 |
 |
|||
 |
|
|||
| |
|
|||
|
|
|||
Statistically Speaking by Dr. Romulo A. Virola1
Are we taking care of our moms2?3 
One day after elections, we could think of winners, losers, victory parties, etc.! But while we may have to wait long before candidates stop yakking about having been cheated and all, let’s have an extended celebration of one event, which I personally feel is of greater importance – Mother’s Day!
Last Sunday, the country, as well as 53 others around the world 4 , celebrated Mother’s Day honoring and thanking our dear mothers for taking care of us (shout-out to my mom: I love you, mommy!!!). Now, more than any time of the year, it is most fitting that we think about the question: For all that they have done for us, are we taking care of our moms?
Before delving on this fundamental question, let us first know some characteristics of our moms.
The 2000 Census of Population and Housing (CPH) tells us that there are more males than females in the Philippines (Table 1). As one may expect, most households are headed by men (Table 2) and there are more widows than widowers: 3 widowed women for every widowed man (Table 3). This calls attention to the need for us to take care of our widowed parents, mothers especially, when they are left alone with the death of their partners.
How early do our parents start having children? Based on the 1995 census data5, the average ages at marriage of women and men were estimated at 23.8 and 26.5 years, respectively (Figure 1). For the period 1980-1995, on the average both women and men succeeded in delaying their entry to marriage as indicated by the increasing age at marriage. This would mean a delay in the exposure of women to childbearing.
And how many children do our mothers need to take care of in their lifetime? Based on the 2003 National Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS), there are 3 children expected to be born per woman. Fertility remains relatively high although consistently declining at a very slow rate over the period 1973-2003. Total fertility rate was recorded at 6.0 in 1973 and declined to 3 in 2003 (Figure 2).
Are we sufficiently taking care of our moms?
1. On a general perspective
1.1 On maternal deaths
Maternal mortality rate is the ratio between the number of women who died (for reasons of pregnancy, childbirth and puerperium) to the number of reported livebirths in a given year, expressed as the number of maternal deaths per 100,000 live births.
The number of nanays, whose lives had been sacrificed just so they could give birth to us, was halved in less than 10 years with the estimated maternal mortality rate found to be highest in 1991 at 203 and lowest in 2000 at 96.1 (Figure 3). However, it should be noted, especially by the Department of Health, that after consistently posting a declining trend in the above-mentioned period, maternal mortality rate increased to 108.1 in 2002.
Hypertension is the most common complication that causes maternal deaths. Thirty percent (30%) of maternal deaths were related to hypertension. This was followed by hemorrhages after child delivery at 18 percent, abortive pregnancy at 9 percent and hemorrhages related to pregnancies at 8 percent. Less than half of maternal deaths were attributed to other complications (Figure 4).
1.2 On work and employment
Financial responsibility in having a family is perhaps the major driving force for both women and men to get employed. It might have been one of the motivating factors, specifically for our currently married women who had the lowest unemployment rate in 2004 (Table 4).
Single, married and separated women have lower unemployment rates than men with the same marital status. Widowed women, on the other hand, have relatively higher unemployment rate than single and married men.
2. On a household perspective
2.1 On domestic activities
In the 2000 Pilot Time Use Survey (TUS) conducted by the National Statistics Office for Batangas and Quezon City, results showed that for both areas, hours spent by women on housework and child family care were always higher than men, be it during weekdays or weekends (Tables 5 and 6). In fact, the number of hours spent by women for housework was, on the average, twice as much as by men. Of course this would mean hours off other things for women – such as engaging in economic activities. In fact, for all days of the week, except during weekdays in Quezon City, men are more “economically empowered” spending longer hours on economic activities than women – which means more visibility and quantification of their contribution in the economy, more participation in making economic decisions, and more access to credit.
The NSCB has received renewed calls to value women’s household work. If unpaid housework and family care were counted as productive output in our national accounts, measures of gross national outputs would of course, increase. More importantly, with accurate and adequate information about what women, especially our mothers, do and how much they produce, the government would be more effective in crafting economic, social and environmental policies that are sensitive to our women (and mothers)6.
2.2 On peace (or violence)
Are our mothers at peace? Can you believe that they experience violence even during pregnancy? Indeed, it is alarming to know that in the 1993 Safe Motherhood Survey (yes, the survey was last conducted in 1993), one in ten respondents had been physically harmed by someone close to them; about a third of these reported being harmed during pregnancy! The victims had low educational attainment and slightly more were living in the rural areas (Table 7).
