Message-ID: <334CFDFA.A8E@uniontel.net> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 07:49:30 -0700 From: David Johnson <mailto:pinefarm@UNIONTEL.NET> Subject: Sex To: mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU
Conventional wisdom has it that the way to decrease the birhtrate
in poor countries is to increase public health, decrease infant mortaliy
and improve educational and employment opportunities for women.
These are all good things and I support all of them, I just
believe that it is a mistake to offer them as the best way to attack the
problem. They are by their very nature long range and vague.
That's not the case with condoms. They are immediate and a long
ways from vague. They are cheap, easy to transport and distribute. What
they do and how they do it is obvious to the most casual observer. They
are easy to use and it is simple to verify whether they are being used or
not.
People say that men in macho cultures will not use them. Well,
some will.
PC, in my country of service, gave out condoms to Volunteers with
no questions asked even though we were forbidden to promote their use. A
coulpe I knew got a regular supply and gave them to a couple in the
village. During the 2 years of their service, the woman they gave them to
had no children. When they left, she immediately got pregnant with her
4th child.
True, this is just one example but, surely their are others. The
woman in question experienced none of the changes listed above. All she
got was free condoms.
I believe it is a mistake to assume that men are so bullheaded
that they won't accept means to limit their responsibilities by limiting
the number of children they have to support. This is stereotyping at its
worst. It would be completely unacceptable if it was men stereotyping
women.
Even if it is true in most cases their are still a good number of
couples who would take advantage of the opportunity to limit birhths.
Just how many we won't know unless we try. If we wait for all the other
things to fall into place, this will be a long time. Dave Johnson