The recent devastation caused by Tropical Cyclone Hidaya in Tanzania has reignited a discussion that transcends meteorological concerns: the practice of naming storms, particularly using female names. This tradition, while seemingly innocuous, is rooted in a history of sexism and misogyny that reflects broader societal attitudes towards women.
Historically, the naming of storms after women became official policy in the early 1950s in the United States. The decision was influenced by the longstanding maritime tradition of referring to the ocean in feminine terms. As a result, storms were personified as women, often described using sexist stereotypes. Terms like “temperamental” or “flirting” with coastlines were commonly used by weathermen, reinforcing gender biases and trivializing the destructive nature of these natural phenomena.
Feminist activists like Roxcy Bolton, who founded the nation’s first rape treatment center, vocally opposed this practice. Bolton argued that associating women with disasters was demeaning and perpetuated negative stereotypes. Her efforts, along with those of other feminists, eventually led to a significant change in 1979, when the U.S. began alternating between male and female names for hurricanes.
However, the legacy of these gendered names carries deeper implications. A 2016 study revealed that people tend to underestimate the severity of hurricanes with female names compared to those with male names. This disparity in perception could potentially affect preparedness and response, putting lives at risk. The study suggests that the gendering of names is not just a trivial matter of nomenclature but has real-world consequences on public safety.
Globally, the approach to naming storms varies. While some regions use a system that alternates between male and female names in alphabetical order, others may follow different conventions. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) oversees these practices, aiming to facilitate communication and avoid confusion during emergencies. Yet, the continued use of gendered names, even if alternating, underscores a need for a more thoughtful approach that avoids perpetuating outdated stereotypes.
The decision to name storms should prioritize clarity, efficiency, and neutrality. Names are a powerful tool in communication, particularly in emergency management. They should be selected to maximize public engagement and preparedness without reinforcing harmful stereotypes.
As we move forward, it’s crucial for meteorological organizations worldwide to reconsider how the naming of storms might contribute to societal biases. Adopting a system that uses neutral, non-gendered names could be a step towards dissociating natural disasters from gendered narratives, focusing instead on the impact and the response required to mitigate it.
