The Ethics of Care in Disaster Contexts from a Gender and Intersectional Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article's strength is in the consideration of an ethics of care and what that could mean for understanding of disasters and our approach to preparing for/recovering from then. I thought the section on centering care in the face of disasters was good. An increased grounding in the literature (there's been lots of work done on gender analyses of disasters before and intersectionality in disasters that isn't mentioned: Bob Bolin, Fayola Jacobs, Elaine Enarson, to name a few) coupled with a greater foregrounding of your care argument in the first section would be great. I'd also love to see some supportive facts about women working out of the home and more careful consideration of the language around gender vs sex and more consideration of non-binary populations as well as femmes and feminized people who may not be women but as feminized people do sometimes have to abide by gendered roles.

Line 48 – I would say not just male and female but also masculinized and feminized roles, also, especially in the cases of relationships that aren’t heterosexual

Line 87 – The conflict between the workload of care tasks and outside-the-house employment is only responsible for part of the gaps that women face in the workplace

Lines 85-102 – Feels like the gender roles and work are outdated in some places, and particularly for BIPOC and low income women who have always worked out of the house – where are you talking about, who are you talking about, and support with statistics

4.       Are you talking about sex or gender? Are you considering non-binary people and non-heterosexual relationships and femmes and other feminized people and how their labour often aligns with cis women’s?

Line 129 – their not her

Line 142 – “However” feels like an odd segue here

Line 152 – care not car

Line 173-174: when did you consider the experiences of LGTBIQ+ groups? Or is it a different “we”?

NA

Author Response

• References Enarson and Meyreles (2004) and Jacobs (2019) have been added.
• Line 48 – I would say not just male and female but also masculinized and feminized roles, also, especially in the cases of relationships that aren’t heterosexual.
  • This sentence has been changed.
• Line 87 – The conflict between the workload of care tasks and outside-the-house employment is only responsible for part of the gaps that women face in the workplace.
  • The phrasing has been adjusted to avoid a direct and potentially confrontational statement. Now is line 88.
• Lines 85-102 – Feels like the gender roles and work are outdated in some places, and particularly for BIPOC and low income women who have always worked out of the house – where are you talking about, who are you talking about, and support with statistics.
  • In addition, we support with ILO’s statistics about unpaid caregivers around the world. Lines 88-89, and Note 1.
• Are you talking about sex or gender? Are you considering non-binary people and non-heterosexual relationships and femmes and other feminized people and how their labour often aligns with cis women’s?
  • The line 110 has been changed:
• Line 129 – Their not her.
  • It’ has been changed. Line 131.
• Line 142 – “However” feels like an odd segue here.
  • The connector has been changed. Line 144.
• Line 152 – care not car.
  • We add an “e”.
• Line 173-174: when did you consider the experiences of LGTBIQ+ groups? Or is it a different “we”?
  • The sentence has been changed. Line 177.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This article describes the increased caring load on women in times of disaster and links this to feminist theories and philosophical writings to discuss how this manifests in disasters, and how disasters may provide an opportunity to rethink the notion and reality of women as carers.

The concepts the author/s note of ‘violence in opposition to caring’ and  to ‘Liberate care from invisibility’ are both  interesting and thought provoking. However, they need more evidence.

Although there is a brief mention of ‘social expectations’, the article seems to be arguing that women continue to hold this burden of care, but that it be more valued.  I would urge the author/s to consider the points below in relation to particular line numbers, and strengthen their overall argument so the reader knows what the author/s intention is regarding the final message from this article.

The numbers below refer to lines:

60 Literature also notes that disasters set gender relations back to stringent stereotyped roles, e.g. Susannah Hoffman. For balance, this needs to be acknowledged.

105 Needs refs 

111-112 Important to note this is also the result of discrimination and exclusion of women. 

114-15 Need more than one ref. 

129 ‘vulnerability’ is the wrong word as it does not reflect what has been described before - higher workloads and caring responsibilities. 

132 Explain what your definition of ‘vulnerability’ is. The sentences that follow line 132 describe more work but the author/s need to state more clearly what the link is to being ‘vulnerable’ rather than capable. 

151 Needs references, e.g. Duke Austin, Elaine Enarson 

159-160. Needs a sentence to explain this as it is not clear what the meaning is.

190-193. Simplistic to think it’s a clear delineation of ‘after’ when gender relations are changed. So needs more explanation that there needs to be planning and education for this to happen throughout the disaster stages. Is the author’s answer to my question in line 195? ‘Projecting actions beyond the domestic sphere’? If so, need to emphasise and expand this. 

221 Need an explanation of affect/affective so the reader understands this paragraph.

314-15 ‘Rethinking social expectations’ – this is an important but buried phrase. Needs more emphasis.

Author Response

• Line 60 Literature also notes that disasters set gender relations back to stringent stereotyped roles, e.g. Susannah Hoffman. For balance, this needs to be acknowledged.
  • We are fully aware of this, and it is evident when we say that: However, it is significant that even in this new scenario, the mandates of gender roles continue to be maintained and reproduced in terms of caring responsibilities, making it pertinent to continue to reflect on their persistence in crisis contexts. As will be argued in the following sections, what went before coexists simultaneously with a porosity and leak-points in terms of the norms of gender, opening up opportunities for transitions towards models of more equitable relations.
• Line 105 Needs refs.
  • The reference number 9 has been added.
• Lines 111-112 Important to note this is also the result of discrimination and exclusion of women. 
  • The sentence has been changed. Line 113.
• Lines 114-15 Need more than one ref. 
  • The reference number 12 has been added.
• Line 129 ‘vulnerability’ is the wrong word as it does not reflect what has been described before -higher workloads and caring responsibilities. 
• Line 132 Explain what your definition of ‘vulnerability’ is. The sentences that follow line 132 describe more work but the author/s need to state more clearly what the link is to being ‘vulnerable’ rather than capable. 
  • Lines 129 – 134 have been changed. Now, we think the definition of “vulnerability” is clearer.
• Line 151 Needs references, e.g. Duke Austin, Elaine Enarson.
  • The reference of Enarson 1999 has been added.
• Lines 159-160. Needs a sentence to explain this as it is not clear what the meaning is. 
  • There was an error in the original text. The term 'anthropomorphism' was used incorrectly; the correct term is 'anthropocentrism'. Lines 161-162.
• Lines 190-193. Simplistic to think it’s a clear delineation of ‘after’ when gender relations are changed. So needs more explanation that there needs to be planning and education for this to happen throughout the disaster stages. Is the author’s answer to my question in line 195? ‘Projecting actions beyond the domestic sphere’? If so, need to emphasise and expand this. 
  • We think that it’s not simplistic the text says: “gender relations may give way to social transformation”. In addition, the lines have been changed.
• Line 221 Need an explanation of affect/affective so the reader understands this paragraph.
  • It has been added and explanation in the same sentence.
• 314-15 ‘Rethinking social expectations’ – this is an important but buried phrase. Needs more emphasis.
  • The sentence has been changed and added more emphasis. Lines 317-318.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf