Jezebel posted today on a perennial favorite among feminist bloggers: the BMI. This was prompted by a doctor in the New York Times talking about how useless a measure it is for personal health.

Here’s my response: of course it is. It’s an index. This is what indexes do, they aggregate individual pieces of information to tell you something about a whole. The BMI was never intended to be used as a measure of personal health, but was instead meant to tell us something about entire populations. It’s usefulness on that score remains intact: you can broadly say that, if America’s BMI average is increasing, Americans are getting fatter. Unless it can be explained by something else, like a population-wide protein-shake/weight-training-routine frenzy, which is unlikely to happen.

But here’s what that doesn’t mean: that using your weight as one of the things that assesses your health isn’t useful at all. That’s what Dodai seems to be implying at Jezebel when she says this:

In our society, we’re so quick to call someone who appears to be fat “unhealthy.” But health is not a quality that can be judged or seen with the naked eye. There are thin people who smoke and don’t eat any vegetables. There are obese people — including Steven N. Blair, one of the nation’s leading experts on the health benefits of exercise — who jog every day. You can’t see genetic material, a decaying liver or gingivitis in a photograph.

Can you judge health with a naked eye? It’s true, you can’t. But let’s be honest, there’s not an epidemic of fat runners out there. Those people are outliers, and not everyone is an outlier. I’m with people who argue that we shouldn’t focus solely on weight in public health debates, and that we should be talking about eating better and exercising as a way to promote health without reinforcing, intentionally or not, the notion that some body types are better than others. But, by and large, (pardon the expression) weightier people suffer health problems that are well documented. It’s not that thin people are necessarily fit. It’s that America as a whole is unhealthy, and one of the ways we can document our decades-long decrease in activity is by documenting our expanding waistlines.

In all, this demonization of the BMI is odd. I’m outside my normal BMI range, but I’ve never had a doctor say, “Boy, are you overweight!” I have had doctors ask me what’s happening when I come in for my yearly check-up and my weight’s gone up or down. They’re never concerned when I’ve put on ten pounds; they’re concerned when I tell them it’s because I’ve stopped exercising. Likewise, no doctor talks about my weight when she does routine blood tests, listens to me breathe or feels my glands. I’ve only ever heard doctors talk about the BMI in public health contexts; when they talk about groups of patients or populations as a whole.

At the same time, I hope a doctor would tell me if I’ve put on too much weight and it should cause concern. That’s what doctors are for. Counseling you on the health risks of, whatever. Weight can signal a lack of activity or too many donuts, and that shouldn’t irk anyone. Yet, it does.

UPDATE: Comments to this post are closed, since just about everything possible to say has already been said. Thanks, everyone, for reading and commenting.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

This is the third in a series examining issues raised by a blog post from Chamber of Commerce Senior Communications Director Brad Peck, where he suggested that women’s interest in closing the gender pay gap amounted to a “fetish for money,” and the subsequent apologies for it by himself and Chamber COO David Chavern. Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3 at the links.

Although Peck’s meaning could perhaps be interpreted differently, one way to read his suggestion that women “pick the right partner” in the context of a post about wages is that if a woman wants to make the “individual choice” to have children, she can compensate for the decreased pay she will receive by picking a husband who earns enough to make up for her depressed income.

Of course, there is a term for a woman whose only interest in a male partner is his paycheck, and it’s not a nice one – gold digger. [click to continue…]

{ 2 comments }

Yesterday the Center for Reproductive Rights released a report that gave a deeply depressing rundown of all the ways states have worked to restrict reproductive rights this year. Reading the whole report is worthwhile, but here are the highlights.

