Women’s Equality Regarding Their Overall Wellness

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Background

Globally, women’s overall wellness is compromised by healthcare systems that perpetuate considerable discrimination against them. Diagnosis and treatment modalities are based on male-oriented norms and gender stereotypes that relegate women’s health interests and maintain inequalities. The four lenses of social sciences, history, humanities, and natural and applied sciences, provide insightful perspectives and diverse aspects, which enhance the understanding of women’s wellness issues. For instance, the social science dimension illuminates how human relationships influence women’s perception of well-being, while the natural and applied sciences prism elucidates their likelihood of embracing new technology to improve their health. These personal choices and individual lifestyles ultimately shape how society interprets wellness due to social interdependencies and connections. In this regard, the four lenses offer in-depth viewpoints, which cumulatively enhance the understanding and discernment of women’s equality issues in their overall wellness in modern societies.

The Lens of History

Women’s equality ranks among the prominent contemporary issues in wellness and influences multiple dimensions of modern feminine practices and habits. Notably, an enhanced understanding of this concept can be obtained by viewing the concept of well-being through a historical lens. According to Shai et al. (2021), a significant proportion of modern women’s wellness practices are influenced by dominant historical experiences, which continue to shape multiple aspects of healthcare. For instance, in previous decades, materials such as artifacts, magazines, newspapers, books, photographs, and diaries elevated slimness as the ideal body for women. This attribute has been idealized and contributes significantly to the stigmatization of some body shapes and overweight in women (Palmeira et al., 2020). Consequently, the historical emphasis on slenderness as the ideal body shape for women continues to influence modern feminine practices, compelling them to embrace habits designed to enhance weight loss. However, men do not experience these stereotypes, stigma, and negative body perceptions due to the historical absence of emphasis on masculine body shape and weight issues.

Additionally, traditional societies were fundamentally patriarchal, and health practices were conceived and practiced for the benefit of men. Consequently, the healthcare system continues to perpetuate discrimination against women. For instance, gender biases are prevalent in diagnosis and treatment, primarily based on male-centered research. This implies that, historically, female subjects have been excluded from numerous biomedical studies (Bierer et al., 2022). According to Cottingham and Fisher (2020), females are underrepresented in the testing of investigational drugs and other clinical trials. These biases exacerbate inequalities in women’s health and wellness and increase the likelihood of misdiagnosis and adverse health outcomes (Steinberg et al., 2021). In this regard, this historical lens provides insightful perspectives on the foundations of inequalities and gender biases, which continue to impact women’s wellness.

The Lens of Social Science

The social science lens interrogates how people’s behaviors are shaped by the social environment in which they inhabit. Across many societies, cultural norms, ideals, and conditions are embedded with notions that continue to perpetuate gendered inequalities, which disadvantage women on various issues, including wellness. Helse et al. (2019) contend that cultural practices impede the improvement of women’s wellness, particularly regarding their reproductive health. For instance, in predominantly patriarchal societies where women have limited levels of autonomy, men hold leverage over decision-making, directly or indirectly influencing the extent to which women access and utilize healthcare services. According to Mochache et al. (2020), these sociocultural contexts with gendered value systems also determine when women’s healthcare needs deserve medical attention. Kapoor and McKinnon (2021) note that menopause, maternity, and menstruation issues are considered taboo in many societies. For instance, cultural biases and prejudices negatively affect the uptake of iron and other critical nutritional supplements at the onset of menstruation.

Additionally, such traditional cultural practices and norms as son preference are deeply entrenched in many societies. These phenomena have significant health implications for girls and women, which limit the realization of equitable wellness in society. According to Le and Nguyen (2022), these societal preferences ultimately shape the health disparities between sons and daughters in early childhood and men and women in adulthood. For instance, Banerjee and Chatterjee (2021) contend that these perspectives undermine the ability of women to enjoy their reproductive health rights since they are forced to continue childbearing until they give birth to a boy. In such societies, women’s reproductive options are limited and undermined by traditions and norms held by society. In this regard, the lens of social sciences provides insights into how society and traditional practices affect women’s wellness and perpetuate health inequality.

