Comparison of Feminism and New Rights Views on Health and Illness - Essay Example

Health Inequalities Comparison of Feminism and New Rights Views on Health and Illness. According to Bromley (2012), feminism refers to a diverse variety of beliefs, ideas, movements, cultures and agendas for action by comparing how this applies to men and women. Feminism argues that inequalities between genders are mainly caused by men in the society. The new rights, on the other hand, argue that inequalities in health and illness are caused by the government’s action of controlling resources in the economy. Feminists believe that the society is a patriarchy meaning that it is dominated by more men than women (Venker, & Schlafy, 2011). The men, therefore, constitute a higher number of health professionals compared to the women in the society. This enables men to impose their values on women and they also tend to promote the health of males more than that of females. The health of women is therefore ignored and this leads to the inequality of wellbeing of men and women; with the males having superior health to females. For example, men ignore issues of pregnancy and contraception and concentrate more on problems associated with male reproduction such as testicle cancer (Bromley, 2012). Feminists also believe that women fall ill more often compared to men because they undertake more responsibilities and they are paid less salaries than men at the workplace (Sauaia, 2014). The women’s responsibilities include working to earn a living and taking care of their families by undertaking household chores. These tiring duties together with the stress of being underpaid at work causes women to become sick more often compared to men. The women suffer from stress and depression, which does not often attack men who are comfortable both at home and at work. This also leads to the fallacy that women are weaker than their male counterparts in terms of health. Feminism also argues that women suffer from diseases more than men because they are discriminated during treatment. For example, these ideologists argue that general practitioners prescribe drugs to women without testing them while they perform tests on men before issuing them with medication. The prescriptions given to women do not necessarily work effectively; therefore, they become ill again because the disease that they were suffering from was not treated (Bromley, 2012). This also leads to the view that men have superior health compared to women yet it is not the case in the real sense. The new rights movement, on the other hand, argues that differences in health and illness are caused by the state’s act of controlling resources (In Bartley, In Blane, & In Smith, 2005). This theory does not identify gender related health inequalities like that of feminists; the hypothesis accounts for the whole population despite differences in gender. Proponents of this theory argue that some individuals ignore their health because they believe that the state is responsible for their wellbeing. These people wait for the state to provide them with health incentives instead of working and earning money to improve their welfare. While the individuals relax and wait for the state’s help, their health deteriorates and this leads to low living standards. The new rights activists, therefore, postulate that the state should minimize the benefits that it provides to its citizens; this will help to instil a culture of responsibility and reduce dependency (In Bartley, In Blane, & In Smith, 2005). Proponents of the hypothesis argue that the state may do this by privatizing various sections of health care. Although the new rights and feminist’s views are different, these theories are similar in that they aim at addressing the issue of poor health and health inequalities in the society. These theories propose methods of alleviating poor health in the community, for example, offering equal employment opportunities to men and women, promoting the health of men and women, and instilling a sense of responsibility on individuals. 2 Analysis of Existing Evidence of Social Variations in Health and Illness in Society. The health of the society also differs based on social factors such as social class and gender (Sauaia, 2014). These factors demonstrate variances in the healthiness and illnesses among individuals in the society. The individuals in superior social classes that earn high incomes suffer from fewer illnesses than those from lower classes; these people also access high quality health care because they have funds to pay for expensive health care (Corradetti, 2012). These differences have led to high mortality rates among the lower social classes in the society compared to the death rates of those in high classes. For example, in UK there are five social classes with the first one being that of high income earners and the fifth one being of low income earners. The mortality rate of social class one is 18 while that of the fifth class is 42 for people between one and fifteen years (Corradetti, 2012, p. 103). Gender is another factor that shows variations in the health of the society. Women suffer from more diseases compared to men yet their mortality rate is lower than that of males. Women suffer more from illnesses