There are some major trends in states this last year:

  • Ultrasound requirements or restricting doctors to read state-mandated language: It seems requiring ultrasounds before women can obtain an abortion are the hot new thing in the states, even though requiring an ultrasound seems to have no effect on a woman’s decision have an abortion.
  • State Stupaks–a.k.a. exchange bans: The Affordable Care Act, which was passed by Congress earlier this year contained a compromise on abortion coverage known as the Nelson Amendment. That amendment allows states to enact their own bans on abortion coverage in private insurance plans sold through state-based exchanges. As of the writing of the CRR report, five states–Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee–have enacted bans and two other states, Florida and Oklahoma, have passed bans that were vetoed by the governor.
  • Personhood and parental notification ballot initiatives: I already wrote about Alaska’s parental notification ballot initiative that was passed by voters last week, but Colorado and Mississippi are both going to be voting on initiatives that would define life as beginning at conception. Colorado will have this initiative on the ballot this fall–possibly aiding in turnout for Republican candidates–and Mississippi will vote on it in 2011. Defining life as beginning at contraception is problematic. The proposed initiative is designed to be a direct challenge to Roe vs. Wade thus defining abortion as murder and miscarriages as involuntary manslaughter. It would also likely outlaw most forms of contraception. Also because changing the definition of “person” would literally affect thousands of laws.

The CRR also has a rundown of what happened in several states this year:

Arizona: Enacted a ban forbidding any public funds from being used to pay for abortions except in cases of rape or incest. This includes all public employees in the state and additionally enacts an exchange ban.

Idaho: Passed a conscience clause for health care providers and pharmacists, allowing them to refuse to provide abortion care, birth control, or emergency contraception.

Louisiana: Passed a law forcing closure of any clinics that are in violation of TRAP laws previously passed by the state. Passed a law excluding physicians that provide abortions from a state fund to defray malpractice costs. Passed an exchange ban. Passed a law requiring a woman seeking an abortion the option to view an ultrasound, hear a description of the image, and receive a printout of the ultrasound.

Mississippi: Passed an exchange ban except in cases of threat to the woman’s life, rape, or incest.

Missouri: Passed a law requiring a woman take a trips to an abortion provider at least 24 hours before she receives her abortion, known as a “two trip” law. At that first visit, she’s required to receive a packet of information that must contain the following sentences: “The life of each human being begins at conception. Abortion will terminate the life of a separate, unique, living human being.”

Nebraska: Passed a law banning abortion at and after 24 weeks with exceptions for the woman’s life or irreversible physical impairment. Passed a law requiring doctors to notify a patient of any possible risk from abortion, fining doctors $10,000 if he or she misses telling a patient of just one risk.

Oklahoma: Passed an ultrasound requirement before a woman may obtain an abortion. Passed a law requiring abortion providers to collect detailed demographic information and publish it online. Passed a law protecting doctors who lie about fetal abnormalities or other information that might factor into a woman’s decision of whether or not to have an abortion. Passed a health care provider refusal law, allowing providers to refuse to perform abortion and other services to patients. Requires doctors to be in the room when a woman swallows a medicated abortion pill. Passed a ban on sex-selective abortion.

South Carolina: Required providers to distribute biased information about abortions to patients before she obtains one.

Tennessee: Requires abortion providers to post large signs that say it is unlawful to coerce a woman into having an abortion. Passed an exchange ban, no exceptions.

Utah: Passed a law making it a crime for a woman to cause her own miscarriage, meaning each miscarriage has the potential for criminal investigation. Passed a law requiring an ultrasound before an abortion.

Virginia: Banned public funds from being used for abortion, including for public employees.

What’s notable about these laws is that most of the action on reproductive rights is on restricting access rather than expanding it. So much is happening on the reproductive rights front at the state level, but it is getting very, very little media attention. Often, reproductive rights activists don’t hear about the legislation until right before or right after the laws are passed. It’s an issue I found so important that I planned a panel about it at the Campus Progress National Conference this summer, featuring Jordan Goldberg, the author of the CRR report. (You can view a video of the panel here.)

Groups like the Center for Reproductive Rights do their best to stay up to date on state laws, but they can’t do it alone. If Colorado passes its personhood definition, for instance, we could eventually be looking at a Supreme Court challenge in a court that’s been unfriendly to reproductive rights. The important thing to remember is that much of the battle over abortion access is happening at the state level.

