should be gender mainstreamed and aware of varying gendered factors. For example, women are often more vulnerable and less likely to be provided with significant aid to provide for their children in these situations. Similarly, reconstruction should be an equal affair where gender-equal bodies make decisions so as to represent varying interests. Where men may consider sanitary facilities or shelter less of a priority in reconstruction women may place these issues at high priority given the socially constructed privacy requirements or the biological need for sanitation facilities. In this way natural disasters might allow women to transcend their gender roles and take leadership roles in recovery and reconstruction. Nevertheless, in times of crisis gendered requirements or needs are often disregarded as a luxury not affordable. Natural disasters also result in displaced families and refugees where women will be once again less likely to receive adequate support or fair distribution of food and water given their ubiquitous perceived responsibility to also care for children. This may often lead to women going without in order to provide for their children. The tragedy in Nepal is one in a long line of catastrophic natural disasters that leave states destroyed and in extreme poverty. Whilst this form of destruction may not be gendered, poverty and reconstruction absolutely are and it is fundamental that aid agencies are aware of this.

More on this:

http://www1.paho.org/English/DPM/GPP/GH/genderdisasters.PDF?ua=1

http://www.who.int/gender/gwhdisasterassessment2.pdf?ua=1

From Cape Town to the Mediterranean Sea: Seeing the Migration Disaster through Gendered Lenses

As tragic reports come in from events transpiring at both polar ends of the continent it is important that we once again recognise that gender is not synonymous with women and that normative assumptions about gender put men’s lives in danger. Despite the overwhelming and frankly revolting ‘oversight’ of western media to cover the story and other turmoil on the continent this week (Ethiopia mourns the loss of yet more Christians at the hands of ISIL and UN workers are attacked by Al Shabab in Somalia), in many of the larger cities of South Africa there have been violent, gruesome and fatal protests against immigration and immigrants ‘stealing jobs’ as a result of the high unemployment rate in the country. Meanwhile in Europe we are seeing this nationalist, racist and xenophobic agenda play out in the Mediterranean Sea where hundreds of migrants and refugees fleeing conflict and poverty have drowned in the sinking of several ‘migrant boats’ carrying people from Libya to southern Europe. 

"...there is no doubt that anti-immigration rhetoric, in times of economic crisis, has lead to both political and humanitarian crises in both regions"

Whilst personally I consider immigration to be a prosperous and crucial component of global progress and refugee aid to be an overwhelmingly important responsibility of developed nations and organisations such as the EU, there is no doubt that anti-immigration rhetoric, in times of economic crisis, has lead to both political and humanitarian crises in both regions. The dangerous, scare-mongering and scape-goating discourse surrounding immigration, specifically in Europe (I cannot speak for South Africa) has absolutely been partially responsible for this migrant disaster: under the current body of MEP’s the sea rescue mission Mare Nostrum service was cut in favour of a cheaper and less comprehensive alternative: Triton. This was arguably in the ‘hope’ that fewer migrants would make the journey if they did not consider it safe. These decisions were made by anti-immigration MEP’s who are elected in democracies in Europe. This is a specific consequence of the rise of extreme-right, anti-immigration parties in Europe including The National Front in France and UKIP in Britain. In Africa, where South Africa has a tendency to consider itself superior to other central African states a similar atmosphere prevails. These two disasters are intimately connected both ideologically and geopolitically and it is fundamental that attitudes towards migration and refugees are combatted and alleviated.

It overwhelmingly proven that migration, particularly from and between developing states, is a male dominated arena as a result of the perceived responsibility that the man in (heteronormative) relationships will be the breadwinner whilst the women should remain at home and care for the children. In both South Africa and off the shores of Libya men are in danger as a result of this burden. Evidently, no one should face these brutal attacks and catastrophes, yet it is an oversight to consider migration a gender-blind issue. As I have detailed before, nationalism is often considered to be affiliated with typically masculine traits put on boys and not on girls. This has its roots in pride, defence and protector-ship also associated with masculine norms. So, whilst masculinity is arguably highly instrumental in the nationalist disaster, it also plays out in the gendered death toll of these atrocities. Whilst not sufficient to explain this crisis there is once again no doubt that gender plays a crucial role in whom is affected and why/how they are affected by migration politics.  

