Women, men, and contraceptive sterilization

Gender inequality and the ‘East-West’ divide in contraception: An analysis at the individual, the couple, and the country level

“…We are able to confirm this hypothesis, except for the relationship between country-level gender inequality and sterilization. At the individual level our results are in line with studies in the European and US context that show a positive association between women's higher socioeconomic status and modern reversible contraceptives (Dereuddre et al 2016, Janevic et al 2012, Martinez et al 2006, Moreau et al 2006, Mosher and Jones 2010, Serbanescu et al 2004, Spinelli et al 2000, and a negative association with (female) sterilization (Anderson et al 2012, Bertotti 2013, Bumpass et al 2000, Eeckhaut and Sweeney 2016, Mosher and Jones 2010. Available research that goes beyond the individual level is generally lacking for reversible methods, and comparisons between modern reversible and permanent methods are scarce, but in this study, we find that higher levels of occupational gender equality between spouses are associated with a higher likelihood of relying on modern reversible methods instead of no, traditional, or permanent methods.…”

“…Although women can feel compelled to take responsibility for contraception as part of their female role, others suggest that women engage in 'contraceptive gatekeeping' and that they report a clear preference for being primarily in charge of contraception (Fennell 2011). This touches the unsolved question on women's trust in their partner for using a male hormonal pill (Glasier 2010) and serves as one explanation why women with a higher relative education are more likely to opt for tubal ligation than vasectomy (Bertotti 2013, Bumpass et al 2000. In turn, disadvantaged men's reluctance for sterilization has been linked to male sterilization as a treat for their masculinity (Bertotti 2013).…”

“…For women with a childbearing desire, we hypothesize-in line with most existing literature-that contraceptive efficacy will surpass other arguments, and that higher levels of gender inequality will be associated with a higher probability of using no or traditional methods, rather than modern reversible methods (H1). For those with no childbearing intentions, previous comparisons between reversible and permanent modern methods remain lacking, but the observation that modern reversible use is generally related to higher socioeconomic status whereas-particularly female-sterilization is linked to lower socioeconomic status (Anderson et al 2012, Bertotti 2013, Bumpass et al 2000, Mosher and Jones 2010) leads us to suggest that higher levels of gender inequality will be associated with a higher probability of using no, traditional or modern permanent methods, rather than modern reversible methods (H1). Second, a comparison is made between non-use, and male and female methods.…”

“…For sterilization, it is found that the higher educated or those with a higher income are less likely to rely on female sterilization and more likely to use male sterilization, compared with the lower-educated or those with a lower income (Anderson et al 2012, Barone et al 2004, Bertotti 2013, Bumpass et al 2000, Martinez et al 2006, Mosher and Jones 2010. The positive association between socioeconomic status and male sterilization however seems unique to the US (Eeckhaut and Sweeney 2016).…”

“…The positive association between socioeconomic status and male sterilization however seems unique to the US (Eeckhaut and Sweeney 2016). Interestingly, a higher relative level of education for either partner, prompts that partner to opt for sterilization themselves (Bertotti 2013, Bumpass 2000.…”