{ 10 comments }

This is the second in a series of posts coming from the Global Maternal Health Conference in New Delhi, the first conference of its kind. According to EngenderHealth’s Maternal Health Task Force’s website, ‘Every minute, a woman dies from complications related to childbirth or pregnancy. While most maternal deaths are preventable, poor health services and scarce resources limit women’s access to life-saving, high-quality care.’ Check out the conference’s live streaming schedule. You can follow the conference on Twitter, too: the Maternal Health Task Force and EngenderHealth are @MHTF and @EngenderHealth; the conference hashtag is #GMHC2010.

This guest post is cross-posted from the Maternal Health Task Force blog. Its author, Sara Stratton, is the director of MNCH/FP programs at IntraHealth International.

To the business world, it’s location, location, location. Here in Delhi, though, at the Global Maternal Health Conference, the mantra is context, context, context. There are many ways to improve and save women’s lives, but the success of any given intervention depends on local context. What works in one country or one community may not work in another. Many people here are talking about the importance and value of understanding how and why an intervention succeeds or fails at the local level. This means investigating and evaluating not just how widely an intervention reaches or the quality of the services, but also the specific, local factors that play into its uptake and impact. How do these realities affect whether an intervention that saved lives in one place would work equally well somewhere else?

This idea of the importance of the local context became woven into presentations on the first day of this groundbreaking conference. In one session, a representative of the SEWA Rural Society for Education, Welfare and Action, Rural (SEWA Rural) talked about how they had found that in Gujarat, India, a woman’s decision to deliver at home or in a hospital in her last pregnancy often influences where she delivered in a subsequent pregnancy. The question for us all to ponder was raised: is the key to saving women’s lives to encourage them all to deliver in hospitals? If so, how much would this cost? Can governments really afford this now? How far would women have to travel to a hospital? The reality, though, is that for some communities, encouraging hospital- or health facility-based delivery may be part of the answer, but in others it may still be an impractical approach. This question led to a discussion about home delivery versus institution-based delivery—as well as the value of traditional and trained birth attendants.

Whether we are talking about where women deliver, how they deliver, who helps them deliver, what we are really talking about is how we evaluate and minimize a woman’s risk during pregnancy and childbirth. Where distance and a lack of health facilities make facility-based delivery improbable, a community may need programs that improve the quality of care offered by trained birth attendants during a home delivery even though in an ideal world there would be another option. What I’m hearing in Delhi is, in some ways, what I already know. There are no easy answers. We must support communities to succeed within the context of their own limitations in terms of the availability of and access to health facilities and health workers. At the same time, we have to remain committed to helping communities to change these limitations.

{ 0 comments }

The summer between my freshman and sophomore years of college was simply idyllic. I spent my days working on an ocean-front lobster shack and my nights out around Portland, Maine. I may not have made a lot of money that summer, but I made friends that will last the rest of my life. And I met Earl.*

I was 19. Earl was a 32-year-old line cook. My mother was super pleased.

Looking back, I recognize that Earl was my first love. I had other boyfriends prior to him, but I was devoted to Earl. I know I wasn’t the first waitress he messed around with; I doubt I was the last. That summer he taught me lessons about sex and love that I still carry with me today.

Earl had no plan for his life; he went where opportunities took him. He had grand ideas that I would drop out of college and spend winters with him working at a Colorado ski lodge. I envied his ability to live from day-to-day without set goals and romanticized the idea of dropping all responsibilities and just living life.

Eventually my Type-A sensibilities kicked in and I bid adieu to Earl. As he made his way from Maine back to Colorado he stopped by to see me at college. It was an awkward experience which made me realize how little we really had in common. When Earl pulled out of the gates of my university, I was honestly glad to see him go.

And then, as he should, Earl faded away. That summer and their stories became inside jokes for friends and a way to tease me around new boyfriends. While I always looked back at him and that summer fondly, it was clear that the past should remain in the past.

Until, one Thanksgiving, he added me on facebook.

It took me a few days to approve him. Six years had passed and I was unsure how or why he wanted to reengage. Finally, I relented. We sent some e-mails back and forth and updated each other on our lives. I had finished college and was working for a non-profit communications group in San Francisco. He had driven up to Alaska with his two dogs and lived on a piece of land far removed from any signs of civilization; months passed when he didn’t interact with any humans.

