Global Public Health through a Feminist Lens

I hadn’t originally planned on spending most of my posts on the role of religion in “sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights,” or more specifically, religious views of contraception and abortion and their impact on legal policies as well as individual adherents. But obviously, this is a very important discussion that involves and affects women around the world. It’s rather unfair and inaccurate to portray the abortion debate as “women and liberals for freedom of choice vs. religious conservatives for sanctity of life.” There are women and men, religious and non-religious, belligerent and reasonable people on both sides; “pro-choice” advocates also value life but have a different idea of when life begins and thus consider a woman’s life, health and happiness to be far more important than a non-fully human fetus; “pro-life” advocates argue that a fetus is an unborn life who is being denied the chance to even choose life.

In his commencement speech at the Catholic University of Notre Dame last Sunday, President Obama called on both sides of the abortion issue to “‘respect one another’s basic decency and even work together to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.’ He said he supported a ’sensible conscience clause’ allowing health care providers to withhold abortion or other services that conflicted with religious beliefs. And he recalled agreeing with an anti-abortion voter who complained that his Senate campaign Web site in 2004 had demonized those who disagreed with Mr. Obama by calling them ‘right-wing ideologues.’ ‘Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction,’ he said. ‘But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.’” One graduating senior’s comment on the protesters outside highlights how people could better channel their passion into more productive efforts rather than fueling the cycle of back-and-forth provocation and refusal to compromise: “If these groups wanted to make a difference, they could have better used their money on homes for unwed mothers.” Ironically, Norma McCorvey, the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade, was reportedly among the 39 pro-life protestors arrested for trying to enter the campus during Obama’s speech.

The story of Norma McCorvey is an interesting one that highlights some of the extremes in these controversial issues, and how religion can play a major role. The pivotal 1973 Roe v. Wade case took three years to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, during which time McCorvey did not abort but went through with giving birth. In the 1980s, she revealed her identity as “Jane Roe” and claimed that she had been the “pawn” of two ambitious lawyers who wanted to challenge the Texas prohibition against abortion. In her 1994 autobiography I Am Roe, she also talked about her long-time lesbian relationship. That same year she was befriended by a pro-life activist and soon converted to Catholicism and became an advocate of the pro-life campaign to make abortion illegal. She has also declared that she is no longer a lesbian. In 1998 she was confirmed as a full member of the Roman Catholic Church. Norma McCorvey is just one rather extreme and high-profile voice, and I was interested in hearing what the many other women who are actually directly affected by abortion (and contraception). With such a charged issue, it’s very difficult to find an objective source. There are stories from women who have suffered severe distress and regret after undergoing an abortion (http://www.abortionconcern.org/stories/index.php) and also stories of pro-life advocates who, when experiencing unwanted pregnancies themselves, opt for the very choice of abortion that they try to deny other women (http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html).

One of the major objections that protesters voiced against Obama at Notre Dame and elsewhere was his Jan 23 repeal of the Mexico City Policy, instituted by Reagan in 1984 and also called the “Global Gag Rule,” in which all NGOS receiving funding from the US government were prohibited from performing or promoting abortion. The Vatican has condemned this repeal, and supporters of the policy claim that it prevents health agencies from promoting abortion at the expense of other forms of birth control. On the other hand, critics have argued that the policy not only reduces certain NGOs’ overall funding but also cuts off their access to USAID-supplied condoms and other forms of contraception, thus increasing the rates of unintended pregnancies and abortion.

While the official position of the Catholic Church condemning artificial contraception poses a particular problem in the promotion of womens’ sexual and reproductive health and rights, approaches like the Global Gage Rule that seem to have backfired show that it would be in the interest of people of widely varying convictions about abortion to spend less time, effort and money on trying to edge each other out politically. Instead, they should focus on the common ground and working together in more productive efforts to address the problems of poverty, unequal access to resources and opportunities, violence and marginalization that especially affect women’s health and human rights, driving them to make difficult choices that ideally could be prevented in the first place.

REFERENCES:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_gag_rule
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/18/us/politics/18obama.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

http://en.chatelaine.com/english/weekend/article.jsp?content=20090205_121111_648&page=2

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21255186/

http://www.abortionconcern.org/stories/index.php

http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html

Advocating reproductive health and empowerment of women without speaking of violence against women would be like advocating for peace without discussing the wars. Simply, one cannot be understood without investigating the other. In the context of this blog—and as a final note—violence against women is both the pretext and a subtext of inadequate reproductive health and the subjection of women.

