Women and Girls Face Double Threat in the Ebola Outbreak; the Response Must Address Both – International Rescue Committee

Women and girls encounter a dual crisis during Ebola outbreaks, facing both a higher risk of viral infection due to caregiving roles and an increased vulnerability to gender-based violence, according to the International Rescue Committee (IRC). The IRC asserts that medical interventions alone are insufficient and must be integrated with gender-specific protection services.

Why are women and girls more vulnerable to Ebola infection?

The risk of contracting the Ebola virus is not distributed equally across populations. According to the International Rescue Committee, women are disproportionately exposed to the virus because of deeply entrenched social and cultural expectations regarding caregiving. In many affected regions, women are the primary providers of home-based care for the sick and are frequently responsible for preparing the bodies of the deceased for burial.

Ebola spreads through direct contact with the blood, secretions, or other bodily fluids of infected people. Because women perform the majority of these high-risk tasks, they are more likely to come into contact with infectious materials. The IRC notes that this exposure is often a result of familial obligation and cultural norms that designate the domestic sphere and the care of the dying as female responsibilities.

The risk is further compounded by a lack of access to personal protective equipment (PPE) within the home. While healthcare workers in clinics use professional-grade gear, women caring for relatives in village settings often have no such protection, leaving them directly exposed to the virus during the most infectious stages of the disease.

Key Drivers of Infection Risk for Women

• Domestic Caregiving: Women typically manage the daily needs of infected family members, including feeding and hygiene.
• Traditional Burial Practices: Cultural norms often require women to wash and prepare the bodies of the dead, a high-risk activity for Ebola transmission.
• Limited Resource Access: Women often have less access to the information and protective materials needed to mitigate risk in the home.

What is the “second threat” facing women and girls during the outbreak?

Beyond the biological threat of the virus, the International Rescue Committee identifies a secondary, systemic threat: the surge in gender-based violence (GBV) and the erosion of protection mechanisms. The IRC reports that the chaos accompanying an Ebola outbreak—including the collapse of local economies, displacement of populations, and the breakdown of law and order—creates an environment where women and girls are more susceptible to abuse and exploitation.

According to the IRC, the instability caused by the outbreak often leads to an increase in sexual violence. When families are displaced or when traditional community support structures fail, girls and women lose the protective buffers that normally mitigate the risk of assault. Furthermore, the economic desperation triggered by the outbreak can lead to an increase in “survival sex” or forced early marriages as families struggle to find ways to support themselves.

The IRC highlights that the response to the health crisis often overshadows these protection needs. When the global focus remains solely on containment and vaccination, the specific safety needs of women and girls are frequently neglected, leaving them without the necessary psychosocial support or legal protection during a period of extreme vulnerability.

“The response must address both the health crisis and the protection crisis. We cannot treat the virus while ignoring the violence that thrives in the vacuum left by a collapsing society,” according to the International Rescue Committee’s analysis of outbreak dynamics.

How does the IRC propose to integrate the response?

The International Rescue Committee argues that a “siloed” approach—where health workers treat the virus and protection workers address violence separately—is ineffective. The IRC advocates for an integrated response model that embeds gender-based violence (GBV) services directly into the Ebola health response.

This approach involves training health workers to recognize the signs of abuse and providing safe spaces for women and girls within or near health centers. By integrating these services, the IRC believes that women will be more likely to seek medical care for Ebola if they know their other safety and protection needs are also being addressed.

Furthermore, the IRC emphasizes the need for gender-sensitive communication. This means ensuring that health messaging reaches women in ways that acknowledge their specific roles as caregivers and provides them with practical, safe alternatives for caring for the sick and burying the dead.

What are the long-term consequences of ignoring the gender gap in Ebola responses?

The IRC warns that failing to address the double threat creates long-term societal scars that persist long after the virus is contained. One of the most significant impacts is on the education of girls. During outbreaks, schools often close, and girls are frequently the first to be pulled out of education to assist with domestic care or because of increased risks of violence on the way to school.

According to the IRC, this loss of education often leads to a permanent exit from the school system, limiting the future economic opportunities for an entire generation of girls. This creates a cycle of dependency and poverty that makes women even more vulnerable to future crises.

Additionally, the psychological trauma of both the disease—having lost family members—and the experience of gender-based violence can lead to chronic mental health issues. The IRC notes that without integrated psychosocial support, survivors of both the virus and violence are less likely to reintegrate into their communities, leading to social stigmatization and further isolation.