Labour's Manifesto for Women & Positive Discrimination: A Necessary Evil

I’m pretty sure everyone in Britain is so utterly fed up with the General Election that no one wants to read yet another opinion piece on yet another campaign trick especially on an international blog attempting to gender otherwise gender-blind headlines. However, this site also seeks to explore specifically gendered headlines when they (once in a blue moon) hit the headlines. This week the ‘women’s vote’ has been the political football of choice for the UK general election candidates. In particular for the Labour Party who announced this week that they were issuing a separate manifesto entitled: Labour’s Manifesto for Women. You can find the full detail of said manifesto here: but for those of you with lives let me summarise. If elected, Labour will do the following ‘for women:’

1. Raise the minimum wage to £8 an hour by 2019 and therefore stop the disproportionate exploitation of women’s labour under the current government.

2.    Reverse cuts to childcare therefore making free childcare available for up to 15-25 hours a week and for primary aged children from 8-6 every weekday.

3.    Double paid paternity leave from 2 to 4 weeks and increase parental leave pay to at least national minimum wage.

4.    More stable funding to rape crisis centres and legal aid for rape victims. As well as a new commissioner to monitor domestic abuse and sexual assault.

5.    Introduce age appropriate sex and relationships education in schools.

6.  Continue using all women shortlists and quotas in Westminister that has already resulted in them having the largest number of women MPs.

Do not get me wrong there are many things wrong with this which I will move onto subsequently but firstly let me highlight why I think this is ultimately a necessary evil, much like other positive discrimination agendas. Ultimately, this manifesto highlights that a Labour led coalition will be better for women than the Conservative alternative that has allowed women to take 85% of the austerity burden. All of these measures are fundamental steps in the right direction. They are in no way the destination but they pave the way for significant progress in the crisis of gender inequality brought about my the current government. Free childcare and better-paid, fairer parental leave will potentially emancipate women from some of their care burdens whilst providing the desperately needed aid and education in the area of sexual politics is also a positive step. Much like their policies detailed under point number six and earlier this year at pink bus gate, this is just another act of positive discrimination that, whilst patronising and somewhat unfair, does try to make women’s voices heard. It is because women’s voices are being heard that issues that unfortunately affect women more than men are, for the first time, being voiced in this election debate. It is no coincidence that Labour is the party with the most women MPs and the only party to have pointed out their deliberately gendered manifesto promises. At the end of the day, in the system we live, whilst it is not right, women and men experience their lives differently and often disproportionately and if positive discrimination is the way to progressive change and in the mean time proper representation this I am all for it. Perhaps it is what some might call a peaceful and gradual revolution that will bring more women into politics, making their issues heard and therefore make progressive changes towards the emancipation from gender roles. In 2010 only 39% of British women between the ages of 18 and 25 voted, the lowest turnout category, therefore anything politicians can do to engage with women who feel their voices are not being heard is great. We are taught to actively disengage with formal politics as it is a ‘man’s world’ and this has the dual damage of reifying the patriarchal nature of politics and ensuring unequal representation of issues. If we do not vote we will be an unrepresented majority and the system will be maintained. Women must vote for representation and equality and this manifesto seeks them out and encourages them to do so.

Now let’s get one thing clear positive discrimination is in no way positive. It shouldn’t be necessary but it is. The reason its necessary is what political parties should really be trying to tackle but in a way this does attempt to do so, in a circular kind of way. My biggest peeve with is that it is not a Manifesto for ‘Women’ because this perpetuates gender roles associated with women being in charge of all childcare and only women being affected by sexual violence and domestic abuse. It should be entitled Labour’s Manifesto for Gender Equality and every party should have to write one and have their manifesto’s checked by the Equality Impact Assessments. This should not be a campaign tactic and a political football but a basic, instrumental part of writing a manifesto. Or a budget (cough cough George Osborne.) The idea that only women care about childcare is at the very root of the problem: institutionalised and patriarchal gender roles that subordinate women’s agency by conflating them to the private sphere are the problem. This is what we should be tackling not emphasising! Equally, sexual abuse and domestic violence affects men too. It is not a women's issue. In fact, gender equality is not a ‘women’s issue’ it is a humanitarian issue that affects all people in their everyday lives and yes, much like everything else, most of the blow is taken on women’s shoulders but everyone should be voting for gender equality. Not just women. One of the policies is about paternity leave: paternity leave FOR FATHERS is not a women’s issue. It is a gender equality issue and this tendency to box off feminism in to ‘women’s issues’ is detrimental to ultimate feminist aims.

