The pandemic has disproportionately hurt women and girls, and the recovery from it needs to address their vulnerability to crises. In fact, the only way to “build back better” from the pandemic is with a feminist policy response.
BEIRUT – Last year, when the COVID-19 crisis erupted, I advocated for a feminist response. Policies to mitigate the pandemic’s immediate effects and ensure that our societies emerged stronger and more resilient needed to have women’s safety and rights at their center. A year later, such a response – which is urgently needed in the Arab region – is nowhere to be found.
Violent conflict, natural disasters, and epidemics disproportionately affect women and girls, because systemic barriers leave them far more vulnerable than men and boys to such crises.
One such barrier blocks them from information. In the Arab region, nearly half of women and girls lack access to the internet or a mobile phone, compared to 34% for men and boys. Moreover, 33% of women are illiterate, compared to 19% of men. These discrepancies mean that women are far less likely to understand the risks they face or how to mitigate them.
Gender norms can also impede women and girls from protecting themselves and their families in moments of crisis. For example, women in many countries are unlikely to learn to swim, and the traditional clothing they wear limits their movement. That – together with the fact that women were more likely to be at home with children – goes a long way toward explaining why 70% of fatalities during the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami were women.
This disproportionate vulnerability also extends to the economy. Women are significantly more likely than men to live in poverty. In 2021, for every 100 men aged 25 to 34 living in extreme poverty, it is estimated that there will be 118 women. That is a total of 435 million women and girls living on $1.90 per day or less, including 47 million who were pushed below the poverty threshold as a result of the pandemic.
And things are set to worsen substantially: the poverty gap is expected to increase to 121 women per 100 men by 2030. A major reason for this is the apparent vulnerability of women’s employment.
Secure your copy of PS Quarterly: The Climate Crucible
The newest issue of our magazine, PS Quarterly: The Climate Crucible, is here. To gain digital access to all of the magazine’s content, and receive your print copy, subscribe to PS Premium now.
Subscribe Now
During the coronavirus pandemic, women have lost jobs at 1.8 times the rate of men, not least because the pandemic has disproportionately affected the sectors where women tend to dominate, such as services. In the Arab region – where the female labor-force participation rate was already very low – the pandemic is expected to result in the loss of 1.7 million jobs, including approximately 700,000 jobs held by women.
Women who have kept their jobs are also often at added risk from the pandemic, owing to the professions in which they predominate. Notably, women comprise the majority of the world’s frontline health and social workers. In Lebanon, 80% of nursing staff are female.
In addition, a hugely disproportionate burden of unpaid care work – 75% of the total – falls on women’s shoulders. This is one reason why women are more likely to work in the informal sector, where hours are flexible and they may be able to bring young children with them. Rising poverty and pandemic-induced job losses will drive even more women to the informal sector.
Informal workers face high risks and few protections. And yet, according to the United Nations COVID-19 Global Gender Response Tracker, only 10% of social protection, employment, and fiscal measures pursued in response to the pandemic are focused on women’s economic security. It is not hard to understand why: for the most part, women didn’t help design them.
The Arab region has the world’s lowest rate of female political participation, and women are grossly underrepresented in other decision-making roles in every space, at every level. Moreover, sex-disaggregated data is rarely collected or used to inform decision-making.
As a result of this exclusion, the needs of girls and women are often ignored or disregarded in public policy. For example, efforts to contain COVID-19 have been funded partly by diverting financial resources from sexual and reproductive health services that are essential to women’s well-being.
There is ample evidence that women-led countries have generally fared better during the pandemic. Female leaders took strategic, decisive action that was in the best interests of their entire populations, and communicated information clearly. This not only saved lives, but also secured a more feminist recovery path.
But what does a feminist recovery entail? For starters, it should include social protections and health services aimed specifically at women and their needs. There are already initiatives from which to learn. Collectives and organizations like Fe-Male in Lebanon and Women for Human Rights in Nepal are working to make sure women have access to basic necessities, such as masks, sanitizers, and food, as well as menstrual products. In Guyana, essential and frontline workers receive free childcare for children under seven.
More broadly, the pandemic recovery should put us on the path toward a feminist economy. The proliferation of remote work – which, in many companies and industries, is here to stay – offers a golden opportunity. Working from home means no commute and, in many cases, more flexible hours. That would not only keep many women out of the informal sector; it would also ideally enable parents to share housework and parenting responsibilities more evenly.
Targeted initiatives aimed at bolstering women’s economic opportunities should also be pursued. In Mexico, the interior ministry’s “Ella hace historia” (She Makes History) initiative offers financial education to woman entrepreneurs. More such initiatives should be launched and scaled up.
For such efforts to work, women must be given a meaningful voice in decision-making processes. They must be able to share their experiences, describe their challenges, propose ideas, and make decisions that will ultimately impact their lives. And men must listen. To that end, we must challenge long-held patriarchal views of productivity, in which “women’s work” is diminished, and women’s capabilities are undervalued.
The only way to move forward from the pandemic is with a feminist policy response that dismantles the systems that make women so vulnerable to crises. This is not a suggestion. It is an obligation.
