Greetings:
The World Bank Population, Health & Nutrition department publishes a
weekly online newsletter, and last week's seems interesting enough to forward
to the ecofem list. Its two or three pages long...but hopefully the info
justifies the length. -JRC
*****************************************************************************
#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=
# =
= PHNFLASH Electronic Newsletter #
# on Population, Health & Nutrition Issues =
= PHN Dept. World Bank #
# Issue 44, November 7, 1994 =
= #
=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#
>>>In this issue...
* Women's Health and Development
>>>> WOMEN'S HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENT <<<<
Investing in women's health is now being recognized as an essential
component of social and economic growth. Investments in women's health
can be argued on several grounds. First, equity and human rights, which
emphasizes redressing gender disparities. Second, the multiple benefits
of women's improved health, which emphasizes increased productivity and
the impact of a mother's health on her offspring. Third, the
cost-effectiveness of reproductive health interventions compared to other
health interventions. These arguments are policy and supply driven
arguments, geared mostly to central planners. An increasingly compelling
argument is that policy commitment must be complemented by a more
participatory, enabling approach which involves women in decision-making
and implementation if sustainable growth is to be achieved. This was the
important message from the Population Conference in Cairo -- that for
population stabilization and overall development goals to be achieved,
more emphasis must be given to improving women's health and women's
empowerment.
To date, women's health has received little attention in development
programs. This is reflected in the high levels of persistent, but
largely preventable, morbidity and mortality. Among human development
indicators, maternal mortality rates represent the widest gap between
developed and developing countries.
A review of women's health today show that:
- About 6,000 girls are subject to genital mutilation each day
- In many developing countries, one third to one half of women become
mothers before the age twenty
- One in every twenty-two women in Africa dies of pregnancy related
complications
- Women are at a greater risk than men of contracting HIV/AIDS
- Cervical cancer causes more deaths in developing countries than any other
cancer
- Studies show that twenty to sixty percent of women have been beaten by
their partners
These statistics show that investing in women at different stages of life
could save millions of women in developing countries from needless suffering
or premature death. However, the resources allocated for women's health
do not reflect the clearly demonstrated need. For example, it is estimated
that less than twenty percent of government health budgets are allocated to
maternal and child health and family planning; most of which goes to child
health. Poor health is a reflection of the low status of women in many
developing countries. Some cultures can also limit a women's access to health
services.
Women's health is affected by complex biological, social, and cultural factors.
Therefore, to reach women effectively, policies and programs must take into
account the biological factors that increase health risks for women and such
sociocultural determinants of health as age at marriage and status in the
family, as well as psychological factors, such as low self-esteem and
depression arising from discrimination and gender violence. Women's lack of
education and disadvantaged social position help perpetuate poor health and
high fertility, as well as the continued cycle of poverty.
Because women tend to be less educated and have less access to information,
they are less apt to recognize problems or understand the value of or seek out
preventive and curative care. For example, female education, especially
through the secondary level, is associated with greater use of contraception
and increased age of marriage, both of which improve women's health by
reducing their exposure to pregnancy and early child bearing.
A number of health problems associated with low socioeconomic status
are emerging as concerns that need to be addressed by health and
development programs. These include gender specific violence and
occupational health hazards. In Papua New Guinea, for example, a Law Reform
commission survey found that 67 percent of rural women were victims of wife
abuse. Women's low status, particularly lack of education, exacerbated by
economic hardship, is leading to increasing prostitution. This, in turn,
is contributing to the rapid spread of sexually transmitted diseases,
including AIDS.
A woman's ill health or death affects not only her own opportunities
and potential but those of her children. A mother's death in childbirth
is a virtual death knell for her newborn, and it often has severe
consequences for her other young children. A study in Bangladesh found that a
mother's death sharply increased the chances that her children up to age ten
would die--particularly for her girl children--whereas a father's death had no
significant effect on his children's mortality rates.
Women's poor health also affects the welfare and productivity of their
households and communities, since they play critical roles in the welfare
of their families and of their national economies. Data on women's contribution
to development, while still tentative, indicate that women are responsible for:
- growing 80% of the food consumed domestically and in parts of Africa at
least 50% of the export crops
- earning 40 to 60 % of household income, if home production is valued
- providing 70 to 80% of the health care in developing countries
- heading at least 20% of all households in Africa and Latin America
Investments in women's health programs not only improve a woman's health status
and the survival and health of her family, such investments increase the
labor supply, productive capacity and economic well-being of communities.
