Skip to content
1981
Volume 19, Issue 2-3
  • ISSN: 1740-8296
  • E-ISSN: 2040-0918

Abstract

How do young members of disadvantaged communities in countries like Brazil, which have been affected by attacks from far-right populist politicians on women’s rights, make sense of messages on reproductive health in the misinformation age? Two focus groups were conducted in 2021 in collaboration with the Brazilian NGO Reprolatina to assess how disadvantaged women’s groups from Campinas, Sao Paulo, were making sense of messaging on reproductive health within a highly politically polarized local context. The findings revealed also how many women from lower income groups are exposed to a lack of information, as well as even ‘myths’, around fertility treatments and reproductive health matters in the mediated public sphere. The results showed how these groups of women from different age groups felt that there is need for better coverage of reproductive health, and of ‘scientific’ information on health matters more generally, in both the mainstream media and online. This study concludes in favour of improving health literacy approaches, as well as the overall communications on sexuality and reproductive health.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/macp_00085_1
2024-07-01
2024-11-09
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alvarez, S. (1998), ‘Latin American feminisms go global: Trends of the 1990s and challenges for the new millennium’, in S. A. Alvarez, E. Dagnino and A. Escobar (eds), Culture of Politics, Politics of Cultures: Re-Visioning Latin American Social Movements, Oxford: Westview Press, pp. 293317.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Alvarez, S. E. (2009), ‘Beyond NGO-ization? Reflections from Latin America’, Development, 52:2, pp. 17584.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Barcelona, A., Prado, A., Nieves Rico, M. and Perez, R. (2017), ‘Montevideo strategy for implementation of the regional gender agenda with the sustainable development framework by 2030’, March, https://www.cepal.org/en/publications/41013-montevideo-strategy-implementation-regional-gender-agenda-within-sustainable. Accessed 22 June 2021.
  4. Bebbington, A., Bebbington, A. J., Hickey, S. and Mitlin, D. C. (2007), ‘Critical challenges’, in Can NGOs Make a Difference? The Challenge of Development Alternatives, London and New York: Zed Books, pp. 355.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Butler, J. (2019), ‘Anti-gender ideology and Mahmood’s critique of the secular age’, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 87:4, pp. 95567.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Cornwall, A., Correa, S. and Jolly, S. (eds) (2008), Development with a Body: Sexuality, Human Rights and Development, London: Zed Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Correa, S. and Petchesky, R. (1994), ‘Reproductive and sexual rights: A feminist perspective’, in G. Sen, A. Germain and L. C. Chen (eds), Population Policies Reconsidered: Health, Empowerment and Rights, Boston, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 10726.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Diniz, D. and Medeiros, M. (2010), ‘Aborto no Brasil: uma pesquisa domiciliar com técnica de urna’, Ciencia S. Saude Coletiva, 15:Suppl 1, pp. 95966.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC-UN) (2021), ‘Sexual and reproductive health laws in Latin America’, November, https://oig.cepal.org/sites/default/files/c2100783_web_0.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Friedman, E. J. (2003), ‘Gendering the agenda: The impact of transnational women’s rights movement at the UN conferences of the 1990s’, Women’s Studies International Forum, 26:4, pp. 31331.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Haraway, D. (1991), ‘Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective’, Feminist Studies, London: Free Association, 14:3, pp. 57599.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Harcourt, W. (2009), ‘Reproductive bodies’, in Body Politics in Development: Critical Alternatives in Gender and Development, London: Zed Books, pp. 3865.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Harding, S. (1993), ‘Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is “strong objectivity”?’, in L. Alcoff and E. Potter (eds), Feminist Epistemologies, New York: Routledge, pp. 4981.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Kulezycki, A. (2011), ‘Abortion in Latin America: Changes in practice, growing conflict and recent policy development’, Studies in Family Planning, 42:3, pp. 199220.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Lewis, Belinda and Lewis, Jeff (2015), Health Communications: A Media and Cultural Studies Approach, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Lottes, I. L. (2013), ‘Sexual rights: Meanings, controversies, and sexual health promotion’, Journal of Sex Research, 50:3–4, pp. 36791.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Machado, M. R. d. A. and Maciel, D. A. (2017), ‘The battle over abortion rights: Brazil’s state arena’s 1995–2006’, Health and Human Rights, 19:1, pp. 11932.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. McHugh, M. C. (2020), ‘Feminist qualitative research: Working toward transforming science and social justice’, in P. Leavy (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 151.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. McLaren, Margaret (2017), ‘Introduction: Decolonizing feminism’, Decolonizing Feminism: Transnational Feminism and Globalization, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 119.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Michaeilidou, M. (2018), ‘Feminist methodologies for the study of digital worlds’, International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics, 14:1, pp. 1933.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Miskolci, R. and Campana, M. (2017), ‘“Ideologia de gȇnero”: notas para a genealogia de um pȃnico moral contemporȃneo’, Sociedade e Estado, 32:3, pp. 72548.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Mohanty, C. T. ([1984] 2000), ‘Under western eyes: Feminist scholarship and colonial discourses’, in W. Kolmer and F. B. Kouski (eds), Feminist Theory: A Reader, New York: McGraw Hill, pp. 37279.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Mohanty, C. T. (2017), ‘Toward a decolonial framing for the 99 percent’, in M. A. McLaren (ed.), Decolonising Feminism: Transnational Feminism and Globalization, New York: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. viixi.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Montell, F. (1999), ‘Focus groups interviews: A new feminist method’, NWSA Journal, 11:1, pp. 4471.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Narayanaswamy, L. (2017), Gender, Power and Knowledge for Development, New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Okamoto, K. E. and Burress, H. C. (2023), ‘Interviews/focus groups’, in E. Y. Ho, C. L. Bylund, J. C. M. van Weert, I. Basnyat, N. Bol and M. Dean (eds), The International Encyclopedia of Health Communication, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 13.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Ratzan, S. C. (2001), ‘Health literacy: Communication for the public good’, Health Promotion International, 16:2, pp. 20714.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Richardson, E. and Birn, A. (2011), ‘Sexual and reproductive health and rights in Latin America: An analysis of trends, commitments and achievements’, Reproductive Health Matters, 19:38, pp. 18396.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Scrimshaw, S. (2019), ‘Science, health and cultural literacy in a rapidly changing communications landscape’, PNAS, 116:16, pp. 765055.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Wickramasinghe, M. (2011), Feminist Research Methodology: Making Meanings of Meaning-Making, Routledge Research on Gender in Asia Series, New York: Routledge, pp. 4346.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Wilkinson, S. (1998), ‘Focus groups in feminist research: Power, interaction and co-construction of meaning’, Women’s Studies International Forum, 21:1, pp. 11125.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1386/macp_00085_1
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error