By Cynthia Enloe

Danish officials are cautiously reopening elementary schools. New Zealand and Australian governments are carefully reopening beaches. Chinese officials are urging rural migrant workers to return to reopened factories. The Texas governor has named a “Reopening Czar.”

Schools are gendered. So are beaches and the incoming surf. Factories rely on gendered divisions of labor. Czars are always gendered.

Doing gender-smart policy analysis – before making any decision and then assessing the consequences of that decision – entails answering eight gender questions: Who participates? Who is left outside? Who benefits? Who pays the price? Who is taken seriously? Who is taken for granted? Who is in control? And always: Where do ideas (and worries) about manliness and femininity come into play?

While the gurneys still line hospital corridors and ordinary citizens still are getting used to breathing through their masks – that is, during these on-going months of public health uncertainty – some people are sitting around their virtual tables making plans for the post-pandemic era.

Who are at those policy tables? What are their gendered presumptions? Whose interests do they have on their minds?

The reopening, post-pandemic scenarios – and the questions they provoke – are all too familiar to feminist activists. For decades, women paying close attention to the experiences of diverse women during catastrophes have realized that plans for the “post” era are crafted while the guns are still firing, the ashes are still smoldering, the earth is still quaking.

There aren’t many in-the-midst-of-war post-war planning gender success stories. Perhaps best known is the British government’s planning during World War II to build a post-war welfare state. Its blueprint was The Beveridge Report, named after liberal economist William Beveridge. Published in 1942, it outlined a country-wide safety net, the center piece of which was the National Health Service. Officials saw it as a reward for British civilians, whose endurance and social solidarity sustained the country through wartime’s darkest days. Notably, several feminist women Members of Parliament were influential in insuring that the realities of British women’s wartime lives were explicitly considered when designing this ambitious post-war social security system. Despite their efforts, patriarchal presumptions were woven into the post-war British welfare state: about unequal pay, feminized childcare, marital harmony and male bread- winners. British feminists spent the next 75 post-war years trying to undo the patriarchal damage done by those planning presumptions.

Most post-catastrophe plans do not come close to even the flawed the British welfare state. Northern Irish women active in their territory’s long civil war have been sidelined politically in its post-war politics. Colombian feminists have criticized their government’s recent post-war planning for privileging foreign mining companies and their local male partners. Bosnian feminists continue to expose the pain caused to Bosnian women by a post-war reconstruction financial formula that shredded the country’s already inadequate social safety net. Cambodia’s post-war development has been marked by masculinized authoritarian rule and masculinized Chinese companies’ profit-making. Post-genocide Rwanda, heralded for its high percentage of women in parliament, is marked today by masculinized authoritarianism at the top. El Salvador’s post-war era has been scarred by startling rates of male violence against women.

These post-war gendered disasters have come about in spite of decades of global feminist campaigning for women to be key players in the post-war planning that goes on while the guns are still firing. Transnational activists’ major achievement was the 2000 passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security, a resolution intended to commit both the UN and each of its member states to include women as significant players in both peace agreement negotiations and the post-war reconstruction policy-making that usually goes hand-in-glove with peace negotiations.

The scorecard for 1325’s implementation is pretty dismal. Between 1992 and 2018, a mere 13 % of all peace negotiators were women. Of all the signatories in major peace processes, a shameful 4 % were women.

To sustainably rebuild an economy, to effectively reweave a post-shutdown tattered social fabric, and to meaningfully reform the governance system so it will be better prepared to meet the next disaster will require three things:  an explicitly intersectional gender curiosity, the collection of intersectionally gender-disaggregated health, labor, and political data, as well as genuine commitment to anti-racist gender equity. It has been feminist analysts – in the fields of public health, economics, public policy, community services, finance and environment – who have developed these sophisticated skills. We will fall far short of all three requisites for effective post-pandemic planning if we don’t have feminist-informed women at every decision-making table.

In the throes of natural disasters, wars, economic depressions and pandemics, men have condescendingly lectured women: Now, in the midst of this crisis, is not the time to worry about gender. Women and men, the patriarchal lecturers continue, are all in this together. Later, they assure us, when the crisis is past, we can worry about women.

Later, of course, never comes.

Post – after the committees have been appointed, after priorities have been set, after the spoils have been distributed – is too late. During the crisis – right now – is when women with gender equity policy skills and commitments must be at every decision-making table.