Even now, the multitude of issues facing the women of the world today—sex trafficking, child marriages, and sexual abuse—is inherently related to prolonged systematic abuse. In many cases, this prolonged abuse occurs in their homes, so that the places that should provide shelter and comfort become a scene of daily horrors, a woman’s living hell. WHO’s Multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence against women documents the extent of violence against women by their intimate partners. It also clearly shows that violence against women demands a public health response, because the impact of such violence goes far beyond the immediate harm caused, affecting all aspects of women’s future health.

One in three women will experience violence at some point in her life. In cases of domestic violence, the home becomes a place of deprivation and humiliation. A young woman who was interviewed by WHO in Thailand offers her story: “After knowing I was pregnant, he changed. No more sweet and kind words from him… He would hit me and throw things at me. He meant to kill me. Once he lifted a table and threw it at me… I survived. Later that night, we fought. He used a broom to hit me several times. I was bruised all over. I was in such a great pain never experienced before…”

Violence against women is the consequence and cause of gender inequity. According to WHO, the most common pattern of violence that women experience is physical violence only, or both physical and sexual violence. In most countries participating in the study, “between 30% and 56% of women who had experienced any violence by an intimate partner reported both physical and sexual violence. Only in the urban settings in Brazil and Thailand, and in Japan and Serbia and Montenegro was the overlap between physical and sexual violence less than 30%.”

In the United States, the average police officer will receive six to eight calls on domestic violence issues a night. According to CBS news, 1.3 million women of all class and race in the United States experience domestic violence per year. Immigrant women, especially undocumented immigrant women, in the United States are particularly at risk because of their inability to seek care. According to the Family Violence Prevention Fund, “shelters sometimes are concerned about the legal or funding consequences of serving battered immigrant women, particularly undocumented immigrant women. Some shelter providers mistakenly believe that it is unlawful to provide services to undocumented women.”

There are women who leave and speak out against abuse. However, it is the nature of domestic violence, especially the type that is sustained by widespread gender inequity and subjection of women in communities, women—undocumented, immigrant status or none of the above—do not seek help. Unfortunately, in some communities, shelters are few and far between. It is in these places that women are the most vulnerable. Without a place to turn, the prolonged physical and emotional violence becomes unbearable, with long-term psychological effects. In her interview with WHO, one woman in Serbia said, “emotional abuse is worse. You can become insane when you are constantly humiliated and told that you are worthless, that you are nothing.”

The inability to seek help is pivotal to women’s understanding of abuse. The WHO Study investigated two important aspects of women’s attitudes to partner violence. The first is the circumstances under which women believe that a man is justified in beating his wife. The second is women’s beliefs about whether and when a woman may refuse to have sex with her husband. According to the WHO study, in virtually all cases and for all reasons, acceptance of wife-beating was higher among women who had experienced abuse than among those who had not.

The same study reports, “while over three quarters of women in the urban settings of Brazil, Japan, Namibia, and Serbia and Montenegro said that no reason justified violence, at most only a quarter thought so in the provincial settings of Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Peru, and Samoa. In all settings, the reason most widely accepted as a justification for violence was female infidelity, but the range was wide: from 80% in Ethiopia to 6% in Serbia and Montenegro. Disobeying a husband was the next most accepted reason.”

Along with statistics on “acceptance” as a consequence of gender inequity, we must also consider the individual factors that increase women’s risk of becoming victims of abuse.  Individual factors and social context are immediately relevant here. Individual factors include a woman’s level of education, financial autonomy, previous victimization, level of empowerment and social support, and whether there was a history of violence in her family as she was growing up. Social context factors include the degree of economic inequality between men and women, levels of female mobility and autonomy, attitudes towards gender roles and violence against women, the extent to which extended family, neighbors, and friends intervene in domestic violence incidents, levels of male-male aggression and crime, and some measure of social capital, according to WHO.

So we see, also, the male role in the context of domestic abuse. According to UNFPA, “Women cannot achieve gender equality and sexual and reproductive health without the cooperation and participation of men. It is men who usually decide on the number and variety of sexual relationships, timing and frequency of sexual activity and use of contraceptives, sometimes through coercion or violence.”

Effective programs in prevention of domestic abuse recognize that gender roles and relations are dependent on social contexts in which cultural, religious, economic, political and social circumstances are intertwined. Like ideas about feminine roles, those about manhood are deeply ingrained. From an early age, many boys are taught that expressing a dominant behavior over women is a part of manhood. These stereotypes result in the mindset that harms both women and men, and challenge possibilities of establishing satisfying, mutually respectful relationships.