After the initial catch up we lost touch again, and then he sent me an e-mail last weekend. His e-mail prompted me to visit his profile and passively see what was going on in his life.

The discovery shocked me. Apparently he spent much of his recluse life writing epic facebook posts on his opposition to New York’s proposed Muslim Community Center. His posts were hateful, racist and uneducated. I was appalled. I shared his notes with friends, and they too shared my disgust. I thought he must be uninformed about the proposed building and decided to send him a note about his inaccuracies.

People told me not to do it. They told me there is no way to win an argument when the other person has hate in their heart. But I believed that he simply did not understand the facts surrounding the cultural center. I want to be the type of person who stands up for what they believe; who pushes people to look past their own feelings of prejudice. I was sure that a clear-headed factual post could resolve any issues he may have.

As you’ve guessed by now, my post did not resolve anything for him. In fact he responded with more racist and hateful language. A choice quote:

“When they start a Holy War and change America into a Muslim state, I’ll still be their [sic] fighting for your rights. Your [sic] much too pretty to be covered in a veil.”

I wanted to respond again, to really try and help him see how our country had the opportunity to be the very best we can be, but instead resorted to ignorance and hate speech. But I’ve realized (finally) that there is nothing I can do to change his mind. My task now is to resolve how someone so hateful could have meant so much to me at one time.

I’m tempted to subscribe him to the e-mail lists of the ACLU, the Anti Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center. But like my e-mail, I know that won’t do anything to change his mind.

Instead I’ll do what I should have done the day he added me on facebook: leave the past in the past.

*Not actually his name! But, like the hurricane, he needs to go away.

{ 13 comments }

Over at The Daily Beast, Beverly Willett writes about New York’s new no-fault divorce laws, using her own divorce to illustrate her point that no-fault laws are bad for families, marriages and society. She sees marriage as a permanent, life-long commitment; when her husband had an affair and tried to divorce her, she fought it. She was able to fight the divorce because of New York’s archaic divorce laws — laws which were changed last month to put the state more in line with the rest of the country. Under New York’s old fault-based divorce laws, a partner filing for divorce had to demonstrate infidelity, cruelty, etc in order to obtain a divorce. Those laws turned divorces into lengthy processes which were often economically and emotionally costly. They required one partner to be a wrong-doer in order to dissolve the marriage; they gave the partner who wanted to maintain the marriage more power than the partner who wanted to leave it.

Marriages are tricky things, and no-fault divorce is certainly not without its draw-backs. There are many situations, like Willett’s, where the man leaving the relationship against his wife’s wishes also controls the purse strings. Willett quit her job to stay home with the couples’ children; her husband leaving the marriage presented significant financial difficulties for her. Women’s work in the home is under-valued in divorce proceedings, and women are often financially harmed after a divorce because courts do not fully recognize the work done at home as “real” work.

As an aside, too, this is why many feminists cringe when we hear marriage promoted as a good way for women to obtain financial security, or when books and articles are published about how smart girls should marry rich, or when we hear conservatives say that being a stay-at-home mom is The Most Important Job In The World For Every Single Woman — being a mother is an incredibly important job, and it is work, but it’s not socially recognized that way. Truly valuing motherhood would require actually valuing it when it comes time to divide dollars — but the people who promote motherhood as a woman’s one and only true calling are the same ones who are quick to turn on mothers who find themselves suddenly single. Those women are selfish gold-diggers if they think they are entitled to half of the marital assets; they didn’t contribute to the marriage; etc etc. If a woman marries and stays at home because she trusts that that’s the best way to a stable life, she may be in for a very nasty surprise if her husband decides he eventually wants out. Marriage, with or without no-fault divorce, is not a guarantee of stability or safety; far from it.

Anyway. The plight of women who are financially insecure when their husbands leave them is very real, and it is a feminist issue.

But the answer is not to handcuff people in marriage.
[click to continue…]

{ 9 comments }

Funny that my spiral into self-reflection (and slight self-blaming) coincided with my time as a guest blogger here at Feministe. Actually, it isn’t funny at all – things in my life usually tends to work in an oddly serendipitous manner and having you all here to help me reflect has been incredible. From what’s been left in the comments, I see that I am not the only one struggling with self-sabotage, lack of direction and motivation, or whatever you’d like to call it.