such as fatigue, headache, back pain, and malaria (Bromley, 2012). Men, on the other hand, do not fall ill often, but they die earlier than women; the males die mainly from cancer of the lungs. Men in higher classes in the society also have a lower mortality than their counterparts from lower classes. This also applies to women with those from lower classes falling ill more often than the rich because they cannot afford first class treatment that may extend their life expectancy (In Bartley, In Blane, & In Smith, 2005). The Black Report of 1980 confirmed that social differences such as ethnicity, income, and gender elucidate the variations in health and illnesses in the society (Sauaia, 2014). This report found out that low income earners, women, and black people access poor health services and suffer from more illnesses than the rich, whites, and men. The Acheson Report of 1988 also found out that differences in income and housing conditions explain differences in health (Sauaia, 2014). 3 Sociological Explanations for Health Inequalities Structural/ Materialistic Argument This emphasizes the role of economic and associated socio-cultural factors in the distribution of health and well-being. The fundamental political, economic and consumptive patterns of society confer a number of advantages to certain segments of society. Materialists see health as the result of political and economical differences and the way members of different social classes are inhibited to lead their lives (In Bartley, In Blane, & In Smith, 2005). These factors indicate that members of lower classes are exposed to unhealthy environments compared to those in higher classes. The most important determinant of health in this theory is the income of individuals; the poor individuals have more illnesses and poor health than the rich (Venker, & Schlafy, 2011). These people continue to be disadvantaged in terms of the risks to ill health and may face material constraints on gaining access to information on healthy choices: good food and better lifestyles. The poor also travel longer distances to work and to hospitals for treatment. The lower class members of the society are also exposed to more health threats than the rich; for example, pollution, poor housing, poor working environments, and poor drainage systems. These factors cause them to suffer from diseases related to poor environments such as cholera (Sauaia, 2014). The Royal Commission Report of Britain confirms that the high inequality in the distribution of wealth and income in the UK is the main factor that contributes to variations in health and illnesses (Corradetti, 2012). This report explained that the poor are mainly subsistence farmers who earn little from selling their surplus foods compared to the rich who work in high paying professions such as engineering and accounting. The Black Report also argued that the poor have access to inferior health compared to the elite members of the community (Sauaia, 2014). Cultural/ Behavioural Argument Behaviourists believe that the traits of individuals and the behaviour they portray have consequences on their health. For example, behaviours such as smoking, binge drinking, dieting, driving carelessly, and refusing to take mediation lead to poor health conditions and numerous illnesses. This viewpoint also argues that individuals who ignore essential health guidelines also have poor health compared to the ones who adhere to these guidelines (In Bartley, In Blane, & In Smith, 2005). Behaviourists also believe that various behaviours are associated with certain individuals in the society (Venker & Schlafly, 2011, pg. 139). For example, smoking among adults continues to be much more prevalent among working class compared with middle-class people, in some measure because of the greater capacity of the latter to quit the habit. Successive studies of diet, too, have revealed a pattern of poorer nutrition among children and adults from lower social class backgrounds. The poor people don’t mind about the nutrients but only eat what they can afford, and, for example, the issue of a balanced diet is just a saying for them. Personal characteristics such as personality type or intelligence also determine the health of individuals. For example, the people in high class tend to make better decisions compared to those in lower classes; this is so because the way these two classes look at their needs is so different. What may be a luxury in the lower class group can be basic in the high class. The Black Report of 1980 found out that individuals with poor health and numerous illnesses demonstrate poor behaviour compared to the ones who have superior health and wellbeing (Corradetti, 2012). References Bromley, V. L. 2012. Feminisms matter: debates, theories, activism. North York: University of Toronto Press. Corradetti, C. 2012. Philosophical dimensions of human rights: some contemporary views. Dordrecht: Springer. In Bartley, M., In Blane, D., & In Smith, G. D. 2005. The sociology of health inequalities. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Sauaia, A. 2014. Quest for health equity. New York: Nova Publishers. Venker, S., & Schlafly, P. 2011. The flipside of feminism: what conservative women know and men cant say. Washington: WND Books. Read More