The discourse on violence does not stop here. Violence against women by non-partners is also widespread. In war, in sex trafficking, in the workplace, the issue of abuse—physical, psychological, and sexual—is never-ending. We see that a predisposition of violence is ebbed within socially established gender inequities. The continuation of abuse is also a condition of these gender inequities. It is important, clearly, to provide the foundation for a society that no longer accepts violence against women, for women to no longer accept violence against themselves.

To do so requires communities to build a network of empowerment, where victims can speak out and girls (as well as boys) grow up to demand and maintain mutually respectful relationships. The most important fact to know in this approach is one that is widely effective: gender relations and gender dimensions are not static and can be changed.

Resources:

http://www.unfpa.org/gender/men.htm

http://www.who.int/gender/violence/who_multicountry_study/summary_report/en/index.html

http://www.endabuse.org/content/features/detail/778/

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs239/en/

Up until now, I’ve mostly discussed issues relevant to women in developing countries. However for this blog I wanted to concentrate on women issues in developed countries. In particular I want to discuss the notion of the “glass ceiling.” According to Carol Morrison, senior writer for Human Resources Institute, “glass ceiling” refers to the sometimes unseen, yet nonetheless real,
barriers to women’s progression into top-level management positions. It includes the obstacles encountered by women of all ethnicities. Reasons for the existence of the glass ceilings include gender-influenced attitudes, family responsibilities, clashing value systems, stereo-typing,
bias against skin color and even boredom with management positions. Even in the Unites States, there are evidence of a “glass ceiling.” Average pay for U.S. female workers is about 77% of men’s earnings, and the ratio may be as low as about 44% over the course of a woman’s career. Of course the glass ceiling in the United States isn’t as indestructible as it is in other countries.

Over the last seven years in Vietnam there has been an increasing desire for baby boys. Only twelve years ago, Viet Nam’s gender birth ratio equalled the accepted international average of around 104 boys to 100 girls. Like many other Asian countries, Vietnam has a male-dominant society. Furthermore the communist regime in Vietnam only allows women a secondary role in society. One doctor in Vietnam was quoted saying, “there are few women in top business jobs, only one in the Cabinet, only one female ambassador, not a single woman in the Politburo, only a handful in the central committee and the national assembly.” In Vietnam the glass ceiling is virtually impenetrable.

Ironically, however, the lower number of women in the population could perhaps help break this glass ceiling ( at least in Vietnam.) With less women overall, maybe the worth of women will increase. Does rarity equal increased value? And if it does, would an unequal distribution of men and women in a society be more harmful than beneficial? Yes, it may help crack the “glass ceiling,” but it would also mean less men finding wives to have children with. And with less women, I can see the sex trafficking in Vietnam exploding- acting more aggressively to lure in women.

Several of the lectures and readings from this week mentioned religious groups and medical missions that go to either provide health care or to convert, most often highlighting the harm that these organizations have done and the role they played in imperialism and concluding with the generalization that these groups are not much help to anyone. While on many levels I agree with this, and as a follower of Jesus myself I am sorry for and wish I could make up the harm that too many have done in the name of religion, it is in some ways very narrow-minded. I could talk for hours about the part missionaries played in imperialism, how this harm came from a fundamental misunderstanding of the God the Bible reveals to us, but in this blog I will be examining how religion, Christianity in particular, has a vital role to play in addressing the issues the sex industry presents. Several questions that the intersection of Jesus and the sex industry raise include: what is the role of religion in engaging with the women who have been or still are selling their services in or enslaved in the sex trade? What is the role of religion in addressing the demand side of the sex industry? What does the entire issue of the sex industry say about who God is? (A note before I attempt to shed some light on these questions: I am a follower of Jesus and will be examining these questions from that perspective. I don’t want to even pretend to know all the answers, but want to share some things I have researched and that have been on my mind)

1. What is the role of religion in engaging with the women who have been or still are selling their services in or enslaved in the sex trade?