In 1999, thirty five percent (35%) of the cases of violence against women (VAW) filed with the Philippine National Police (PNP) were physical injuries/maltreatment followed by rape (14%) and wife battering (9%) (Table 8). But what is surprising and revolting is that 35.3 percent of the perpetrators of VAW were either husbands or live-in partners of the victim (Table 9). I wonder what part in the marital vow, “Till death do us part?” these #%@!* couldn’t read.
But wait! Are there asawas or nanays who actually believe that these #%@!* are actually justified to do such things? Mother of all horrors, yes, there are! In the 2003 NDHS7 , 24 percent of women agree that for least one reason a husband is justified in hitting or beating his wife (Table 10)!!! Data also show that a woman is most likely to agree that a husband is justified in hitting or beating his wife if she neglects the children (21 percent). I am hopeful that the day will come that this indicator becomes nil.. zero.. nada – that these women will wake up, come to their senses!!! And those #%@!*? Grrrr!
3. How good are our moms?
Just to remind everyone how much we owe our moms, let me tell you some things worth knowing about our great moms…
3.1 On educational attainment
First and foremost, our education officials should take very strong note of the fact that the proportion of college graduates deteriorated between 1995 and 2000: from 10.1% for women and 8.0% for men to 6.5% and 4.7%, respectively (Table 11). Gladly for the stronger sex, the 2000 census data show that there are proportionately more females than males who attained higher levels of education: 23 percent of women compared to 21 percent of men have post secondary or higher education. Again, another boost to women as this opens the door for them to make choices – to enhance a woman’s sense of control over her life. With education and training, women could step beyond the confines of marriage and motherhood. An educated woman could actually raise the quality of life of her family, giving it a learned priority.
3.2 On income as well as expenditures on basic services
In 2003, female-headed households had average per capita income higher than male-headed households - P45,020 compared to only P29,372 (Table 12).
In terms of per capita expenditure on education and health, women-headed households, spent an average of P1,729 on education and P963 on medical services for each member of the household. Male-headed households, on the other hand, spent only P958 and P524 on education and health, respectively. Quite obviously, our nanays when they head the household, do better in their jobs handling the household than when men do it! So men, why don’t you surrender everything to us?
3.3 On the poverty situation of female-headed households
While we could be happy that the country’s overall state of poverty improved from 27.5 percent in 2000 down to 24.4 percent in 2003, women have every reason to be happier as poverty incidence in both years was observed to be lower in female- than in male-headed households. Male-headed households recorded a poverty incidence rate of 26.6 in 2003 versus only 13.4 percent for female-headed households (Table 13). Further, more than 90 percent of the country’s poor families in 2003 were male-headed. (Aha! I guess I need not say more as these numbers give us the big picture! And I think I couldn’t say the hippie line, which I sometimes hear from friends, “Ang galing nyo, men!” Uh-oh! Not this time…)
3.4 On time use
Again, using the 2000 TUS results, both women and men in Batangas and Quezon City spend an average of almost 13 hours doing personal care and maintenance (Tables 5 and 6). At least it’s good to know that women are also taking good care of themselves as much as men do.
3.5 On decision-making
Looking into some aspects of women empowerment, majority of employed women receiving cash earnings decide solely by themselves. Out of 3,763 employed women who are married or who have live-in partners, 60 percent or 2,273 decide by themselves, 34 percent or 1,264 decide jointly with their husband or partner and only 5.8 percent or 218 have someone else only decide how earnings are used (Table 14).
On a different aspect of decision-making, it is comforting to know that 94 percent of women agree that the wife is justified in refusing to have sex with husband if she knows that husband has a sexually transmitted disease or if she has recently given birth (Table 10). Moreover, at least 84 percent think that it is justified for other reasons specified in the questionnaire. While for some this may seem high enough at first glance, it wouldn’t hurt to aim for a 100 percent. I think the women can! Yes, we can!
So now, going back to the question on whether we are sufficiently taking care of our moms, statistics presented above give us reasons to celebrate for our moms. However, the same set of statistics also tells us that definitely it is not enough for us to simply thank them or give them gifts honoring them for a day. Challenges certainly face not only the government but also us to keep our mga ilaw ng tahanan burning.
Happy Mother’s Day!
