Gender Bias in Crisis Management: A Closer Look at the DANA Disaster Response

On October 29, 2024, Valencia faced a catastrophic emergency as torrential rains caused rivers and ravines to overflow, signaling the worst of the DANA (Cold Drop) phenomenon. Amidst the chaos, an alarming exchange of messages between Salomé Pradas, the relevant consellera, and Carlos Mazón's chief of staff, José Manuel Cuenca, unfolded, revealing a troubling dynamic rooted in gender bias. At 7:55 PM on that fateful day, Pradas notified Cuenca of the dire situation, stating, "Things are very, very, very bad." Cuenca's response was to tell her to remain calm, which eerily mirrored a common trope where women's authority is undermined in crisis situations. Instead of recognizing the critical nature of Pradas' communication, Cuenca appeared to perceive her as overly emotional—a 'nervous woman' needing reassurance rather than an authority figure relaying essential information. Moreover, in a subsequent reminder, Cuenca referred to Pilar Bernabé, the government delegate who was alongside Pradas, as "the girl next to you," questioning their authority in a moment where decisive action was desperately needed. This casual diminishment of their roles epitomizes a systemic disregard for women's capabilities, especially in positions of responsibility. While women's roles were focused on managing a crisis, Mazón, the president, was elsewhere, seemingly prioritizing another relationship over the urgent needs of Valencia. Cuenca's insistence on calming the consellera instead of addressing the catastrophic implications of the disaster underlined a paternalistic approach that diverted attention from immediate action to emotional management. At 8:15 PM, as the death toll began to rise—at least 156 lives were estimated lost—Cuenca continued to dictate how Pradas should act rather than support her in mobilizing a response. His dismissive direction to refrain from confining the population bordered on negligence, as potentially life-saving interventions awaited his approval. It was, therefore, not just condescension but a failure in urgent leadership that placed lives at greater risk. This incident is not isolated; it reflects an entrenched patriarchy that associates authority with male leadership while undermining the contributions of competent women. In mainstream discussions about disaster response, we often overlook how gender biases can influence decision-making processes, leading to tragic outcomes. The toxic combination of sexism and inaction serves as a stark reminder of the ongoing struggle for gender equality, even in high-stakes environments. Salomé Pradas, despite her qualifications, was not recognized as a legitimate authority by her male counterparts, preventing her from exercising the leadership required at such a perilous time. The habitual sidelining of women in crisis management underscores a broader societal malaise that must be addressed. Until both public perception and political structures embrace women's authority fully and equitably, we risk repeating failures in leadership, especially during emergencies where every second counts. As we reflect on this tragic episode, it is crucial to advocate for systemic changes that empower women leaders and dismantle ingrained biases, ensuring that authority is recognized for capability rather than gender. Only then can we hope to foster a more equitable and effective approach to crisis management. Related Sources: • Source 1 • Source 2