I will begin this with a brief overview of how Christian groups have acted in the past and are acting currently toward aiding women working in the sex industry. Evangelical groups continue an active role in the anti-porn movement along with many feminists spokeswomen and organizations. In his article “Christian responses to Trafficking in Women from Eastern Europe,” Mark Elliot describes the long history of churches founding recovery centers for women trying to leave prostitution or who have escaped from sex trafficking—several centers date back to the 1800s. There are currently churches all over Europe, the States, and Asia opening centers to help women who have been trafficked deal with trauma, find shelter and food, and begin a new life. Although it is true that there are churches who actively seek to meet these women where they are and give them the help they ask for, many churches and Christians are guilty of turning a blind and judgmental eye to the plight of many women. Annie Lober, a former prostitute who has since founded the organization “Hookers for Jesus”, describes how before finding the church she now goes to, she visited many where she left feeling dirty, judged, and gawked at by the other church attendees. This is I believe one of the greatest tragedies of the church today, that women and men seeking the grace of love of God would enter a church that places itself under the cross of Jesus and leave feeling more guilty and more ashamed than when they entered. This subverts the entire mission and character of the God that I follow, who proclaims he came for those seeking freedom, love, and grace, that he will never turn anyone away who comes to him with humility, that he even seeks and intervenes on the behalf of the people he loves. And so one of the first roles of the church in America is to reexamine the gospel that they preach—is it one that brings good news for people in need, or instead condemnation to them and self-righteousness for members who regularly sit in the pews?

Several Christian organizations that have done this, that have recaptured grace in all its power, have recently begun to speak out about social justice, and have acted to bring justice and mercy to victims of sex trafficking and to women who feel trapped in a prostituted lifestyle. For example, International Justice Mission (IJM) is an organization that brings legal aid to victims of sex trafficking, and physically takes them out of the brothels they are forced to work in. I recently went to a conference entitled “Freedom Summit” which examined the issue of modern day slavery and what God has to say about it; I was struck by the stories IJM told of where there was no hope a way was provided to rescue women who were trapped; they gave the credit of these rescues to the power of prayer and the movement of God, not to their work.

The conference also hosted organizations that currently work to help women leave prostitution and reintegrate into society after being trafficked or after deciding they don’t want to work anymore. These organizations discussed how “conversion” was not a prerequisite to being invited into the homes they run; “conversion” is not a requirement before women can access the medical, psychological, financial, and educational services that these homes offer. The organizations operate out of a belief in the unconditional love of God, and so love and respect and help all who come to their doors needing shelter and hope.

This may be somewhat scattered, but what I am trying to say is that the role of the church in addressing needs of women in the sex industry, regardless of whether they are in it because of desire to be there, coercion, or necessity, is never to judge but to have open doors and arms and to share all resources. Saying nice things is not enough; the actions of the church must communicate a commitment to helping and listening to people in need and changing social structures that condone sexual violence against women.

2. What is the role of religion in addressing the demand side of the sex industry?

I will not say as much about this, but many of the men who profit from trafficking an prostitution by soliciting services are baptized Christians who attend church. It is imperative that church leaders, therefore, not ignore these shameful, hypocritical issues in their own congregations but instead speak out against these things and hold men accountable for their actions. Pastors are in the unique position of having a substantial audience every Sunday morning, and can help their congregations to see how the sex industry dehumanizes women and men by reducing people to what their bodies can do, that we are meant for so much more, how our hearts and souls and bodies have eternal worth and value, how Jesus teaches a grace and acceptance not only for the women who have been victimized and objectified, but also for the men whose hands and wallets perpetrate these things (see Zaccheus in Luke 19). To address prostitution, I don’t think the best way to go about doing this is to outlaw it, a better way is to address the demand and hold the demand side, not the supply side, accountable.

A story of how a follower of Jesus acted to address the demand side of slavery, which is an example of the potential of the church to end sex trafficking:

William Wilberforce tirelessly spoke out against transatlantic slave trade in British empire because of his understanding and conviction about the justice and compassion of God; the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 is largely attributed to his efforts. The same dedication and heart from the church must be applied to sexual slavery and trafficking.

3. What does the entire issue of the sex industry say about the character of God?

As I have researched the sex industry, I am many times overwhelmed by the horrible stories of rape, violence, exploitation, evil, and pain, and in a comment about a previous post someone raised the question of why does God allow this? I will be honest in saying I don’t fully understand, but God has given us the chance to choose good or evil, and we most of the time choose evil—in the forms of selfishness, pride, and disregard for others (everyone is guilty of these things at one point). What I do know is that Jesus came to provide freedom, to give hope where there is none, to open the doors to life that we are shut out of. In the Bible there are several women who were prostitutes who are revered for their faith—Rahab in the Old Testament, the prostitute that Jesus honors more than the religious authorities of the day (Luke 7:36-50). The things I have most learned about God by studying this issue is that God’s heart breaks for each of these women and men whose lives are living hells because of the sex industry, his heart breaks for everyone who gains from it and laughs in his face, and He offers grace and redemption through the sacrifice of His son. He loves every one so much. At the same time, he hates the evil that permeates the sex industry, and is a just God that is angered at these horrible things and only the sacrifice of Jesus can make us right with him. So the sex industry illustrates so clearly the goodness, love, and justice of God. The church’s role is to be the voice and hands goodness, love, and justice of God in addressing issues of the sex industry.