Which is why, when I noticed an old, overlooked email in my inbox, I felt compelled to share with all of you. It is a book recommendation I received a few months ago that, at the time, I felt did not apply to my life. My how the tides have turned. The book is called 20 Something, 20 Everything: A Quarter-Life Woman’s Guide to Balance and Direction. Here’s a description:

Are you wrestling with a sense that you haven’t done enough? Or you’ve done it all and don’t know what’s next? If you’ve ever wondered why you aren’t enjoying “the best years of your life,” and why you’re still mired in confusion about the choices you’ve made or need to make, this book is for you. Faced with a career she worked hard to achieve but didn’t like and the disintegration of her relationship, author Christine Hassler started talking to other twenty-something women and discovered a pattern. Many women in their twenties (and thirties) feel unsettled and struggle to reassess their positions on what Christine calls the “twenties triangle”: Who am I? What do I want? How do I get it? Throughout the book these questions become opportunities to identify and explore dreams and values. Rather than feeling overwhelmed and frustrated, readers can turn questions into maps that lead toward creating a career, a relationship and a life that fits just like a favorite pair of jeans.

I probably wouldn’t have given it a second look if it hadn’t been recommended by a woman I respect, but now, it seems fitting that I go out and buy a copy. I can’t vouch for the contents, but hey, I thought I’d share anyway because I know some of you are struggling with the same things I am right now.

If you’ve already read it, let us know what you think, won’t you?

{ 3 comments }

originally published at What Tami Said

I’ve been trying to raise the dead. With faded photographs, copied records, old death certificates, family hearsay and e-mails from long-lost cousins. I am an amateur family historian. And this is what I do.

Here is one rule of resurrection. It is easier to bring a dead man to life than a woman. The men—you find them in military records, land deeds, court records and prominent in the memories of their descendants. The women—they prove more elusive.

In a short biography of one family patriarch, William Staples, another family historian tells how, as a young boy, William was sold for a small sum of coins, how he grew to be “tall and strappingly built,” how he earned a reputation of being bold and courageous, how he served in the Civil War, how he crafted and sold baskets into his golden years. Of William’s wife Abbey, who worked alongside him and bore him 12 children, the biographer says only: “She was a good wife and mother, an excellent homemaker, a midwife and a quilt maker.”

But my foremothers mean the most to me. We are all women. History tells me that their lives were harder and much different than mine, but I wonder if any of our hopes, dreams and worries are the same. What part of them remains in me? Are my wide hips like Josephine’s? Am I tall like Lucinda? Am I independent like Violet? Do I walk like Maggie? So I dig, and with the scraps of their lives that I can find, try to assemble a woman. And I imagine my ancestors peering over my shoulder as I work, like ghosts waiting to materialize.

Here is what I know.

Josephine was born in 1893 in Christian County, Kentucky, to James and Alice Taylor. Folks called her “Josie.” Josie married a boy named Otho Tillotson, who lived with his family just down Bradshaw Road. I have a photograph of them together. Josie, beside her handsome, baby-faced husband, has full lips, a cloud of hair and deep-set, almond eyes. Josie had six children—just one girl, my grandmother, who she named Georgia Alice, after her mother and mother-in-law. She did not live to see those children grow to adulthood. Josephine Taylor Tillotson, my maternal great-grandmother, died of pyemia at age 30, just months after giving birth to her youngest son.

Lucinda Fortson was born into bondage in 1835. I don’t know to whom she belonged. It may have been W.H. Fortson, who owned a large plantation in Christian County and held some 30 slaves. Lucinda had at least three children. Only the last, my maternal great-great-grandmother, Georgia, was born free, in 1866. Georgia’s father was named Abe Holland. Were Abe and Lucinda ever allowed to marry? Was he sold to some far-flung plantation? Did the War take him? Or did he walk away? Whatever Lucinda’s relationship with Abe Holland, by 1870, he was gone, and Lucinda was living with her three children and working as a servant in the home of the Massey family. Like many former slaves, Lucinda could not read or write. The 1870 census taker left a perfect check in the 18th column next to Lucinda’s name, labeling her (and her eldest child) either “deaf and dumb, blind, insane or idiotic.”

