COVID-19 Pandemic's Gendered Effects



COVID-19's societal influence also reveals a strong gender component, with various gender classes facing different challenges. 


Men are more likely than women to die from the virus for unknown reasons. Men, in addition to their death rates, have been particularly vulnerable to emotional illness since the pandemic. This is especially true for fathers who have small children and are unemployed. Girls, on the other hand, have been disproportionately harmed by the pandemic. 


COVID-19 has exacerbated existing gender-based economic inequality in several respects, in addition to the higher maternal mortality rates in developed countries listed in the report. 


The sharp increase in domestic and family abuse is perhaps one of the most important consequences of the pandemic on women. People have been forced to remain in cramped spaces for long periods of time as a result of lockdown and stay-at-home directives, triggering or exacerbating tensions related to health and financial concerns. Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, Executive Director of UN Women, noted that [c]onfinement is cultivating the stress and pressure caused by defense, health, and money concerns in a statement highlighting the emergence of a "shadow pandemic." 

It's also isolating women with abusive relationships, isolating them from the individuals and services that can better assist them. Behind closed doors, it's a perfect storm for manipulating, abusive conduct. 


Domestic abuse services are now nearing capacity when health facilities are stretched beyond breaking point, a care gap exacerbated as centers are repurposed for additional COVID-19 intervention.


COVID-19 has a gendered bearing on topics relating to care roles. According to an Australian government survey, while men are often faced with increased care and household duties, women have been disproportionately impacted by these demands. Women, in particular, are more likely to devote more time to care duties. 

They make up the bulk of the healthcare staff, and they're most likely to look after ill family members at home and carry on educational duties while their children are off school... Increased care roles will add to women's stress levels and limit their economic opportunities. Furthermore, according to a survey of female academics at Australian universities, many women have failed to balance remote employment and caring responsibilities, and their institutions have provided little assistance. 


The challenges in maintaining this equilibrium, according to one female academic at an Australian university, are as follows: 


When you're in the middle of a rolling lockout with a baby, it's even more difficult. I've had to hammer out childcare and work plans in my own household, which had formerly been completely unaffected by my career... I haven't had any uninterrupted reflective time since March. Despite this, I've struggled mightily to retain a semblance of usual study and writing, only to keep my research trajectory from being unduly broken by the dual aspects of care and COVID-19. More broadly, a shortage of social funding for women has resulted in less remunerated working hours and higher levels of tension, as women continue to perform the majority of unpaid ‘care economy' work activities including cooking and childcare. 


Finally, COVID-19 has had a major influence on the LGBTIQ+ culture. 


It has exacerbated pre-existing inequalities among members of this group in terms of wellbeing, rates of depression and suicide, and encounters with inequality when seeking healthcare and social services, as well as when interacting with law enforcement in Australia, for example. 

To mitigate the pandemic's detrimental consequences, a set of main guiding principles must be followed. Complying with human rights law, taking into account the unique needs and conditions of LGBTIQ+ people, ensuring that economic stimulus interventions benefit LGBTIQ+ people and organizations, and providing systemic frameworks to ensure that LGBTIQ+ people have a political voice and are involved in dialogue processes are only a few examples. 

All disadvantaged or particularly vulnerable people should be treated with the same care. Policymakers should consider the social and political realities that define their society, as well as how their new COVID-19 proposals would engage with certain circumstances and achieve specific outcomes. 

Where objective data shows that a program imposes (or is likely to impose) undue pressures on certain people and classes, lawmakers will have to choose between renouncing the policy, changing it, or introducing additional steps aimed at minimizing its uneven consequences in order to meet the demands of justificatory civility. 


Finally, the main argument is that justifying civility necessitates not only logical logic but also consideration of the particular contexts under which (and for which) constitutional laws are devised and implemented.


You may also want to read more analysis about the COVID-19 Pandemic here.




No comments:

Post a Comment