Sources:

Birn, Anne-Emanuelle; Pillay, Yogan; Holtz, Timothy H. “Doing International Health”. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.

The Bible.

Brown, Ely and Karlinsky, Neal. “Saving Sin City: Hookers for Jesus Target Unlikely Flock.” http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=7061434&page=1

Elliot, Mark. “Christian responses to Trafficking in Women from Eastern Europe.” Christianity and Human Rights. Samford University, Alabama. 13 November 2004.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce

In my past seven blogs, I have investigated sexual assault in South Africa through a number of lenses. I have looked at certain populations it affects, how it impacts victims and their communities, and the societal attitudes. Most recently, I looked at the gender norms that underpin sexual violence, in hopes that those might be shaken. Since I have looked at what’s behind sexual assault, I now want to look at what lies ahead. Below, I look into a few options available to women and communities in South Africa and how they can have an impact. Each approach is unique and will likely yield varying levels of success.

One effort on behalf of the government has been to establish specially dedicated rape courts. This legal solution promises extra training to judges and prosecutors to enable them to deal with difficult cases. However, this approach has its limits. While the courts are a step in the right direction towards legal accountability, due to the unimaginable proportions of rape in South Africa, the majority of rapists will still never see the inside of a courtroom.

Other independent organizations take steps to promote healing in the community. For example “Rape Crisis Helderberg” is a group that provides support and a 12-step program to adult survivors of sexual assault. Through fundraisers, community networks, and external support, it continues to provide a safe place for survivors to heal, share, and promote safer communities.

However, either through providing legal retribution to the perpetrators or support to the victims, both of these venues deal only with the aftermath of sexual violence. In order to look to the future with hope, extensive efforts must be made to determine why the rate of rape and abuse is so high in South Africa. Groups like South Africa’s National Prosecuting Authority are trying to do just that, acknowledging that treating the symptoms will not solve the problem.

Overall, hope is there. As Kelly Hatfield, the former director of People Opposing Women Abuse, says, “One thing about South Africa is that it’s an activist nation. If we can bring down apartheid, we can bring down violence against women.”

Nicole Itano. “South Africa Begins Getting Tough on Rape.” Women’s E-News. 24 February 2003. 28 May 2009. <http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/1232>.

http://www.crisiscentre.org.za/

For my final blog, I will turn to Sri Lanka where the Sri Lankan Army (SLA) has long been the perpetrator of systematic rape of Tamil women as they flee the war zone, according to NowPublic.  The Tamil people are an ethnic group from the state of Tamil Nadu in India and also the northeastern part of Sri Lanka.  Although rape in Sri Lanka has been going on for many years, there has been limited media coverage due to strict restrictions on the press.  Moreover, given the majority of the assaults are committed by state employees—military officers, policemen etc.—there is a strong opposition to negatively portraying the offenders.  Further, multiple sources describe the impunity of the SLA not only due to the silencing of the press but also because rape has become an accepted part of the military culture.  The military continues to silence media in order to hide and preserve the culture of rape. 

The article on NowPublic, referencing the situation in Sri Lanka, suggested systematic rape may constitute genocide if used as a form of ethnic cleansing to wipe out a generation.  U.S. Ambassador for war crimes David Scheffer said, “women who had been raped during the atrocities in the Balkans, Sierra Leone, Uganda and the eastern Congo…the experience was devastating to their character, their ethnic bonds and often to their physical health. Even if they were still physically able to bear children, these women typically were ostracized from their communities and could not marry their ethnic men…. mass rape can destroy a substantial part of a group and thus constitute genocide.”  In Sri Lanka, the rape of Tamil women is intimately linked to racism. 

            Amnesty International reports that most raped women are already living in vulnerable conditions, internally displaced, imprisoned or otherwise lacking resources. An article on Tamilnet, while potentially biased, suggested the military enjoys seeing Tamils vulnerable and weak, describing the desire of SLA soldiers to see Tamil women powerless and naked.  Rape is also not limited to one traumatic experience, often women are taken as sex slaves, held in captivity and repeatedly abused by soldiers and police.  Moreover, Amnesty reported that not a single member of the Sri Lankan security forces had been brought to trial (as of the early 2000s).

