Applying a Gendered Lens to the Stay and Defend or Leave Early Approach to Bushfire Safety

Abstract

This paper provides an historical and cultural context, from a feminist perspective, of the Prepare, Stay and Defend or Leave Early (PSDLE) bushfire safety policy, colloquially known as 'Stay or Go', in Australia. We examine the historical, cultural, and political factors that have devalued and marginalised women's experience and knowledge of bushfire preparedness and response. The central tenet of Stay or Go is that able bodied, prepared people should remain with their houses during a fire threat, best embodied by the common maxim 'people save houses and houses save people'. This approach has been routinely presented as evidencebased policy but the argument presented here challenges the evidence base for the policy by applying a feminist analysis, through the application of a 'gendered lens'. This shows that an assumed masculine norm, at a number of different levels, has had a profound effect on the dominant readings of the available evidence about bushfire safety which has skewed bushfire safety policy and compromised the possibility of effective alternative responses. The PSDLE/Stay or Go policy is a prime example of the importance of applying critical feminist analyses to unsettle existing assumptions of policy development and implementation.

Are fire services ‘extremely gendered’ organizations? Examining the Country Fire Authority (CFA) in Australia

“…2 At the conclusion of these projects, it was evident that there was still a need to understand elements of how the gendered nature of bushfire safety was also related to policy (see, e.g., Reynolds & Tyler, 2018) and to the organizations at the heart of bushfire safety in Australia: the (largely volunteer-based) rural fire services. Both received funding from the Bushfire Co-operative Research Centre (CRC).…”

“…Both received funding from the Bushfire Co-operative Research Centre (CRC). 2 At the conclusion of these projects, it was evident that there was still a need to understand elements of how the gendered nature of bushfire safety was also related to policy (see, e.g., Reynolds & Tyler, 2018) and to the organizations at the heart of bushfire safety in Australia: the (largely volunteer-based) rural fire services. In particular, the militarized nature of the rural fire services had been largely overlooked in understanding their history and the potential impact on current practice and policy (Reynolds, 2017).…”

“…The first is the widespread practice of 'stay and defend' . As Tyler and Fairbrother (2013a) argue, the civilian practice of 'stay and defend' shares much in common with the appeal to hegemonic masculinity found in the rural fire services themselves, and this may go some way to explaining its popularity and even implementation in policy (Reynolds & Tyler, 2018). There is historical evidence (Reynolds, 2017) that the practice has been promoted by fire services, especially in Victoria, for some decades and it was officially supported by the Australasian Fire Authorities Council (AFAC, 2005) as an appropriate bushfire response strategy for people without 'physical, mental or emotional incapacity' (p. 7), from 2005 onwards (although it has more recently fallen from favour in official advice).…”

“…1 Residents were presented with the option of 'leaving early' if 'staying to defend' was not suitable, but the Prepare, Stay and Defend or Leave Early policyknown colloquially as 'Stay or Go'was seen, internationally, as a fundamentally different approach to the mass evacuations practised in other fire-prone localities (McCaffrey & Rhodes, 2009). As Tyler and Fairbrother (2013a) argue, the civilian practice of 'stay and defend' shares much in common with the appeal to hegemonic masculinity found in the rural fire services themselves, and this may go some way to explaining its popularity and even implementation in policy (Reynolds & Tyler, 2018).…”

“…The persistence in pushing a traditionally male norm of staying to defend is quite extraordinary given that civilian men die at much higher rates than women in Australian bushfirespossibly as a result of a higher preference for staying to defend property (Reynolds & Tyler, 2018;Tyler & Fairbrother, 2013a, 2013b. Such reluctance on the part of the agencies to alter an existing approach may, in part, be explained by the 'extremely gendered' nature of the rural fire services themselves and the attachment to militarized and masculinized understandings of bushfire response.…”