Re:Gender works to end gender inequity and discrimination against girls and women by exposing root causes and advancing research-informed action. Working with multiple sectors and disciplines, we are shaping a world that demands fairness across difference.
In 2008, 355,000 women died while giving birth or from illegal or dangerous abortions, a study published by The Lancet said.
But more than 250,000 deaths were averted that year because contraception reduced unwanted pregnancies, it said.
"If all women in developing countries who want to avoid pregnancy use an effective contraceptive method, the number of maternal deaths would fall by a further 30 percent," according to the research.
The paper, led by John Cleland, a professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, appears in The Lancet on the eve of a "London Summit on Family Planning," promoted by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
It is campaigning for the rights of 120 million women and girls to have access to family planning.
"Increasing contraceptive use in developing countries has cut the number of maternal deaths by 40 percent over the past 20 years," said the paper.
Most people killed or wounded in stray-bullet shootings were unaware of events leading to the gunfire that caused their injuries, and nearly one-third of the victims were children and nearly half were female.
The study by Garen Wintemute, professor of emergency medicine and director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at UC Davis School of Medicine and Medical Center, examines mortality rates and other epidemiological aspects of stray-bullet shootings over a one-year period. It is published in the July issue of the Journal of Trauma and Acute CareSurgery.
"Stray-bullet shootings alter the nature of life in many American neighborhoods, creating fear and anxiety and prompting parents to keep children indoors and take other precautions," Wintemute said. "When we think about gun violence, we think about high-profile and tragic events like Virginia Tech or the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. But stray-bullet shootings affect entire communities every day, and there has been almost no research exploring them."
Unlike the risk pattern for violence in general, which typically affects young males, most victims of stray bullets were outside the 15-34 age range, and nearly half (44.8 percent) were females, the study found. Many of the people shot (40.7 percent) were at home at the time of the incident, and of these, most (68.2 percent) were indoors.
For months there's been intriguing talk that presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney might pick a prominent woman as his running mate to help give his campaign a kick – and layer on some luster to a plain vanilla, hyper-cautious and meticulously run campaign.
Among the potential picks, four women, more than any others, have consistently been mentioned as possibilities in the Republican vice presidential sweepstakes:
Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, 44, the former state attorney general and relative political newcomer, who just spent a sweltering July 4 campaigning with Romney.
South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, 40, a Tea Party favorite and one of Romney's early supporters, who recently ducked ethics violations charges related to campaign lobbying.
Gov. Susana Martinez of New Mexico, 52, the first female Hispanic governor in the U.S., who could potentially give Romney a boost with a constituency he sorely needs.
Former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, 57, who served in the Bush administration and would bring the foreign policy bona fides that Romney lacks.
Just this week, Romney's wife, Ann, said that her husband is thinking about picking a woman to be on his ticket this fall. "We've been looking at that and I love that option as well," Ann Romney told CBS News, as he looked on beside her. She said the person selected for the No. 2 spot on the ticket should be "someone that obviously can do the job but will be able to carry through with some of the other responsibilities."
By rewriting the rules that govern which strings the federal government can attach to its spending on the state level, Chief Justice John Roberts may have inadvertently prevented a future Tea Party-dominated Congress from executing one of its top priorities, defunding Planned Parenthood.At the same time, it raises the question of whether the federal government can withhold Medicaid money if a state decides on its own to defund Planned Parenthood.
By rewriting the rules that govern which strings the federal government can attach to its spending on the state level, Chief Justice John Roberts may have inadvertently prevented a future Tea Party-dominated Congress from executing one of its top priorities, defunding Planned Parenthood.
At the same time, it raises the question of whether the federal government can withhold Medicaid money if a state decides on its own to defund Planned Parenthood. Before Roberts' ruling, no legal scholar would have questioned whether the federal government had the authority to spend its own money or tie any strings it deemed appropriate to it. But after the ruling, it's an open question that will likely be decided in court, legal experts told The Huffington Post.
"I perceive NFIB v. Sebelius as throwing the courthouse doors open to coercion claims," said Nicole Huberfeld, a University of Kentucky law professor. "Because the holding is so dependent on the somewhat unusual facts of Medicaid, and because the court set forth no theory of coercion, I think we will see a lot of challenges in an effort to discover the contours of the coercion doctrine."
The issue raised by Roberts' opinion is whether the federal government can coerce a state into using its federal grant money in a particular way by threatening to withhold that money. For instance, if Congress voted to defund Planned Parenthood through the Title X federal family planning program, but New York wanted to continue sending its federal Title X dollars to Planned Parenthood clinics in the state, could the government withhold all Title X money from New York?
A significant number of countries continue to struggle with a wide gender gap in the workplace -- a fourth to be exact, according to data recently released by Gallup. That gender gap is technically the difference between the number of men and women in full-time or voluntary part-time work.
The problem is not universal. For every Ecuador or Saudi Arabia, two countries with enormous gender gaps, there is a Ireland or United Kingdom, both of which were found to posses a gender gap that actually favors women.
That's not to say gender gaps only exist in developing countries. Italy, a member of the European Union, posted a workplace gender gap of 13 percent, the survey found.
The pollsters last year questioned 187,119 people across 144 countries.
Analysis by the National Women’s Law Center of jobs data for June 2012 shows that women gained more private sector jobs than men did: 49,000 v. 35,000. But women lost 17,000 public sector jobs in June, while men gained 13,000 public sector jobs.