            The systematic rape of fleeing Tamil women calls out for international action, yet the effective silencing of media has hindered attempts to raise public opinion and encourage political action.  The strong domestic incentives to preserve the face of the military and anti-Tamil racism have hindered efforts to bring justice to Tamil women.  It is shocking that rape has been occurring for years and not a single person has been brought to trial—proving the acceptability of rape within society.  As in many other cases examined, especially the Congo and Darfur, assaults are committed by armed soldiers against women made vulnerable by the conflict.  Consequently, in order to protect Tamil women in the long run, not only must the soldiers and policemen be brought to justice, but the conflict must also be brought to an end.

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/sri-lankan-army-systematically-raping-women-fleeing-war-zone

http://www.sibernews.com/200902141915.html

http://tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=79&artid=28176

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/05/world/asia/05lanka.html?_r=3

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/ASA37/001/2002/en

For my last blog I will compare perceptions of beauty in the U.S. and parts of Africa and look at how these perceptions affect women’s health.  

In the U.S., thin is in.  While this fad seems to be fading slowly as people have begun to be annoyed by the ultra-skinny celebrities, campaigns such as the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty and the fact that there are “plus size models” that actually appear quite average in size attest to the fact that thin is still the ideal body type for women.  Otherwise, there would be no need for the Dove campaign and people would stop calling plus size models by that label and start calling them “healthy size” models because that is essentially what they are.

One article I found titled “Beauty and Body Image in the Media” explains that media images of female beauty are unattainable for most women and the constant media messages about dieting, aging, and beauty make a woman’s body an object to be perfected rather than a living entity to keep healthy.  Teen magazine reported in 2003 that 35% of 6-12 year old girls had been on at least one diet and 50-70% of normal weight girls believe they are overweight.  In 2006 up to 450,000 women were believed to have an eating disorder.

Obviously, the strong media message that thin is beautiful can have drastic effects on women’s physical, mental, and social health.  Eating disorders, abuse of laxatives, and addiction to exercise are just some of the physical health issues that arise in response to the attempt to be thin.  Self-esteem of women also plummets as they try again and again to look like the supermodels that weigh 23% less than today’s average woman.  Also, women compare themselves to one another, creating a competitive social sphere rather than a supportive one.

In some parts of Africa, the opposite ideal of beauty is true:  women are considered more beautiful the bigger they are.  Thin women are seen as either trying to be too western or not wealthy.  Fat is a sign that a woman has money to eat.  What an interesting dichotomy:  in the U.S., thin women are often richer because they have money for the gym membership and more expensive produce, while in Africa, fat women are richer because they have money for food.  However, appreciating fat is not necessarily healthy for women either.  In many countries, girls undergo “fattening rituals”, grueling processes of eating and not moving in order to gain weight before marriage.  While mental health may be somewhat affected by this perception of beauty, if women have trouble obtaining a certain amount of fat they may suffer economically and socially (they will not be a popular marriage prospect) and they may suffer physically as well.  Adding a lot of weight is clearly not the healthiest practice.

It is clear that perceptions of beauty affect women’s health on many different levels: social, physical, and mental.  It seems that in most places there is an ideal body size that suggests beauty, and this ideal makes women compare themselves to one another and try extremely hard to make their body fit into that ideal shape.  The healthiest body type is different for each individual woman.  It is the body shape that is produced from regular and moderate exercise and a healthy and balanced diet.  Getting cultures to change their perception of beauty is difficult, but I think it is necessary to create healthier women.

References:

“Beauty and Body Image in the Media.” Media Awareness Network. 2009 <http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/stereotyping/women_and_girls/women_beauty.
cfm> 

Smith, Alex Duval. “Fat is where it’s at, say new South African beauty queens.” The Independent World - Africa 9 Dec. 2001. <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/fat-is-where-its-at-say-new-south-african-beauty-queens-619581.html>

War or no war, more than 2,000 Iraqi women give birth every day, UNFPA reports.

Yet, during the last decade of war, the Iraqi health care system has been severely damaged. The country is left with limited access to professional care, medicines, equipments and supplies. This condition has caused increasing health consequences on Iraqi women and their children. Maternal mortality and infant mortality rates have more than doubled, reported UNFPA.

Considering the wide range of conflict areas, however, this is not an isolated case. The health system in the North West Zone/Somalia is struggling to re-establish itself as a public sector institution after years of civil war. Approximately 30,000 women of reproductive age in North Western Somalia are in need of improved access and quality of maternal and newborn care services, according to the Reproductive Health in Conflict Consortium (RHRC). In Kosovo, fewer than 150 gynecologists provide reproductive health care to more than 1.8 million people. The country now has the highest maternal and infant mortality rate in Europe.