Table 1. Population and Sex Ratio a/ by Age Group, 1995 & 2000
(Numbers in Thousands)
Age |
1995 * |
2000 ** |
||||||||
Female |
Male |
Sex |
Female |
Male |
Sex |
|||||
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
Ratio |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
Ratio |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Ages |
34,032 |
100.0 |
34,584 |
100.0 |
102 |
37,979 |
100.0 |
38,526 |
100.0 |
101 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Under 5 |
4,534 |
13.3 |
4,828 |
14.0 |
106 |
4,718 |
12.4 |
4,952 |
12.9 |
105 |
5-9 |
4,326 |
12.7 |
4,567 |
13.3 |
106 |
4,733 |
12.5 |
4,962 |
12.9 |
105 |
10-14 |
3,959 |
11.6 |
4,081 |
11.8 |
103 |
4,408 |
11.6 |
4,541 |
11.8 |
103 |
15-19 |
3,739 |
11.0 |
3,726 |
10.8 |
100 |
3,999 |
10.5 |
4,018 |
10.4 |
100 |
20-24 |
3,151 |
9.3 |
3,120 |
9.1 |
99 |
3,547 |
9.3 |
3,523 |
9.1 |
99 |
25-29 |
2,873 |
8.4 |
2,880 |
8.4 |
100 |
3,017 |
7.9 |
3,054 |
7.9 |
101 |
30-34 |
2,407 |
7.1 |
2,454 |
7.1 |
102 |
2,742 |
7.2 |
2,805 |
7.3 |
102 |
35-39 |
2,123 |
6.2 |
2,195 |
6.4 |
103 |
2,404 |
6.3 |
2,497 |
6.5 |
104 |
40-44 |
1,673 |
4.9 |
1,728 |
5.0 |
103 |
2,043 |
5.4 |
2,120 |
5.5 |
104 |
45-49 |
1,349 |
4.0 |
1,385 |
4.0 |
103 |
1,633 |
4.3 |
1,697 |
4.4 |
104 |
50-54 |
1,029 |
3.0 |
1,033 |
3.0 |
100 |
1,304 |
3.4 |
1,319 |
3.4 |
101 |
55-59 |
871 |
2.6 |
845 |
2.5 |
97 |
961 |
2.5 |
943 |
2.4 |
98 |
60-64 |
679 |
2.0 |
642 |
1.9 |
95 |
847 |
2.2 |
786 |
2.0 |
93 |
65-69 |
509 |
1.5 |
447 |
1.3 |
88 |
605 |
1.6 |
533 |
1.4 |
88 |
70-74 |
354 |
1.0 |
301 |
0.9 |
85 |
436 |
1.1 |
362 |
0.9 |
83 |
75-79 |
227 |
0.7 |
184 |
0.5 |
81 |
287 |
0.8 |
219 |
0.6 |
76 |
80+ |
228 |
0.7 |
165 |
0.5 |
73 |
295 |
0.8 |
195 |
0.5 |
66 |
Note: a/ Sex ratio is defined as the number of males per 100 females in a population.
Source: * 1995 Census of Population, NSO
** 2000 Census of Population and Housing, NSO
Table 2. Distribution of Households by Size by Sex of Household Head, 2000
(In Thousands)
Size |
Female |
Male |
||
Number |
% |
Number |
% |
|
1 |
281 |
17.0 |
336 |
2.8 |
2 |
375 |
22.7 |
1,041 |
8.8 |
3 |
362 |
21.9 |
1,822 |
15.4 |
4 |
321 |
19.4 |
2,440 |
20.6 |
5 |
251 |
15.2 |
2,869 |
24.2 |
6 |
181 |
11.0 |
1,901 |
16.0 |
7 |
122 |
7.4 |
1,331 |
11.2 |
8 & Over |
175 |
10.6 |
1,970 |
16.6 |
Total |
2,068 |
100.0 |
13,211 |
100.0 |
Average household size |
4 |
5 |
||
Source of basic data: 2000 Census of Population and Housing, NSO
Table 3. Population 10 Years Old and Over by Marital Status, 1995 & 2000
(In Thousands)
Marital Status |
1995 * |
2000 ** |
||
Number |
Percent |
Number |
Percent |
|
Female |
25,169 |
100.0 |
28,529 |
100.0 |
Single |
10,875 |
43.2 |
11,801 |
41.4 |
Married |
12,097 |
48.1 |
13,071 |
45.8 |
Widowed |
1,485 |
5.9 |
1,781 |
6.2 |
Divorced/Separated |
219 |
0.9 |
356 |
1.2 |
Common Law/Live-in |
452 |
1.8 |
1,208 |
4.2 |
Unknown |
41 |
0.2 |
312 |
1.1 |
Male |
25,189 |
100.0 |
28,610 |
100.0 |
Single |
12,120 |
48.1 |
13,279 |
46.4 |
Married |
12,032 |
47.8 |
13,016 |
45.5 |
Widowed |
459 |
1.8 |
572 |
2.0 |
Divorced/Separated |
113 |
0.4 |
202 |
0.7 |
Common Law/Live-in |
435 |
1.7 |
1,231 |
