Covid-19 is the emergency with the most status of the present. All our efforts are destined to carry forward the recommendations, but gender inequality does not stop its march, nor its figures. In this context we are faced with a pandemic that reveals the way in which we organize ourselves as a society. What do infected people need? Watch out. What do isolated older people need? Watch out. What do children who stay home from school need? Watch out. Who performs the majority of these tasks? Women. All the measures implemented to combat COVID-19, such as the closure of schools, kindergartens, isolation and quarantine affect women and men, children, very differently. However, the measures implemented disproportionately affect women. As we are not at the same starting point in the face of this crisis, including a gender perspective in responses to the pandemic has to be an obligation. Gender equality does not mean that men and women are the same, but just the opposite: guaranteeing that the needs of all people are taken into account and are contemplated in the responses.
Over rained, wet. The extra work due to the closure of schools and nurseries is mainly tackled by women. Before the pandemic, we talked about the double working hours that women face to refer to the double burden of paid work and household chores. In the context of quarantine, housework, virtual school, own work and the assistance of people who need care (even if they do not live at home), add an additional burden that in most cases falls on the women. The overload of housework and caregiving for women already overwhelmed us before the pandemic. According to the World Labor Organization (ILO), globally, women spend three times more time than men inside the home. Following this trend, in Argentina, women dedicate 6.4 hours compared to 3.4 hours that men dedicate (according to data from the INDEC survey on unpaid work and use of time). The quarantines also paralyzed sectors where there is a high concentration of women (tourism, gastronomy, commerce, among others) and sectors where there are high levels of informality (for example, private home workers). We are here faced with one of the structural inequalities that most urges us to incorporate the gender perspective into all policies and responses.
Women continue to be the greatest population at risk.
Women are the majority in health care and represent about 70% of the health workforce worldwide, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). This exposes them to a greater chance of contracting the virus, because they are in the first line of care for infected people. For example, if there is a lack of protective equipment for medical personnel, they are the first to be affected. In some countries, COVID-19 infections among female health workers are twice that of men. According to UN Women calculations, based on data from the Spanish Ministry of Health, 70% of infected health personnel are women (5,265 women and 2,064 men as of April 6, 2020). Italy presents the same trend, where 66% of the infected personnel are women and 34% are men. So feminized and so masculinized are the jobs, that it is common and frustrating these days to keep hearing the bias in the news when they ask "the" doctors and "the" nurses for a thank you. However, despite being overrepresented in health care, they are conspicuous by their absence in decision-making in hospitals and clinics. This is, once again, a symptom of our society: the more power, the fewer women. Not only then are women putting the body to the pandemic, but we are wasting their knowledge in the responses. How much value would it add to us to include more of the experience of these women in health planning? How many mistakes could we be avoiding?
The pandemic before the pandemic.
Violence against women was already a pandemic before this pandemic, but we never flatten its curve. Like COVID-19, violence against women is global and in all countries the cases are increasing, even at this time where the universal message of protecting each other seems clear. Unlike COVID-19, in the pandemic of violence we do have a history and we can anticipate. We know that isolation, combined with stress and economic uncertainty, further increases the risk of violence in the home, particularly in couples. We are already watching this movie very often. Previous studies of health emergencies such as Zika and Ebola show an increase in gender-based violence. For example, during the Ebola outbreak in Sierra Leone, there was an increase in rates of domestic and sexual violence, as well as an increase in teenage pregnancies. In 27 days of quarantine, 209 murdered women were registered in Mexico, 19 murdered women in Colombia and the list continues in all the countries of the region. In Argentina there were 21 femicides and according to the Observatory of the Casa del Encuentro. 65% of these deaths occurred by their partners and in their homes (4 of the victims were girls). It is very difficult to escape when the abuser is at home. The Ministry of Women, Gender and Diversity in Argentina acted quickly, reinforcing the reporting services and launching the Red Chinstrap campaign, in which when requesting a "red chinstrap" in a store, the staff will understand that it is a situation of violence and will manage a communication with Line 144.
Are they not ashamed and angry if in quarantine criminal acts decrease and murders of women increase?
We cannot yet visualize the broader impact that COVID-19 will have in health, economic, social and emotional terms, but what is already clearly visible is the impact of the pandemic on the lives of women. However, we are also facing an opportunity to improve the approach to responses. Progress in knowledge of gender and the factors that generate inequality places us in a better position to respond to the emergency with strategies that incorporate women's priorities in a central place. Applying a gender lens goes much deeper than the clinical (and absolutely preliminary) fact of whether the virus compromises mortality more in men than in women. Taking into account the gender approach would imply addressing some questions, such as: What are the different priorities of women, men, children in the context of the pandemic? What roles do women and men play in this context? Are there pre-existing gender inequalities that can be exacerbated by emergency measures? Do women and men have equal access and influence over decision-making? Is data disaggregated by sex being recorded and collected? Not only can we not afford to be gender neutral, but responses that include it are more effective. We are already beginning to see early and apparently successful strategies in the management of COVID in Germany, New Zealand, Sweden, Finland, Norway and Iceland. 19. I dare to say that the common factor of these countries is not the fact that they have women governing but alternative leaderships that put the different needs of their population in a central place. It is time to face gender gaps with the same determination with which we are facing the epidemic. We also slow down the inequality curve between everyone. Here you can find proposals to respond to the pandemic with a gender perspective:
Covid-19 in the lives of women - Inter-American
Commission of Women (CIM / OEA).
5 actions governments can take without delay - UN Women.
Gender dimensions of the Covid-19 pandemic - World Bank.
This article was published in Infobae.
Comments