Women were more likely to break Covid rules than men – and I think we all know why

We shouldn’t be taken aback by the lack of thought given to women during Covid, as this merely mirrors the same absence in other areas of policy, writes Ian Hamilton

What women were doing in practice was forming bubbles before they were officially sanctioned (Getty Images)

Traditionally, we think of men as risk takers and rule breakers. It isn’t a form of gender stereotyping, as there is substantial evidence that supports this view.

However, according to a new report from the University of York, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, women were twice as likely as men to break Covid lockdown rules, which counters conventional thinking.

The authors suggest this departure from established gender roles, where women broke lockdown laws which banned meeting up with friends and family at home, was due to the caring responsibilities that are predominantly taken on by women. This surprising finding is explained by the way existing gender inequalities around who cares for children or other dependents were amplified by the introduction of legal restrictions.

It wasn’t ignorance of the rules that lay behind these women breaking the law – rather what the authors call “creative non-compliance”. In effect, women were forced into this position. They had to make pragmatic decisions about how to ensure those they cared for didn’t suffer, and provide support at a time of extreme stress. They were working, and this work was often unpaid and certainly not recognised by the state.

It is this latter point that is extremely pertinent. It explains the lack of consideration for those in unpaid caring roles from government ministers and advisors when emergency restrictions were drawn up. It is now clear that when crafting Covid laws designed to protect the wider population, the critical role that women so often play – and have done for decades – was not in their collective consciousness.

What women were doing in practice was forming bubbles before they were officially sanctioned, by calling in the support of grandparents, for example, or meeting with other mothers and carers for support. Those women who broke the law told the researchers that they believed they had adhered to the “spirit” of a particular rule. Some also justified their decisions by referencing Boris Johnson’s adage about exercising “common sense”.

The impact of legislative restrictions on women should be considered in the wider review into Covid, particularly if lessons are to be learned about the ways that restricting liberty disproportionately affects women. The women who broke lockdown restrictions were not deviant; they were placed in this position by a complete lack of thought by those who drafted the laws.

Women, just like men, are largely keen to follow the rules in a time of national crisis, and working with rather than against this goodwill is one important piece of intelligence that should be used in future policy making. This phenomenon became apparent early on in the pandemic, and is believed to have surprised politicians and public health officials.

Perhaps we shouldn’t be taken aback about the lack of thought given to women during Covid, as this merely mirrors the absence of women and their roles and needs in other areas of policy. In an analysis of the government’s 2010 drug strategy, researchers found barely any mention of women.

To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment, sign up to our free weekly Voices Dispatches newsletter by clicking here

Although there is a gender difference in drug use, with men being twice as likely as women to use drugs and go on to develop problems, many women do become dependent and have substantial health and social needs. As they are also more likely to be caring for children or other dependents, it is disappointing that this is rarely reflected in drug policy.

This really matters, as policy often dictates how scarce public resources are channelled and funding allocated. If women are absent or at least don’t feature as prominently as men in these discussions and the final policy document, we shouldn’t be surprised that their needs are ignored in practice.

Ensuring gender equality is important in its own right, but it also makes economic sense. If we fail to consider and meet the needs of women, the impact is felt not only by them, but by all those they care for and nurture.

As this new report demonstrates, women are able and willing to make their own decisions – irrespective of the law – if it ensures those they care for are protected and can continue to thrive. The least we should expect from government and those responsible for policy is that they consider the needs and perspectives of women. But perhaps that’s too ambitious in 2022.

Ian Hamilton is a senior lecturer in addiction and mental health at the University of York