4.3 |
Unknown |
30 |
0.1 |
310 |
1.1 |
Source: * 1995 Census of Population, NSO
** 2000 Census of Population and Housing, NSO
Table 4. Unemployment Rates of Women and Men by Marital Status,
October 2004
Marital Status |
Women |
Men |
Single |
8.8 |
12.4 |
Married |
2.1 |
3.7 |
Widowed |
5.1 |
2.5 |
Separated |
6.5 |
7.5 |
Note: Data refer to women and men aged 15 years and over. Source: October 2004 Integrated Survey of Households Bulletin, NSO
Table 5. Number and Average Time Spent on All Activities (in Hours per Day) by the Economically Active Respondents 10 Years Old and Over by Women and Men in Batangas: February 2000
Type of Activity |
Weekdays |
Weekends |
|||||||
Total No. of Respond-ents |
Average Time Spent (in Hours) |
Total No. of Respond-ents |
Average Time Spent (in Hours) |
||||||
W |
M |
W |
M |
W |
M |
W |
M |
||
Economic Activities |
128 |
139 |
6.0 |
6.8 |
108 |
137 |
6.2 |
7.1 |
|
Housework |
193 |
114 |
4.3 |
2.0 |
193 |
110 |
4.4 |
1.9 |
|
Child and Family Care |
96 |
43 |
3.2 |
2.6 |
85 |
36 |
2.9 |
2.4 |
|
Shopping for HH |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goods & Services |
39 |
31 |
1.0 |
2.2 |
45 |
27 |
1.5 |
1.4 |
Community Service, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Org. & Volunteer |
1 |
5 |
1.0 |
13.3 |
2 |
4 |
1.8 |
3.2 |
Education, Study |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
& Training Activities |
19 |
12 |
4.9 |
5.8 |
5 |
5 |
2.0 |
0.9 |
Social, Arts & Culture |
186 |
177 |
3.4 |
4.3 |
182 |
170 |
4.1 |
5.3 |
|
Personal Care and |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maintenance |
207 |
191 |
12.5 |
12.5 |
205 |
192 |
12.7 |
12.3 |
Travel |
106 |
128 |
1.3 |
2.3 |
90 |
129 |
1.3 |
2.3 |
|
Total |
207 |
191 |
26.2 |
25.9 |
205 |
192 |
26.0 |
25.3 |
|
Source: 2000 Pilot Time Use Survey (TUS), NSO
Table 6. Number and Average Time Spent on All Activities (in Hours per Day) by the Economically Active Respondents 10 Years Old and Over by Women and Men in Quezon City: February 2000
Type of Activity |
Weekdays |
Weekends |
|||||||
Total No. of Respond-ents |
Average Time Spent (in Hours) |
Total No. of Respond-ents |
Average Time Spent (in Hours) |
||||||
W |
M |
W |
M |
W |
M |
W |
M |
||
Economic Activities |
37 |
36 |
8.7 |
8.6 |
25 |
32 |
7.4 |
8.3 |
|
Housework |
34 |
23 |
3.2 |
1.6 |
36 |
25 |
3.3 |
2.0 |
|
Child and Family Care |
20 |
5 |
1.8 |
1.2 |
16 |
4 |
3.1 |
0.7 |
|
Shopping for HH |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goods & Services |
10 |
4 |
0.7 |
1.2 |
10 |
8 |
2.2 |
1.9 |
Community Service, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Org. & Volunteer |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
1 |
- |
20.0 |
Education, Study |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
& Training Activities |
3 |
3 |
4.5 |
3.6 |
1 |
3 |
0.6 |
5.1 |
Social, Arts & Culture |
35 |
35 |
3.3 |
3.4 |
40 |
37 |
4.0 |
3.8 |
|
Personal Care and |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maintenance |
47 |
42 |
12.4 |
13.5 |
43 |
43 |
13.0 |
12.9 |
Travel |
32 |
27 |
3.0 |
2.5 |
25 |
19 |
1.5 |
2.2 |
|
Total |
47 |
42 |
27.2 |
27.1 |
43 |
43 |