For more information on how crisis response affects vulnerable populations, see our related explainer on humanitarian protection gaps.

Comparing the “Double Threat” to previous health crises

The pattern identified by the International Rescue Committee in Ebola outbreaks mirrors trends seen in other global health emergencies, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. In both instances, the “shadow pandemic” of domestic violence surged as lockdowns and social disruptions increased the isolation of women.

However, the IRC notes a distinct difference in the Ebola context: the direct biological risk associated with the gendered role of the caregiver. While COVID-19 affected all genders, the specific cultural requirement for women to handle the deceased in Ebola-affected regions creates a lethal intersection of social expectation and biological hazard that is less prevalent in other respiratory pandemics.

Comparing these events suggests that the “double threat” is not an anomaly of Ebola but a recurring feature of how systemic gender inequality interacts with health emergencies. The IRC’s push for an integrated response is an attempt to break this cycle by institutionalizing gender-sensitive protocols in all emergency health frameworks.

Common misconceptions about women’s roles in Ebola outbreaks

One common misconception is that women are “unaware” of the risks associated with caregiving. The IRC clarifies that women are often fully aware of the danger but continue their caregiving roles due to social pressure, lack of alternative care options, and the profound emotional bond with their family members. The issue is not a lack of knowledge, but a lack of safe alternatives.

Another misconception is that providing “safe spaces” for women is a luxury that should wait until the outbreak is over. The IRC argues the opposite: that these spaces are essential for the success of the medical response. When women feel safe and supported, they are more likely to report cases, cooperate with health officials, and adhere to safety protocols, which ultimately helps contain the virus faster.

Summary of Misconceptions vs. Reality

• Misconception: Women get infected because they don’t follow health guidelines.
  Reality: Women get infected because cultural roles force them into high-risk contact with the sick and dead.
• Misconception: GBV is a side effect that can be handled after the outbreak.
  Reality: GBV is a concurrent crisis that can hinder health efforts and cause permanent trauma.
• Misconception: Integrated services slow down the medical response.
  Reality: Integrated services increase community trust and improve the effectiveness of health interventions.

How can international aid organizations better support this integrated approach?

The International Rescue Committee suggests that funding mechanisms for health emergencies must change. Currently, much of the funding is earmarked specifically for “health” (vaccines, beds, clinics) or “protection” (shelters, legal aid). The IRC advocates for flexible funding that allows organizations to merge these streams.

According to the IRC, this would allow for the deployment of multidisciplinary teams—where a nurse and a protection officer work together in the same community. Such teams can identify a woman who is at risk of Ebola and simultaneously assess if she is experiencing violence at home, providing a holistic package of care.

The IRC also calls for the inclusion of local women’s organizations in the planning phases of the response. Because local women understand the specific cultural barriers and safety risks in their communities, they are best positioned to advise international agencies on how to deliver aid safely and effectively.

To understand the broader context of these efforts, readers may find our analysis of international aid distribution in conflict zones useful.

Frequently Asked Questions

What exactly is the “double threat” mentioned by the IRC?

The “double threat” refers to the two simultaneous risks women and girls face during an Ebola outbreak: the high biological risk of contracting the virus due to their roles as primary caregivers and the increased risk of gender-based violence (GBV) resulting from the social and economic collapse that accompanies the epidemic.

Why are women more likely to catch Ebola than men?

According to the International Rescue Committee, women are more likely to be infected because they are typically responsible for caring for the sick at home and performing traditional burial rites, both of which involve direct contact with infectious bodily fluids.

How does an Ebola outbreak lead to more gender-based violence?

The IRC states that outbreaks cause societal instability, including displacement and the breakdown of law enforcement and community support systems. This environment increases the vulnerability of women and girls to abuse and exploitation, often exacerbated by economic desperation.

What is an “integrated response” in this context?

An integrated response is a strategy where medical treatment for Ebola is combined with protection services for women and girls. Instead of treating the virus and violence as separate issues, health and protection services are delivered together to ensure a holistic approach to recovery and safety.

What happens to girls’ education during these outbreaks?

The IRC reports that girls are disproportionately affected by school closures during outbreaks. They are often removed from school to help with caregiving or because the risk of violence during their commute increases, often leading to a permanent end to their education.

How can the international community fix these disparities?

The IRC recommends changing funding models to allow for integrated health and protection services, training healthcare workers to recognize GBV, and involving local women’s organizations in the design and implementation of the emergency response.