Improvements in women's health are not only critical to development, they are
feasible and affordable. Improving health care for children and for women aged
15-44 offers the biggest return on health care spending. Some health
interventions for females in developing countries are highly cost-effective
interventions and improving women's health is a sound investment.
Women's health programs are not only cost-effective, but their broader
benefits stretch far beyond the woman and have important effects on the
household and community development.
Despite their higher life expectancy, women suffer from more health problems
than men. Beginning in infancy, females often receive less and lower-quality
food and, when sick, receive treatment less often and at a more advanced
stage of disease. Because of their reproductive function, women run risks of
morbidity and mortality which men do not face. Their health is also affected
by gender-specific cultural practices, such as female circumcision and
domestic abuse, which are not a consequence of their behavior.
Several recent development trends affect women's health. The development
response must be a life cycle approach to women's health. Policies and
programs must address both the biological and cultural determinants of
women's poor health status.
A new agenda for women's health and development calls for:
- A more comprehensive approach to improving women's education, health and
employment opportunities which emphasizes listening to women and enabling
their participation.
- Looking at family planning in the context of women's reproductive health
and particular life circumstances.
- Moving beyond maternal and child health to give more attention to adolescents
and older women. Interventions during adolescence are critical and can help
break the cycle of poverty, unwanted pregnancy, and limited educational and
economic opportunity. To a large extent, adolescence sets the stage for
health and nutritional status in the later years, yet health policies and
programs have not been oriented toward addressing the needs of this group.
- Emphasis should also be placed on early prevention of life cycle problems
such as discriminatory practices and the health problems of older women,
such as cervical cancer.
Improvements in women's health, while beneficial in their own right,
contribute to development through improved productivity, reduced costs of
medical care, and a healthier generation to follow.
Women comprise over one-half the human race. Investing in their health is
an investment in development today. It is also an investment in the
generations of tomorrow.
(taken from a presentation by Anne Tinker, Senior Health Specialist,
Population, Health and Nutrition Department, The World Bank, at the
122nd American Public Health Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, November 1994)
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Nov 16 20:06:43 MST 1994
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 20:09:10 MST
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Anarchy & etc.
Anne wrote:
>others have said this, so ill be short...anarchism is NOT about "no
>organization". organization is proactive and creative, while authority
>and hierarchy are both reactive and repressive. we can be free thinkers
>and creators while still being organized into small collective groups.
>decentalized power CAN work towards making decisions and getting things
>accomplished. maybe not for plundering forests and rivers for profit, and
>maybe not for building massive prisons, highways and bombs...but for
>creating sustainable systems of economy, agriculture, education and
>spirituality, control and authority are useless.
>
>leadership and organization does not have a thing to do with authority
>inherently....
>also, our species has nothing to do with needing order. most species
>organize themselves according to things like physical strength and size,
>as well as reproductive and even leadership capabilities! we do it
>according to an insatiable need for power control and authority over each
>other because we have stopped believing that we can find meaning in
>simply living our lives.
I suppose this all comes down to opinion. I'm confess that after all
these posts about what anarchy "is" or "isn't" I still have little clue what
anarchists are after, or what anarchy actually is. I fear I don't believe that
all authority is darkly sinister and repressive. In the two different jobs I do
for money and the several volunteer organizations I work with I voluntarily and
willingly accept the authority, and even the control, of those who are more
highly skilled, who know more and have more experience than I do, and in fact
have learned immense amounts by doing so. Am I oppressed by authority?
I have worked with several groups on various social causes that have
brought up the issues of control and authority and argued against any sort of
hierarchal structure, but I fear in practice this usually either collapsed the
group or lead to enormous amounts of energy being directed on group interaction
...at the expense of actual work on the issue in the world. As Oscar Wilde once
humorously observed, "the only problem with socialism is that it takes up so
many free evenings".
The anarchists on the list have answered those who have questioned the
practicality of anarchism with theoretical positions. I certainly have read of
dozens of utopian visions, from classical literature to modern social and
political theorizing to new age millenialists...but then the world, and people,
*as they exist right now* calls me to discover how things can actually be made
better for the women, men and children that suffer so greatly while wonderful
visions are spun by those with full bellies.