The Lens of Natural and Applied Sciences

The lens of natural sciences departs significantly from the other perspectives and introduces unique insights into the application and adoption of modern approaches that enhance the quality of life. Notably, this perspective uses scientific knowledge and processes as a strategy for achieving a defined practical outcome. A significant proportion of these approaches are based on gendered frameworks, which entrench gender inequalities against women. For instance, biased and exclusive scientific processes reinforce gendered identities and stereotypes, which constrain the behaviors of women through a mechanism that perpetuates inequality in wellness. According to Poczatkova and Kribikova (2017), the underrepresentation of women, particularly in the fields of science and research, is reproduced in the outcomes of the findings of studies and the subsequent applicability. This implies that the gender conceptions formed by societies and cultures are replicated implicitly or explicitly in scientific studies. Consequently, the application of the findings obtained from those surveys reproduces gender inequalities in wellness. This implies that the outcomes of those surveys generate male-oriented developments, which subsequently influence self-seeking behaviors among men and women.

Moreover, the fields of medicine, science, and technology are male-dominated, and the outputs of these sectors reflect gendered perceptions. Denend et al. (2020) argue that these perspectives ultimately impact such other aspects of wellness as the acceptance of medical technology and devices. From this perspective, the lens of natural and applied science provides insights regarding the prevalence of gender disparities in women’s wellness. Notably, these disparities compromise the overall well-being and health of women since they are developed by men and based on male-oriented studies, which ignore the anatomical and physiological differences between men and women. As a result, these technological and scientific findings continue to advance and entrench perceptions and notions, which impede the overall wellness of women.

The Lens of Humanity

The lens of humanity explores the distinctive aspects of human behaviors and actions. An exploration of women’s habits and practices illustrate how these tendencies continue to undermine their overall wellness. For instance, multiple studies indicate that women work for longer hours and experience adverse burnout effects compared to men. Similarly, the societal expectations of women impose a heavier burden on them than on their male counterparts. Notably, women and men also define their healthy work and actions differently. For instance, women apportion significant emphasis on issues with a relatively higher impact on their well-being compared to men. Consequently, females experience such frequent internalizing disorders as depression and psychological distress (Matud et al., 2019). From this dimension, using the humanities lens provides in-depth perspectives on specific work behaviors and actions, which expose women to poorer health outcomes than men.

Additionally, wellness inequalities, as viewed through the lens of humanities, can be explained by systemic disparities in education and vocational training. The gendered dimensions in these systems reinforce biases and segregation, which adversely affect the overall well-being of women. Further, the disparities are reproduced in other workplace aspects, including promotion, wage differentials, and mental health consequences. For instance, Rosemberg & Gallagher (2022) and Bilodeau et al. (2020) contend that these gender-based differences are associated with such outcomes as heightened economic insecurity, reduced access to critical services, and more exposure to work-to-family conflicts. As a result, the overall health status of women is compromised by these disparities, increasing their susceptibility to mental health problems. From this perspective, the lens of humanities offers an in-depth outlook, which enhances the understanding of the poorer wellness outcomes among women than men.

Integrating the Four Lenses and the Impact on the Professional and Personal Context

The four lenses of history, natural and applied sciences, social sciences, and humanities play an integral role in enriching the understanding of wellness from multiple dimensions. The diverse viewpoints and unique perspectives offered by each of the lenses enhance the development of a holistic view. The combined insights are fundamental in creating a new approach to viewing the problem and formulating comprehensive solutions. For instance, the lens of history illuminates the background and explains the cultural and historical bases of a particular behavior. Similarly, the lens of social sciences provides the context in which a given problem exists. For instance, a healthcare practitioner obtains in-depth insights and background information to provide contextually and culturally competent care.

Additionally, the four lenses impact the professional and personal context of practitioners by enriching their understanding of society, culture, and traditions. They also facilitate the development of new and innovative approaches to healthcare and wellness management by allowing professionals to learn about the past and utilize such knowledge to understand the present. These lenses provide the essential tools and instruments that deepen the professional and personal practice.