It is no secret that armed conflict threatens women’s rights—including reproductive rights—and health, and can aggravate culturally rooted gender inequalities. Certainly, in conflict situations conventional perceptions of gender roles are challenged. Increasingly, while men are generally targets during armed conflict, we see sexual violence as a growing tactic of warfare. The rape of women is not viewed as violence against women, but as an act of aggression toward the community, due to her maternal role. However, in addition, to this trauma, she is often unable to seek care for the reproductive health problems and risks that these wartime aggressions incur.

The conditions of reproductive health during armed conflict and in post-conflict climates are troubling, and one aspect to be addressed is the rebuilding to reproductive health in these environments. In the aftermath of conflict, women survivors often bear the burden of rebuilding the community. They overcome immense trials to provide care and safety for others.If women are to look after the welfare of others, however, their health, safety, dignity and nutritional needs must be met as well.
Around the world, these isolated cases of declining reproductive health in various post-conflict areas are being addressed. In May 2007, the UN launched a one year program to bring reproductive health services to 25,000 people affected by the conflict in Nepal.

According to Junko Sazaki, UNFPA representative, “Bringing reproductive health services to conflict-affected villages and communities will not only improve the health status of the most vulnerable populations, but will also build hope and belief in the overall development, fostering confidence in the peace-building process.”

In these conditions, local participation is crucial since the beginning. In Kosovo, health education and outreach was successfully implemented in rural Kosovo via women’s groups.  Reproductive health services provided in traditional primary care settings by nontraditional staff were found to be acceptable to recently returned Kosovar refugee women, according to RHRC.

According to a WHO article titled “Reproductive Health during Conflict and Displacement,” “communities may simply be inaccessible because of high-intensity violence, military groups may silence dissenting voices, and the need for speed may seem to override the need for consultation.” Therefore, supporting coping strategies for communities and individuals becomes critical during times of conflict and in a post-conflict environment. It empowers communities to regain their strength and makes them less reliant on external sources to protect community members.

In this same article, WHO also lists several ways by which to “initiate relief activities.” This list includes key strategies such as building gender awareness and using women as assessors and as key informants. It is clear that women play a huge role in the post-conflict environment, as survivors, victims and rebuilders. However, throughout conflict zones and post-conflict environments, there is still a grave decline in access to reprodutive health and mental health services for women. In many cases, the conditions of health which afflicted them during the war–such as increased maternal mortality and infant mortality rates–continue to haunt them post-war. It is a problem which the global community needs to be motivated to address and, even then, to more forcefully direct efforts at providing these women–and their families–with the necessary resources.

During Monday’s lecture, Assefaw Ghebredidan briefly mentioned the horrendous act of female genital cutting/mutilation as a cultural phenomenon. I wanted to dedicate this blog to this shocking issue.

What is female genital cutting/mutilation?
According to UNICEF, female genital cutting is “the partial or total removal of the female external genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for cultural or other non-therapeutic reasons.” It is estimated that more than 130 million girls and women alive today have undergone this procedure. This practice exists in 26 African countries, but it is also practiced among some communities in Asia and increasingly in Europe, North America and Australia among migrant communities.

Young girls who are forced to undergo genital mutilation must endure severe pain, bleeding, and are at risk for shock and HIV/AIDS infection. Long term consequences include fistula, urinary tract infections, hemorrhaging during childbirth and reduced fertility. According to WHO, female genital mutilation has been recognized internationally as a violation of the human rights of girls and women.

Why female genital mutilation?
People practice female genital mutilation for a variety of social, cultural and religious factors. More than anything female genital mutilation exist as a social convention. There are no religious scrips that promote this practice. However it does have religious support.

Ghebredidan mentioned in class that since female genital cutting is NOT a religious practice, one could and should intervene. I’m not sure I agree with this approach. Yes, female genital cutting is a violation of human rights, but an outsider can not just come into a community and change social conventions. In fact doing so would be violating their human rights. A more feasible approach would be through education. As Ghebredidan mentioned, there are women and girls who are against this practice-maybe not openly. I believe if there were more education on the harmful effects of genital cutting and more discussion about this topic in general more women would be more willing to speak out against this practice.