Do anarchists really believe that *in actuality* significant portions
of our current and enormous population will not only stop desiring any sort of
hierarchical structure, but actually revolt against those many who do...and who
have far more than sufficient means to impose themselves?
Some author years ago (I forget, unfortunately who) posited the
"parable of the tribes":
Take 10 peace loving communities living on a island...governed by
consensus internally, engaging in peaceful, sharing relations outwardly, living
modestly and sustainably lives of respect and fulfillment. Now, imagine one,
*just one* of those tribes deciding to arm itself and begin marauding and
pillaging & claiming, with force, authority over the lives and resources of the
other nine. Tell me, how could those nine maintain themselves...as free,
peaceful, and open communities?
I guess IMO anarchists have an interesting intellectual position, and
perhaps valuable insights may be gained by looking at the world through those
premises, (which, after all, is the value of most utopian visions), but try as
I might I simply think the gulf between those visions and the actual current
world of humans is just too vast to ever be bridged. -JRC
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Nov 16 21:14:52 MST 1994
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 23:17:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Jayne S Docherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: anarchy
To: anne jordan dashiell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wed, 16 Nov 1994, anne jordan dashiell wrote:
> ...i think the real question then is how we individually
> will go about working for the "ecofeminist goal" which is i hope a "free
> society". and by free i dont mean just for those who want sustainable
> capitalism and equal protection for all people under the law. i think
> anarchism is necessary in working for a truly free
> (non-technological, wild ?) society......
anne --
this is the second time you have referred to a non-technological society
(and if I were more knowledgable about how to operate this computer
system, I would insert the other reference from your earlier post :-)) I
am curious about this. What do you mean by a non-technological society?
> that doesnt mean i or many people i know are too
> interested in participating in the political system at all. at the same
> time, people who do work in the system are suspicious in my eyes and i
> have a hard time trusting that they have the same goal as me.
>
> even on this list, the questions like "wont anarchy mean complete
> disorder and more crime and abuse than now..." makes me realize we arent
> all in the same camp just because we all somehow identify with ecofem.
> that sentiment is a product of capitalist indocrination and dependence on
> authority, however subconscious it may be.
>
Does this mean that you think ecofeminism *necessarily* entails
anarchism? You cannot be one without being the other? How does this
square with a principle of tolerance for diversity?
> heres an example: the pro-choice movement working to pass anti-civil
> disobedience laws to keep anti-choicers from harassing women at clinics
> is fueling the legal barriers for direct action eco-activists (like
> earthfirst!ers) who block logging roads and try and plug up drainage pipes.
>
I think it is a mistake to confuse the unintended consequences of an
action with the motivations of those who take that action. The people
who are working to keep the pro-lifers from harassing women at clinics
are trying to protect the rights of the women who are seeking treatment
(of many varieties) at those clinics. The laws they are working to pass
are specifically designed to address the situation at clinics and to my
knowledge have not been so broadly written as to be applicable in other
settings. I could be wrong on this, does anyone else have info on this?
Would you have nothing done to protect women who want to see their doctor
at a women's clinic?
>...we need to start envisioning our own lives as
> anarchistic in nature by locating and destroying our own dependencies on
> technology, law, authority and objectivity.
Oops, here is a third reference to living without technology. There is
some technology I rather like. Computers and the internet come to mind.
The medical technology that saved my life and that of my ten year old son
at the time of his birth is another... 100 years ago we would have been
one of the sad statistics of mother and child lost in childbirth. I have
no desire to return to that kind of non-technological society.
building new alternative
> institutions without those values while building new ways of
> communicating, understanding and relating is a way to resist creatively.
> creative resistance has to go along with living within and alongside
> nature. in a biocentric way.
I do agree with this bit and perhaps it answers some of my questions
about technology since it might allow us to select those technologies
which are compatible with nature and beneficial to ourselves as well as
the rest of nature... Poltically, however, I would argue that it is
possible to build from within institution *and* alongside of them and
that there are multiple paths to the same goal...
> unity in diversity and the
> eastern idea of change (god is change) go along with this concept.
How can we have unity in diversity if you don't want non-anarchists to
even be allowed into the discussion?
