I found it very interesting that women live longer than men, despite higher morbidity rates. This basic fact may play a role in the reason why the topic of women’s health has been so overlooked, since people might misinterpret the higher life expectancies to mean that women have better health. I also found the sociological explanations behind the disparity in women’s health to be a very insightful fact. I think that when people hear of health discrepancies between males and females, they try to point to biological differences as a reason. However, factors such as exposure to stressors and socioeconomic status make a profound impact on health.

One thing that stuck with me in my head was that because women have lower mortality rates but higher morbidity rates, they are essentially leading lower quality lives. Although women live longer, more of their years are spent having to fight chronic or acute illness.

The question as to why extensive study has not been conducted also concerned me. While, of course, it would be beneficial to conduct studies to the biological difference in treatment reactions, disease occurrence, I would assume that the high costs of the studies may deter people. However, I would think that being able to effectively treat illnesses in women, as opposed to trying to use the same medicines as men, would be a good enough reason to invest in further studies. If for nothing else, you would think that pharmaceutical companies would want to market even more newly developed female-specific drugs as more effective as a result of such research studies.

Something Anna said really resonated with me- that childbirth helps fight off external infections but leaves the body more vulnerable to internal hazards. This is a stark reality of life, a character that evolution has created. Throughout the article, I found myself thinking about how women's health is about fairness, but not at all about equality. It accepts at a fundamental level that men and women are different and that improving a woman's life begins with accepting these differences. At the same time, humans are so complex that we're not sure what these differences are. Our biology and culture are so intertwined that it's difficult to separate what we are from what we think we are. So difficult that a separation might not even exist?

Following up on what others have said, the articles do give a good context for answering, or at least, addressing the question of why we look at women's health. There are so many factors here at play, biological, social, physiological, that no model or framework seems to be comprehensive enough to take into account all that can influence the salient differences between the genders, where women live longer but have higher morbidity rates and a diminished quality of life later on.

Some points that I thought were interesting include that women's immune systems appear to put them at a greater risk of disorders in which their own immune system attacks their bodies, and that the the modal patient undergoing treatment for CVD and hypertension is likely to be a woman beyond middle age. Another theme that was emphasized included the impact of constrained choices and differential access to resources and opportunities, which occurs across SES and race as well as gender, and has cascading effects on a person's wellbeing, both psychologically and physically. But important to note was that the factor of gender cannot replace that of race or socioeconomic status, as they serve as measures of different phenomenon.

I found both readings very interesting and enjoyed learning about the differences between men and women’s health, in relation to cardiovascular disease, immune response, and mental health. I think Rieker and Bird are spot on when they argue that “constrained choice” needs to be examined further. I feel that the questions raised when looking at health disparities between genders with this new paradigm are more “big picture” types of questions that link seemingly unrelated issues together (i.e. maternal leave and breast cancer).

The following is a quote I found significant from the Rieker reading: “Because women are more likely to become single parents, caregiver to an aging spouse, widowed, and to live well into their 80s and beyond, they also have different social and economic needs and thus may not be served equally well by social policies designed to ignore these differences” (43). I believe this quote highlights the importance of our class and the need to look at how health policy impacts women’s health.

Ultimately, I feel that these two readings answered the question of Why Women’s Health? We ought to look at women’s health, because there are social and biological differences between men and women that social policies have overlooked. I think this goes along with what Rachel said about the majority of healthcare professionals being men and the effect on women’s health if male doctors overlook key social and biological differences between the two genders.

Unlike other articles I have read beofre, this article uses a scientific way to find sex-based difference, which is reaaly impressive because although I know there is difference in body structure, I don't know these differences is a major reason that cause the disparity between men and women. One interesting finding is that even with same treatment, disparity still exists becausee males and females respond differenly to same doses of the medicine so I think it is crucial to do research on it. This research is urgent because inappropriate treatment can cuase sequel, which may affect the next generation. However, I wonder that even within the same gender, there still exists diffenrece. Maybe after the society solved the problem of disparity beyween men and women, there will be more problems like disparity between old and young? I think in the future, the idealized treatment should be based on every individual person.

I really enjoyed reading both articles and was very surprised to find that these methods of study haven't been used yet, those combining the biological and social approaches. It seems to me, maybe since we've now read the article, the only way to reach conclusive findings. At first, and I'm a little embarrassed to admit this I wasn't exactly sure of the definition of morbidity, I thought that it was almost interchangeable with mortality but the article really showed me how to contrast the two. The use of the two words really emphasized the paradox of this gender difference in health disparities. I also was very interested in the way child bearing can affect a woman's immune system, especially that it seems to help fight of external infections but left internal hazards less controlled.

I don't think the link attached...here it is...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo

The ties between gender inequalities and differences in the health of a population and in health care do raise many interesting points. I never occurred to me that neither the biological or social approach wouldn't solve problems individually. One problem that I think global health is facing is the role that men and women play in the health care industry. If mostly men are doctors, then are women getting the proper (female health) care that need? Additionally, the reason why neither the biological or social attempt don't solve the problems individually is because they are so closely related. Women play an often secondary role in society because of our biological burden of child baring. I linked to this post a video that my aunt showed me. While it does not directly discuss gender inequalities in health care, it talks about the increase of life span in countries as their national income increases. This ties to the idea of how men have more access to resources such as money which in turn gives them greater access to adequate health care.

Jan 12 Readings

I didn't realize how complicated it is to determine which factors affect health, becuase the lives we lead are so complicated. They are influenced by literally every interactoin we have, from work, to home and family, to leisure. I am also shocked that differences between men and women have been largely ignored by health studies, as this seems like a very obvious factor. However, one fact I learned was that women have stronger immune systems, due to pregnancy (girl power!). But, I also learned that the Social Security system can end up cheating women, due to factors out of their control.

Though some of the material was over my head, I found it interesting how the articles described women's (and men's) health as something that can be understood completely, a goal that is reachable with extensive studies. But I think that a component of our overall health evolves alongside our own individual socio-economic standings which is constantly changing. As men become more open to surveys/studies and women climb up the socioeconomic ladder certainly our overall health has reacted. Another point of interest for me was when one article was talking about how race is a factor, but wouldn't the findings from studies on race-related health become obsolete as more and more people are biracial (as people can't be categorized into one race)? Obviously this is a very complicated subject and the articles ask plenty of questions themselves.

I thought that it was very interesting when the articles mentioned that the issue had to be an interdisciplinary one between biology and sociology. I, on the contrary, felt that if that were the case, the study would be difficult to conduct since social interactions change quite frequently and especially in regards to gender issues, further changes might be coming along quite soon. In which case, the study would need to be constantly readjusted, so... It might be better to try to conduct a research to gain results that would be related to concrete, unchanging factors in health (like how hormones might be secreted at different ways) and then work from there? That way, the finding will be relevant years from now, even if social norms could have changed.