I found an old photograph of Violet’s master, Absalom Farrar Winfrey, sitting in front of his home in Poplar Creek, Mississippi. There, behind the grim, plain-faced plantation owner and his family, is Violet, her face in shadow, only her long, white dress visible, half-materialized in the doorway like a phantom. My paternal great-great-grandmother, Violet, was born in North Carolina, but soon separated from her family and shipped to Mississippi and servitude with the Winfrey family. In 1859, she married Constantine, who was also owned by the Winfreys. Violet and her husband served the family until emancipation came. Once free, and given a chance to choose a last name, Constantine chose “Winfrey.” Violet; however, seemed never to have a last name, or at least not one that was recorded. In some sources she is listed as “Violet A. Violet.” I like to think that made her doubly her own woman.

My paternal great-grandmother, Maggie, was born in 1881 in Mississippi. By 16, she was a wife and soon-to-be mother. Some records list Maggie as “black,” some “mulatto.” Her grandson, my father, remembers very little about her, except that she was “quiet and had pretty, grey eyes.”

I’ve been trying to raise the dead. Because I want my foremothers—Abbey, Josephine, Lucinda, Violet and Maggie—to live in the hearts and minds of their descendants. These women will never know the personal freedoms and successes that I enjoy, but they possessed courage that I can never imagine. They are courageous simply for being wives, mothers and black women in a time when their race and gender made them vulnerable fourth-class citizens. So I continue on with my faded photographs, copied records, old death certificates, family hearsay and e-mails from long-lost cousins. I am an amateur family historian. And this is what I do.

{ 7 comments }

I was out browsing and found that the Slacktivist felt compelled to apologize recently, in order to head off any terrible misunderstandings:

As a white male Baptist, it is my duty today to denounce the violence perpetrated by Patrick Gray Sharp, 29, who yesterday attacked the police headquarters in McKinney, Texas, in a heavily armed but ineffectual assault involving a high-powered rifle, road flares, “gasoline and ammonium nitrate fertilizer.”

I understand that this denunciation must be swift and unambiguous and that, in the absence of such denunciations made by and on behalf of every and all white male Baptists, others are entitled to assume that every white male Baptist is fully in agreement with the actions of Patrick Gray Sharp and to therefore deny white male Baptists the rights others enjoy. …

And then he realized that, oh yeah, he doesn’t have to apologize for that, because no one will ever, ever, ever hold him accountable for the actions of people who superficially resemble him.

He realized that he won’t have to prove to every stranger that he’s nothing like Sharp. No. He doesn’t really have to say that he’s one of the good, white, male Baptists.

“Janie, Ah done watched it time and time again; each and every white man think he know all de GOOD (blacks) already. He don’t need tuh know no mo’. So far as he’s concerned, all dem he don’t know oughta be tried and sentenced tuh six months behind de United States privy house at hard smellin’.” — Tea Cake, from “Their Eyes Were Watching God”, by Zora Neale Hurston

It’s the difference between a presumption of innocence or a presumption of guilt. The difference between getting to be yourself and having to go out of your way to show that you aren’t any of the nasty things you’re expected to be (which means you often have to keep those nasty things just a little in mind). The difference between getting to set standards and judge or having to meet standards and play defendant.

What you might be guilty of by default varies according to your crime of circumstance–brown, queer, poor, woman–but a crime, it is. And probation never quite ends.

{ 7 comments }

Some folks who couldn’t make it requested that the picnic be blogged, so here we are!

We had loads of fun with much conversation (oh, you wish you were there for the discussion of Middle English slash, I know how you do) and laughter and food. I was particularly taken with the boob cupcakes made by the news with nipples, which were both hilarious and delicious. I was kind of amazed that we had so many people come who live outside Sydney: Bridget came especially from Bathurst and we were fortunate enough to have timed it so that folks from Canberra, New Zealand and the United States could be there, too!

