Digital Document (pdf, doc, ppt, txt, etc.)

Natural disasters do not affect people equally. In fact, a vulnerability approach to disasters would suggest that
inequalities in exposure and sensitivity to risk as well as inequalities in access to resources, capabilities, and
opportunities systematically disadvantage certain groups of people, rendering them more vulnerable to the impact
of natural disasters. In this article we address the specific vulnerability of girls and women with respect to
mortality from natural disasters and their aftermath. Biological and physiological differences between the sexes
are unlikely to explain large-scale gender differences in mortality rates. Social norms and role behaviors provide
some further explanation, but what is likely to matter most is the everyday socioeconomic status of women. In a
sample of up to 141 countries over the period 1981 to 2002 we analyze the effect of disaster strength and its
interaction with the socioeconomic status of women on the change in the gender gap in life expectancy. We find,
first, that natural disasters lower the life expectancy of women more than that of men. In other words, natural
disasters (and their subsequent impact) on average kill more women than men or kill women at an earlier age
than men. Since female life expectancy is generally higher than that of males, for most countries natural disasters
narrow the gender gap in life expectancy. Second, the stronger the disaster (as approximated by the number of
people killed relative to population size), the stronger this effect on the gender gap in life expectancy. That is,
major calamities lead to more severe impacts on female life expectancy (relative to that of males) than do smaller
disasters. Third, the higher women’s socioeconomic status, the weaker is this effect on the gender gap in life
expectancy. Taken together our results show that it is the socially constructed gender-specific vulnerability of
females built into everyday socioeconomic patterns that lead to the relatively higher female disaster mortality
rates compared to men.

In most regions around the world, life expectancy inmen is lower than women. However, research in1970’s and 1980’s has routinely showed a higher mor-bidity in women than in men. This notion of‘gender paradox’ with higher morbidity yet longer lon-gevity in women has been the center of attention for awhile. Using data from CDC (Health United States,2007), American Heart Association, American ObesityAssociation, and American Cancer Society, this reviewwill summarize and compare recent trends for: lifeexpectancy, morbidity, and mortality for men andwomen in United States. We postulate that there isdeficiency in our understanding of men’s health andof the factors that affect men’s health. This paper willshow that men have lower life expectancy; they havesignificant morbidity and higher mortality from theleading causes of death in United States. We proposethe etiology for the relative stagnation of men’s healthcompared to health in women. In addition, we pro-pose recommendations to improve men’s health.

Injury induced by a stochastic event, such as trauma or after an operative intervention initiates an inflammatory response directed to control the initial insult.
Patients, who withstand the initial injury, are still at risk to suffer serious deterioration of their health by secondary responses mounted after the initiating insult. Such
secondary responses are commonly sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS) (Baue 1975; Meakins
1990; Baue 1996). Morbidity and mortality associated with these conditions are a major health problem (Rangel-Frausto et al. 1995). A national estimate of 751,000 cases of sepsis is predicted per annum in the U.S, with an average hospital stay of 19.8 days and costs of approximately $22.100 per case (Angus et al. 2001). An intriguing question that arises from clinical observations is the diversity in the outcome after severe injury. Thus, it could be hypothesized that the regulation of the response to injury is different among human beings, thus resulting in a different incidence of sepsis, ARDS and MODS.

Academics sign up to the concept of promoting excellence in research by valuing 'objectivity', independance, theoretical frameworks and an evidence base, even while we might argue about meaning of these concepts and how they should be operationalized. We share a commitment to peer review even though some may have concerns about invisible bias which may be built into some of the mechanism we employ to conduct it. So,, do we explain the extraordinarily robust and sustained role that gender continues to play in organizing the academy? Moreover, how do we understand the neglect of the gender cuts across the allocation of academic opportunities. It raises questions about the implications of the gendering of the academy on who decides who and what is excellent. It then outlines concerns about the neglect of the gender dimension in research processes. It concludes with recommendations on how to address the gender inbalance in the academy and enhance the attention to gender in research.