How Social Practices have been Shaped by Issues and Events in Wellness in Modern Culture

Wellness and social practices are interconnected loops that influence each other in forward and backward patterns. From this perspective, modern cultures have significantly influenced social practices by promoting the adoption and application of beneficial health practices. Similarly, modern culture has challenged some social conventions, resulting in the widespread embrace of such practices as workplace equality.

Benefits and Challenges of Addressing Issues in Wellness

Addressing issues in wellness is characterized by multiple benefits and challenges. Among the benefits is empowering people to make more healthy choices, discard unhealthy practices, and disregard detrimental societal practices. Ultimately, these benefits reduce the disease burden and improve the overall wellness of communities. However, addressing issues in wellness is also challenging since it encompasses questioning traditionally held practices. Moreover, people may be reluctant to embrace the newly developed perspectives, which depart from their historically established norms.

How Analyzing Wellness Help Interactions with People of Different Cultures, Viewpoint, and Perspective

Analyzing wellness issues provides diverse insights and knowledge, which are critical in dispelling negative stereotypes and biases about different groups. Additionally, it broadens horizons and deepens people’s ability to have meaningful interactions with others, which ultimately promotes social cohesion. In healthcare practice, these different viewpoints, cultures, and perspectives encourage the acknowledgment and acceptance of diverse behaviors and habits, which is essential in the provision of culturally competent care.

References

Banerjee, A., & Chatterjee, N. (2021). Impact of son preference on women’s extent of enjoying reproductive rights. International Journal of Development Research, 11(7), 48835-48837. Web.

Bierer, B., Meloney, L., Ahmed, H., & White, S. (2022). Advancing the inclusion of underrepresented women in clinical research.Cell Reports Medicine, 3, 1-5. Web.

Bilodeau, J., Marchand, A., & Demers, A. (2020). Psychological distress inequality between employed men and women: A gendered exposure model. SSM – Population Health, 11, 1-8. Web.

Cottingham, M., & Fisher, J. (2020). Gendered logics of biomedical research: Women in U.S. Phase I clinical trials.Social Problems, 1-18. Web.

Denend, L., McCutcheon, S., Regan, M., Sainz, M., Yock, P., & Azagury, D. (2020). Analysis of gender perceptions in health technology: A call to action. Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 48(5), 1573–1586. Web.

Kapoor, A., & McKinnon, M. (2021). The elephant in the room: Tackling taboos in women’s healthcare. Journal of Science Communication, 20(1), 1-10. Web.

Le, K., & Nguyen, M. (2022). Son preference and health disparities in developing countries.SSM – Population Health, 17, 1-9. Web.

Mochache, V., Wanje, G., Nyagah, L., Lakhani, A., El-Busaidy, H., Temmerman, M., & Gichangi, P. (2020). Religious, socio-cultural norms and gender stereotypes influence uptake and utilization of maternal health services among the Digo community in Kwale, Kenya: A qualitative study.Reproductive Health, 17(71), 1-10. Web.

Matud, M. P., López-Curbelo, M., & Fortes, D. (2019). Gender and psychological wellbeing. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(19), 1-11. Web.

Poczatkova, B., & Kribikova, P. (2017). Gender inequality in the field of science and research. Journal of International Studies, 10(1), 267-276. Web.

Palmeira, C., Santos, L., Silva, S., & Mussi, F. (2020). Stigma perceived by overweight women.Revista Brasileira De Enfermagem, 73(suppl 4), 1-9. Web.

Rosemberg, M. A., & Gallagher, S. (2022). Infected versus affected: Gender disparity and the service industry workforce during Covid-19. Workplace Health & Safety, 70(1), 50, Web.

Shai, A., Koffler, S., & Hashiloni-Dolev, Y. (2021). Feminism, gender medicine and beyond: A feminist analysis of “gender medicine”.International Journal for Equity in Health, 20, 1-11. Web.

Steinberg, J., Turner, B., Weeks, B., Magnani, C., Wong, B., & Rodriguez, F. et al. (2021). Analysis of female enrolment and participant sex by burden of disease in US clinical trials between 2000 and 2020. JAMA Network Open, 4(6), 1-13. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!