Analysis by the National Women’s Law Center of jobs data for June 2012 shows that last month women gained more private sector jobs than men did: 49,000 v. 35,000. But women lost 17,000 public sector jobs in June, while men gained 13,000 public sector jobs. Since the start of the recovery three years ago, women have gained 908,000 net private sector jobs—and lost 396,000 net public sector jobs. Men have gained 2,304,000 net private sector jobs—and lost 231,000 net public sector jobs. In the last three years, women have a net gain of 512,000 jobs; men have a net gain of 2,073,000 jobs.
“The June jobs data reflect a disturbing trend we’ve seen during the three years of the recovery: cuts in public sector jobs are undermining the recovery overall—but especially for women,” said Joan Entmacher, Vice President for Family Economic Security at the National Women’s Law Center. “For every ten private sector jobs women have gained since the recovery began in June 2009, they’ve lost more than four public sector jobs. Our communities are losing teachers, nurses, police and firefighters but some policy makers still don’t get it. They’re pushing for deeper budget cuts that will mean more lost jobs, more cuts in education, health care, public safety, and other vital services.”
It's been 10 years since researchers of the Women's Health Initiative, a large randomized, controlled trial on hormone therapy sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, announced their first findings: that the health risks outweighed the benefits of estrogen plus progestin hormone therapy (HT) in postmenopausal women. Since then, additional research has advanced the understanding of the benefits and risks. JoAnn Manson, one of the study's lead investigators and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, is the president of the North American Menopause Society. She spoke with USA TODAY's Janice Lloyd about what women need to know to get through the challenging time and to protect their health.
Q: Millions of women stopped taking hormone therapy as a result of the study 10 years ago. Was that a good thing?
A: Although the pendulum may have swung too far, it was a good thing that many women who were inappropriate candidates for HT stopped taking the medications. For example, it was fortunate that many women at high risk of heart attack, stroke, and breast cancer stopped taking HT. However, even young, newly menopausal, and healthy women with significant hot flashes and other symptoms became afraid to seek treatment. Also, many, many clinicians no longer prescribe, or know how to prescribe. This isn't a good situation for young women who are having severe menopausal symptoms. They're going to have trouble finding clinicians who will help them make the most informed decision.
Q: Critics fault the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) for using mostly older women who wouldn't benefit from hormone therapy. But what do you think was one of the biggest takeaways from that study?
A: WHI deserves credit for stopping what was becoming common practice of starting hormone therapy in older women who were at high risk for heart disease because we found it failed to protect them from heart disease, stroke or dementia, and actually increased their risk. We also learned there are major differences in the benefit-risk profile of estrogen alone — used by women who have had a hysterectomy — and estrogen plus progestin, used by women who have an intact uterus. The balance of benefits and risk was more favorable with estrogen alone.
High-profile female executives should save their breath and their advice – Millennial women aren’t buying what they’re selling.
Only 20% of Gen Y women say that they want to follow in the footsteps of the female leaders in their workplaces, says new research from Bentley University. The survey of 1000 college-educated Millennials found that while 84% of respondents said that they could identify at least one female leader at their job, most didn’t want to emulate her career path.
This rejection of the current iteration of female corporate achievement also extends to attitudes toward mentorship; only 5.5% of respondents claimed that a colleague, supervisor or role model was their primary source of career cheerleading, with spouses/partners or parents much more likely to be identified as key career supporters. And only 25% of Millennials of both genders give credit to a manager or supervisor for encouraging them to assume a leadership role at work.
Women in countries with great gender inequality are more likely than men to support authoritarian values, according to a new study of 54 countries. The shift away from beliefs in independence and freedom is the result, social psychologists say, of authoritarianism helping such women cope with a threatening environment.
"If a person is authoritarian, they are more likely to follow what group leaders ask them to do, and to follow the crowd more generally," says Mark Brandt of DePaul University in Chicago, a co-author of the paper just published online in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Prior research has found that adopting authoritarian beliefs gives people a sense of connection to others and protection against threats. "It might be one way to compensate for the social devaluing that is associated with being a member of a disadvantaged group."
Brandt and his co-author P.J. Henry thus predicted that the greater thegender inequality in a country, the greater the endorsement of authoritarianism by women compared to men. They investigated this relationship by analyzing survey data from 54 countries, from Argentina to Vietnam. They used the publicly available World Values Survey, which asks participants about their beliefs in authoritarian (e.g. "good manners" and "obedience") values versus autonomous ("independence" and "imagination") ones. They gathered gender inequality data from the United Nations Human Development Report, which has tracked gender inequality around the world for more than 10 years.
As predicted, they found a link between high gender inequality and a support of authoritarian values among women. "I think many people will be surprised to find out that women can be more authoritarian than men," Brandt says. Most past research on authoritarianism has failed to showgender differences, perhaps, Brandt says, because these data were collected in the United States and other developed nations with lower levels of gender inequality. "Step outside that cultural zone to locations of greater gender inequality, and you will find greater gender differences."
The results of Financial News’ recent Women in Finance Survey bear out a similar view: 82% of hedge fund respondents said their gender has affected their likelihood of having a successful career, substantially higher than the 66% of total respondents who felt the same way. So why do women in hedge funds feel their gender makes it harder to succeed?
Most women in the hedge fund industry do not work in portfolio management positions, which create the performance upon which the hedge fund industry is built. Only 12% of the 10,000 members of 100 Women in Hedge Funds work in trading and portfolio management and the largest proportion, 26%, are in marketing roles.
Rachel Stewart, a consultant at global executive search firm Odgers Berndtson, said: “Among some of the experienced women, the feeling is that women coming into the industry now should be led towards more roles than marketing, operations and HR. It’s more difficult to get a seat as a partner or director if you don’t have a background of P&L responsibility, as this is the bread and butter of the hedge fund industry.”