It was a beautiful sunny day and it was fabulous to put some faces to names as well as to catch up with some people I hadn’t seen in a while. Thank you so, so much to those who came, it was a real pleasure to see you all. Hopefully we can do this again sometime.

Just a lost property notice: a black bag was left behind. If it’s yours and you would like it returned, email me at chally [dot] zeroatthebone [at] gmail [dot] com and I shall put you in touch with she who has it.

{ 4 comments }

This is the first in a series of posts coming from the Global Maternal Health Conference in New Delhi, the first conference of its kind. According to EngenderHealth’s Maternal Health Task Force’s website, ‘Every minute, a woman dies from complications related to childbirth or pregnancy. While most maternal deaths are preventable, poor health services and scarce resources limit women’s access to life-saving, high-quality care.’ Check out the conference’s live streaming schedule. You can follow the conference on Twitter, too: the Maternal Health Task Force and EngenderHealth are @MHTF and @EngenderHealth; the conference hashtag is #GMHC2010.

This guest post is cross-posted from the Maternal Health Task Force blog. Its author, Calyn Ostrowski, is the Coordinator of the Maternal Health Dialogue Series in partnership with the Maternal Health Task Force and UNFPA at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

“We do not need new legislation… we need affordable, effective, and scalable solutions,” said Shn Gulamnabi Azad, Minister of Health, India, at the opening ceremony of the first-ever Global Maternal Health Conference in New Delhi.

Co-hosted by the Maternal Health Task Force and the Public Health Institute of India, this three-day technical meeting builds upon the momentum of Women Deliver and the G8 summit by bringing together 700 researchers, program managers, advocates, media, and young people to exchange ideas, share data, develop strategies, and identify solutions for reducing maternal mortality.

In order to reduce India’s maternal mortality rates, Azad called for the repositioning of family planning programs to include maternal and child health and not limit the scope of services to population control as historically executed. Improving family planning and maternal health services must also address the reproductive health needs of adolescent girls and India is currently developing a new ministry that will target gender inequality, poverty, early child marriages, as well as other critical health issues important to young girls such as the dissemination of sanitary napkins.

“Although the legal age of marriage is 18, there are districts in India where 35 percent of the population is married between the ages of 15-18,” said Azad. During the side event Adolescent Girls: Change Agents for Healthy Mother and Child technical experts such as Anil Paranjap of the Indian Institute of Health Management presented scientific evidence that girls who marry between 15-18 are five times more likely to die during childbirth than women in their early 20’s.

“We still have deep-rooted subordination that makes it very difficult for young women to realize their sexual and reproductive health rights,” said Sanam Anwar with the Oman Medical College. Interventions such as the UDAAN project–a private-public partnership between CEDPA and the Government of India–demonstrate promising solutions for empowering young people through the use of existing infrastructure. In collaboration with teachers, parents, principals, and students this project successfully increased leadership skills and improved youth knowledge on menstruation, health, friendship, peer pressure, early marriage, and reproductive health, said Sudipta Mukhopadhyay of CEDPA.

Empowering “young people” to improve maternal health also requires that the community support committed new thinkers and future leaders. The Young Champions of Maternal Health Program is a unique and refreshing group of young professionals from 13 countries dedicated to improving maternal health, and I look forward to learning how this new energy will further the maternal health agenda.

{ 0 comments }

So I’ve finally been getting around to watching Buffy — the original vampire obsession. Well, maybe not quite the original. I think that would be Dracula. All the feminists (and feminist dudes) I know have been telling me I’ll love it. So far, I’m only up to season two, but I’m really enjoying it. I’m kind of amazed that Stephenie Meyer says she’s never seen it (although maybe she has by now), since the whole “girl falls in love with a vampire” thing seems eerily reminiscent of her own work — with Buffy making a far more complicated character than Bella. Overall so far I’d say Buffy is Joss Whedon through and through, balancing camp and larger themes well.

Since I’m pretty sure this hasn’t happened at Feministe in a while, I’m officially declaring this open thread on the Buffy series. Have at it.

{ 53 comments }