To have unlimited access to our content including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, PS OnPoint and PS The Big Picture, please subscribe
BEIRUT – Last year, when the COVID-19 crisis erupted, I advocated for a feminist response. Policies to mitigate the pandemic’s immediate effects and ensure that our societies emerged stronger and more resilient needed to have women’s safety and rights at their center. A year later, such a response – which is urgently needed in the Arab region – is nowhere to be found.
Violent conflict, natural disasters, and epidemics disproportionately affect women and girls, because systemic barriers leave them far more vulnerable than men and boys to such crises.
One such barrier blocks them from information. In the Arab region, nearly half of women and girls lack access to the internet or a mobile phone, compared to 34% for men and boys. Moreover, 33% of women are illiterate, compared to 19% of men. These discrepancies mean that women are far less likely to understand the risks they face or how to mitigate them.
Gender norms can also impede women and girls from protecting themselves and their families in moments of crisis. For example, women in many countries are unlikely to learn to swim, and the traditional clothing they wear limits their movement. That – together with the fact that women were more likely to be at home with children – goes a long way toward explaining why 70% of fatalities during the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami were women.
This disproportionate vulnerability also extends to the economy. Women are significantly more likely than men to live in poverty. In 2021, for every 100 men aged 25 to 34 living in extreme poverty, it is estimated that there will be 118 women. That is a total of 435 million women and girls living on $1.90 per day or less, including 47 million who were pushed below the poverty threshold as a result of the pandemic.
And things are set to worsen substantially: the poverty gap is expected to increase to 121 women per 100 men by 2030. A major reason for this is the apparent vulnerability of women’s employment.
Secure your copy of PS Quarterly: The Climate Crucible
The newest issue of our magazine, PS Quarterly: The Climate Crucible, is here. To gain digital access to all of the magazine’s content, and receive your print copy, subscribe to PS Premium now.
Subscribe Now
During the coronavirus pandemic, women have lost jobs at 1.8 times the rate of men, not least because the pandemic has disproportionately affected the sectors where women tend to dominate, such as services. In the Arab region – where the female labor-force participation rate was already very low – the pandemic is expected to result in the loss of 1.7 million jobs, including approximately 700,000 jobs held by women.
Women who have kept their jobs are also often at added risk from the pandemic, owing to the professions in which they predominate. Notably, women comprise the majority of the world’s frontline health and social workers. In Lebanon, 80% of nursing staff are female.
In addition, a hugely disproportionate burden of unpaid care work – 75% of the total – falls on women’s shoulders. This is one reason why women are more likely to work in the informal sector, where hours are flexible and they may be able to bring young children with them. Rising poverty and pandemic-induced job losses will drive even more women to the informal sector.
Informal workers face high risks and few protections. And yet, according to the United Nations COVID-19 Global Gender Response Tracker, only 10% of social protection, employment, and fiscal measures pursued in response to the pandemic are focused on women’s economic security. It is not hard to understand why: for the most part, women didn’t help design them.
The Arab region has the world’s lowest rate of female political participation, and women are grossly underrepresented in other decision-making roles in every space, at every level. Moreover, sex-disaggregated data is rarely collected or used to inform decision-making.
As a result of this exclusion, the needs of girls and women are often ignored or disregarded in public policy. For example, efforts to contain COVID-19 have been funded partly by diverting financial resources from sexual and reproductive health services that are essential to women’s well-being.
There is ample evidence that women-led countries have generally fared better during the pandemic. Female leaders took strategic, decisive action that was in the best interests of their entire populations, and communicated information clearly. This not only saved lives, but also secured a more feminist recovery path.
But what does a feminist recovery entail? For starters, it should include social protections and health services aimed specifically at women and their needs. There are already initiatives from which to learn. Collectives and organizations like Fe-Male in Lebanon and Women for Human Rights in Nepal are working to make sure women have access to basic necessities, such as masks, sanitizers, and food, as well as menstrual products. In Guyana, essential and frontline workers receive free childcare for children under seven.
More broadly, the pandemic recovery should put us on the path toward a feminist economy. The proliferation of remote work – which, in many companies and industries, is here to stay – offers a golden opportunity. Working from home means no commute and, in many cases, more flexible hours. That would not only keep many women out of the informal sector; it would also ideally enable parents to share housework and parenting responsibilities more evenly.
Targeted initiatives aimed at bolstering women’s economic opportunities should also be pursued. In Mexico, the interior ministry’s “Ella hace historia” (She Makes History) initiative offers financial education to woman entrepreneurs. More such initiatives should be launched and scaled up.
For such efforts to work, women must be given a meaningful voice in decision-making processes. They must be able to share their experiences, describe their challenges, propose ideas, and make decisions that will ultimately impact their lives. And men must listen. To that end, we must challenge long-held patriarchal views of productivity, in which “women’s work” is diminished, and women’s capabilities are undervalued.
The only way to move forward from the pandemic is with a feminist policy response that dismantles the systems that make women so vulnerable to crises. This is not a suggestion. It is an obligation.