In my last post I presented a lot of statistics on the surprisingly high number of Catholics who disagree with the Vatican’s condemnation of artificial contraception and use a banned contraceptive. Several people who commented pointed out that results might be very different among more orthodox or “hardcore” Catholics, but it’s difficult and unfair for others to make this judgement. There are 1.2 billion baptized Catholics in the world who would self-identify with varying degrees of personal religiosity. Most of the statistics in my last post on Catholics who used artificial contraception were from the US and more developed countries, where women are relatively free to choose to disagree with with the pope’s teaching on contraception. But for many developing countries, the Vatican has more influence over official family planning policies and availability of contraceptive and abortion services. Roman Catholicism in the only religion with a seat in the UN, and the Vatican has used this status as well as its influence on Catholic politicians in developing countries to press policies against contraception and abortion, which has serious implications for the availability of such services to non-Catholics as well as Catholics.

This year, the Catholic Church has drawn attention over several controversial incidents. On the way to Cameroon on March 17, Pope Benedict claimed that condom use would “aggravate the problem” of HIV, though a transcript on the Vatican’s web site suggested that he had said that condoms “risked” aggravating the problem, a change that Catholics for Choice Jon President O’Brien welcomes as a sign that the pope is not infallible on these issues. “The pope has admitted that he is unsure whether condoms can help alleviate the spread of HIV. Where there is doubt there is freedom and Catholics can make up their own minds whether they use condoms or not. Indeed, the vast majority of Catholics has already made this call and use condoms to protect themselves and their partners against STIs, including HIV.” Defenders of the pope have since argued that his quotes were taken out of context, and that he was alluding to respectable academic research showing that anti-AIDS policies in Africa based solely on condom distribution have been counter-productive. The Vatican asserts programs promoting condoms encourage promiscuity, thus actually increasing STI transmission.

When a nine-year-old Brazilian girl had an abortion after being raped by her stepfather, the Archbishop of Recife declared that everybody involved (the girl’s mother, the doctors) were excommunicated. However, Archbishop Rino Fisichella, head of the Pontifical Academy for Life, admitted that the talk of excommunication had been “insensitive, incomprehensible and lacking mercy”. Yet one Catholic website cites a number of canons supporting excommunication for politicians and ordinary citizens who condone abortion and legalization policies for any reason (although there are a few exceptions for citizens voting for pro-abortion politicians): “Those Catholics who publicly announce their denial that abortion is always gravely immoral, or who publicly promote abortion, or who publicly argue in favor of legalized abortion, also commit a mortal sin and also incur a sentence of automatic excommunication. This sentence of excommunication applies to Catholics who are politicians, as well as to those Catholics who are political commentators, or public speakers, or who write or otherwise publicly communicate their erroneous view that abortion can be morally-acceptable or that abortion should be legal.”

The Vatican has also formed an interesting alliance with conservative Muslim nations in opposing policies increasing access to contraception and abortion, managing to block policies promoting contraception and family planning at the United Nations conference in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (CPD) conference in Cairo. The then Prime Minister Brundtland of Norway said of the Rio conference: “States that do not have any population problem–in one particular case, even no births at all [the Vatican]–are doing their best, their utmost, to prevent the world from making sensible decisions regarding family planning.” Another critic writing from a feminist perspective asks of the conservative Catholic-Muslim alliance, “Is the issue really fetuses, or is it that these two patriarchal bastions are bonded in the face of a new threat…the emergence free, self-determining women?” But the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute argues that the push for safe abortions as part of the increased stress on sexual and reproductive health and rights diverts attention from the problem of poverty, “reflecting the social policy predilections of first-world women rather than the economic and social concerns of women in the developing world.” At the 42nd session of the CPD in April 2009,the Permanent Observer of the Holy See, Archbishop Celestino Migliore, accused “the very institution which launched the MDGs…[of] giving priority to population control and getting the poor to accept these arrangements rather than primarily focusing on [the MDGs] commitments to addressing education, health care, access to water, sanitation and employment.” Interestingly, the usage of the phrase “sexual and reproductive health and rights” in the draft of the Resolution stirred up controversy. Family Watch International and the delegation from Iran objected to the idea of “sexual rights” and its possible definitions. In the end it was replaced with the language, “sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights.” The funny thing is that even when I was trying to come up with my “blog title,” I momentarily debated over which combination of these terms was most appropriate. Apparently the inclusion or omission of a word or two can imply a big difference in ideology.
REFERENCES:
http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13652095

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_contraception

http://www.catholicplanet.com/articles/article78.htmhttp://www.c-fam.org/publications/id.1073/pub_detail.asphttp:

//www.religiousconsultation.org/News_Tracker/moderate_RC_position_on_contraception_abortion.htm

http://www.c-fam.org/publications/id.1073/pub_detail.asp

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/04/06/the-cpd-roller-coaster