Jayne
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Nov 17 07:20:00 MST 1994
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Roper)
Subject: Re: anarchy
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 09:22:42 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> from "anne jordan
dashiell" at Nov 16, 94 04:54:38 pm
anne jordan dashiell suggested...
|> toward a society devoid of authority. It just isn't true that authority is
|> intrinsically bad. It is a necessary condition for civilization.
|>
|> H.C. Ellis
First, we cannot know if the above is true. It may only be a necessary
condition for a large, overpowering civilization. And it depends upon
how you define authority. In many naitve civilizations, there are elders
as authority figures, but they do not coerce cooperation among others,
instead they offer advice and the others are free to follow it, or some
other idea. Garrett Hardin speaks of "mutual coercion, mutually agreed
upon." That would be much better than what we have now, and it would not
be "authority."
|the "civilization" that we are currently living is not exactly something
|i want to see continued... sure authority is necessary for what we
|are living out these days. thats the whole PROBLEM!!
|
|-anne
It seems to me that this argument is still a semantic one. For now, why
don't we quit worrying about the word "anarchy" and talk about the
substance of the idaa. Taht is, I think few that argue against "anarchy"
have been arguing against what modern "anarchists" define as anarchy.
Rather they are arguing against a "status quo" definition.
So, we should be enlightened as to what is not anarchy, and what is, but
from conceptual bases, without using the word anarchy.
Brian has tried, but of course, we could get definitions from a couple
more sources with no trouble. I recommend reading Howard Zinn, who will
be teaching through the Left-On-Line BBS a course on American History
early next year. Anyway, he does a good job of following anarchists
through history, and he shows that in no case is anarchy a situtation, or
a dream, devoid of organization or ALL types of authority. Rather, it
should be a very decentralized form of govt, so that we could communicate
well enough to indeed have "Mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon."
--
Jim
____________________________________________________________________
James J. Roper | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
University of Pennsylvania | Voice: (215)898-3100
Dept of Biology, Leidy Labs | FAX: (215)898-8780
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6018 |
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Nov 17 07:37:33 MST 1994
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Roper)
Subject: Re: Being Too Male
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 09:40:15 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> from "Swarr
Amanda Lock" at Nov 16, 94 04:56:31 pm
|> > in order to restore balance to the earth, we need a gestalt of true
|> > masculine and true feminine thought and action.
|
|what is true masculine and true feminine thought and action? to me,
|those terms are simply gender roles that have been socially constructed
|serving to reinforce sexism, homophobia, heterosecism, etc.
|
|amanda
I think Amanda is right. There is no "true" feminine nor masuline
"thought," and so "gestalt" about either one is likely to be misleading.
In fact, though I recognize differences between women and men's apparent
thoughts and motives, I don't believe these are "biologically" based. Now I
don't mean anything too profound by "thoughts and motives" so don't get
hung up on those words. Rather, just that if you get a group together,
the men and women will converse (for example) about different things
quite often. Anyway, there is no way to be sure that these are inherent
or innate versus societal. The statistics are not good enough to sort
this out. I think a good working assumption is that, until show
otherwise, the differences between "female" and "male" thought (feminine
and masculine) are society (environment) based. It is just as easy to
conceive that in human evolution our adaptations were NOT for specific
behavioral patterns, but rather for flexibility in a variety of
situations. A conditional strategy, so to speak. So now, conditions are
different so we should be able to adapt, and rid ourselves of historical
constraints, one of which may be the thought that there are inherent
differences in "thoughts" between women and men.
Jim
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Nov 17 11:13:01 MST 1994
From: "LALONDE ROXANNE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: Dept. of Geography, Univ. of Alta.
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 11:15:12 MDT
Subject: RE: anarchy and Unity in Diversity
After reading the following, I am left a little confused on the
connection made here. Anne, could you please expand a little more?
> one thing i want to say is that i have recently realized that the
> universe is about the balance struck between order and chaos. i think
> thats a good way to look at the "purpose" of life, and its the only
> definition of "human nature" i can deal with. unity in diversity and the
> eastern idea of change (god is change) go along with this concept.
> anarchy is the most natural and direct "ideology" (if we can even call it
> that) to come out of that idea. i wont ramble, i think this connection is
> obvious.
I'm having a bit of difficulty in reconciling the concepts of
anarchy, spirituality, human nature, "god", and unity in diversity as
you have expressed them here. It's not "obvious" to me.
Thanks,
Roxanne
