The 1997 text Women’s Health Research: A Medical and Policy Primerheralds women’s health research as a “new discipline” (p. 7), which I find both frightening and fascinating. Some diseases (osteoporosis, various thyroid conditions, affective disorders, just for a few examples) affect women in greater numbers than men, but studies do not reflect this. This is largely because women’s health has historically been conflated with reproductive health—as though the only part of a woman that is different from a man or important at all is her reproductive system. This conflation is both maddening and difficult to advocate against (for fear of diminishing the real importance of women’s reproductive health).
However, Paula Johnson does a decent job:
Click here to view this talk on TED’s page: http://www.ted.com/talks/paula_johnson_his_and_hers_healthcare
Further food for thought: Johnson and Fee (contributors to Women’s Health Research) point out that “Women have been excluded from health research for decades” despite policy statements that attempt to remedy this (p. 3). One reason women have been left out of research studies because of “researchers’ desire for homogeneous study populations … Women’s cyclical hormonal changes were thought to confound research results” (p. 14).
Haseltine, Florence, Lynne Beauregard, & Beverly Jacobson. (1997). Women’s Health Research: A Medical and Policy Primer. Washington, DC: Health International.
Sent to me by a friend and way too cool not to re-post:
Infographic depicting how social media are used during/after disasters
“Rendering oppression visible makes it available for intervention and change” — Virginia Eubanks, Digital Dead End, p. 28
As I sat reading Digital Dead End earlier this week, I overheard a conversation between some of my friends who were in the same room. They were discussing the availability of keyboards, “mouses,” and other hardware at a local charity. I listened purposefully, then, as the conversation turned toward the lack of available software. My friends did not discuss the lack of available training, although I know that is an issue for the many people with economic struggles in my area. And that, in essence, was the most important concept I took away from this text: Distribution is not the problem as far as ensuring access to technology. The much larger problem is how we think about technology in combination with social justice. Eubanks alleges that “continued emphasis on the development of science and technology as the route to greater prosperity and equality for all American is a familiar but dangerously underexamined species of magical thinking” (p. xv). In other words, if we are to work toward social justice as digital rhetoricians and technology scholars, we must work toward structural change–and this includes changes in our ways of thinking about technology, what it does, and what constitutes “access.”
Some time ago, I attended a talk by Chandra Mohanty in which she mentioned that cosmopolitanism–and traveling, specifically–is a lifestyle that occurs at the expense of marginalized people who are incarcerated, or held in place, in order to make the system work. (Think, for example, of the many essays that have been written about the post-Katrina tourist scene in New Orleans, where locals work in festive restaurants and go home to slums. Or, where bus companies provide “Katrina tours.” See In the Wake of Hurricane Katrina for more.)
My initial reaction was resistance. I love to travel! My secondary reaction was resignation: Of course I’m resistant to changing this construction since I’m privileged. Now, months later, I’m trying to take a more nuanced perspective …
I’m very excited that an article a long time in the works has just been published in TCQ! Read “Transcultural Risk Communication on Dauphin Island: An Analysis of Ironically Located Responses to the Deepwater Horizon Disaster” here: http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/X8YWCwC3gSIvjmATCxiJ/full