Furthermore, this manifesto directed solely at women is patronising and implies that the rest of the manifesto is for men. Equally, much of it is fabricated and tokenistic: raising the minimum wage for everyone should not be considered a ‘women’s issue.’ Rather, taking direct action against those who exploit women’s labour and perpetuate the pay gap by paying part time workers less and discriminating against women should be detailed here. Raising the minimum wage does not tackle that sneaky little 17% pay gap. Also, Labour will continue with austerity and women’s disproportionate burdens will undoubtedly abound here. Teaching sex and relationship education in schools is of course fundamental but here a mention of teaching children about the fundamentality of consent should be included. Overall, there are many holes in all of the above policies and a lot of problems with the root ideas and implications of all positive discrimination of this kind. The problem is not that positive discrimination exists, but that it has to exist. That we live in a world, a country, where in order to employ women or encourage them to vote we have to treat them as incompetent secondary citizens! I like to think that these measures put Labour’s feet in the right direction but whether or not they will have the opportunity to follow through is another issue. For me, any deliberate action taken to ensure women’s voices are heard and their problems accounted for is a good thing.

P.S. If you haven’t registered to vote PLEASE DO. Even if you don’t agree with any of them, spoil your ballot! Tell people you’re unhappy. A non-vote does nothing, a vote, even a spoiled one, could change everything and will make a difference in the closest election we’ve had for years. (but also don’t bother if you’re gonna vote UKIP.)

Up the Women! UK General Election Opposition Debate

Something amazing is happening in British Politics and I am SO happy I am alive to see it. This photo was taken last night after the opposition Leaders television debate when all three anti-austerity, left wing  WOMEN leaders had a celebratory hug after their oratory successes. The hashtag of #UptheWomen then blew up twitter. This is an anti-patriarchy, anti-establishment movement and I can't wait to see how it works out. These women are brilliant role models for other young women encouraged to go into politics and this is how we will see real change in our system. This is the peaceful revolution, it's starting. If there are more women in politics our voices will be heard, represented and respected. Maybe I'm embroiled in feminist euphoria but I like to be an optimist sometimes! 

Cuba ought to protect its women after Obama/Castro Summit

Last week, history was made when Obama and Castro shook hands at an international summit in Panama. Following almost 60 years of diplomatic estrangement after the Cuban revolution and missile crisis of the Cold War, the US is reopening diplomatic, economic and migration relations with Cuba. This historic occasion will have huge repercussions for the citizens of Cuba given its geopolitical location in ‘America’s backyard.’ In a colonial hangover from the 20^th Century, the Carribean Islands are prime tourist destinations for many American tourists. One of Cuba’s main exports is tourism and if US citizens are allowed to travel there again it will undoubtedly become its most profitable export. Travel and tourism are explicitly gendered topics, as outlined in Cynthia Enloe’s (2014) chapter: Lady Travellers, Beauty Queens, Stewardesses, and Chamber Maids: The International Gendered Politics of Tourism. They are also truly international topics in an era of globalisation. To begin with, women travelling unaccompanied still inspires tension in some countries in the world, particularly with children. However, most specifically for Cuba, the industry of tourism is highly gendered and a place where private sphere gender roles are played out in the public sphere. For example, whilst waiters and valet drivers will be expected to be men, chambermaids are overwhelming female. In fact, the tourist industry itself is overwhelmingly dominated by women as many of the jobs are ‘women’s work’ but also relatively part-time and flexible. This is a result of the expectation that women will perform domestic tasks in the home and therefore also in the workplace. Whilst a cataclysmic invasion of American tourist companies and American tourists alike may advantage Cuban women as a result of an increase of ‘suitable’ employment there is always a large risk of both exploitation of women’s labour and perpetuation of domestic gender roles. Whilst tourism is often seen to be a prosperous development model, as with all development involving foreign direct investment, it comes with large risks of exploitation, repatriation of profits and mistreatment of workers. Women are always more at risk of these situations.

Similarly, there is absolutely a racially sexualised undertone to the tourist industry. Implicitly in roles such as airline stewardesses and explicitly through sex tourism. Women are in certain positions of tourist service are expected to look a certain way and their appearance’s are commodified and sexualised. This is overtly sexist and the employment of almost purely ‘beautiful’ women and ‘camp’ men by airlines for steward positions is obscene. Furthermore, there are deeply racist and mysognistic ideas attached to sex tourism. Should Cuba be open to American tourism it seems inevitable that we shall also see a rise in the sex industry for tourists in Cuba. Whilst I will not comment on whether or not sex work is good or bad for feminism, I will say that it is unregulated and often dangerous. Particularly, when some western men have preconceived ideals of what they can ‘do to’ foreign women compared to what they can ‘do with’ their wives. This is the virgin/whore dichotomy on an international level and is deeply racist in that it assumes foreign women to be more submissive and sexually adventurous/promiscuous under the male gaze. Whilst many other trade industries will likely be affected by reopening Cuban-US relations, tourism looks likely to be increased more than most. It is also more gendered than most industries. The Cuban government ought to be aware of this and protect women from exploitation and dangerous sex work conditions.