26.4 |
26.8 |
|
Source: 2000 Pilot Time Use Survey (TUS), NSO
Table 7. Women Victims of Domestic Violence by Selected Characteristics by Type of Violence, 1993
Selected Characteristic |
Number Of Respondents |
Type Of Domestic Violence |
||
Rape |
Physical Harm |
|||
Total |
During Pregnancy* |
|||
Age Group |
|
|
|
|
<20 |
113 |
3.7 |
14.5 |
6.4 |
20-34 |
4,177 |
2.5 |
10.2 |
3.1 |
35+ |
4,191 |
2.7 |
9.1 |
2.5 |
Education |
|
|
|
|
No Educ./Primary |
3,739 |
3 |
11.4 |
3.7 |
Sec./Voc./Tech. |
2,968 |
2.7 |
10.1 |
2.7 |
College |
1,772 |
1.5 |
5.5 |
1.3 |
Residence |
|
|
|
|
Urban |
4,383 |
2.5 |
9.7 |
2.7 |
Rural |
4,098 |
2.7 |
9.8 |
3.0 |
Total |
8,481 |
2.6 |
9.7 |
2.8 |
*hit, slapped, kicked or hurt physically while pregnant
Source: 1993 Safe Motherhood Survey, NSO
Table 8. Cases of Violence Against Women, 1998-1999
Classification |
1998 |
1999 |
||
Number |
Percent |
Number |
Percent | |
|
|
|
|
|
Physical Injuries |
2633 |
40.4 |
2413 |
35.2 |
Rape |
1054 |
16.2 |
946 |
13.8 |
Wife Battering |
… |
… |
588 |
8.6 |
Acts of Lasciviousness |
426 |
6.5 |
586 |
8.5 |
Maltreatment |
… |
… |
290 |
4.2 |
Threats |
… |
… |
290 |
4.2 |
Attempted Rape |
25 |
0.4 |
257 |
3.7 |
Concubinage |
… |
… |
147 |
2.1 |
Sexual Harassment |
151 |
2.3 |
80 |
1.2 |
Malicious Mischief |
… |
… |
74 |
1.1 |
Unjust Vexation |
… |
… |
57 |
0.8 |
Qualified Seduction |
… |
… |
49 |
0.7 |
Abduction |
… |
… |
49 |
0.7 |
White Slave Trade |
… |
… |
43 |
0.6 |
Illegal Recruitment |
… |
… |
39 |
0.6 |
Sex Trafficking |
… |
… |
24 |
0.3 |
Others* |
2229 |
34.2 |
928 |
13.5 |
Total |
6518 |
100 |
6860 |
100 |
* includes other gender-based crimes
Source: Philippine National Police
Table 9. Cases of Violence Against Women by Relation to Perpetrator, 1998-1999
Perpetrator |
1998 |
1999 |
||
Number |
Percent |
Number |
Percent |
|
|
|
|
|
|
No Relation |
556 |
55.3 |
2693 |
48.7 |
Husband |
275 |
27.4 |
1530 |
27.6 |
Relative |
77 |
7.7 |
637 |
11.5 |
Live-in |
58 |
5.8 |
422 |
7.6 |
Father |
21 |
2.1 |
104 |
1.9 |
Boyfriend |
8 |
0.8 |
64 |
1.2 |
Stepfather |
9 |
0.9 |
38 |
0.7 |
Grandparents |
… |
… |
25 |
0.5 |
Mother |
1 |
0.1 |
22 |
0.4 |
Total |
1005 |
100 |
5535 |
100 |
Note: 1998 and 1999 totals may not add up to 6518 and 6860, respectively, due to some VAW cases whose victim's relation to the perpetrator were not stated in the in-take forms.
Source: Philippine National Police
Table 10. Percentage of Women* Who Agree that a Husband is Justified in Hitting or Beating His Wife and Percentage of Women Who Believe that a Wife is Justified in Refusing Sex with Her Husband for Specific Reasons
Specific Reasons |
% |
Husband is justified in hitting or beating his wife if she: |
|
Burns the food |
3.1 |
Argues with him |
5.1 |
Goes out without telling him |
8.8 |
Neglects the children |
20.5 |
Refuses to have sex with him |
3.3 |
Agrees with at least one specified reason |
24.1 |
Wife is justified in refusing to have sex with husband if she: |
|
Knows husband has a sexually transmitted disease |
94.7 |
Knows husband has sex with other women |
89.9 |
Has recently given birth |
94.7 |
Is tired or not in the mood |
90.4 |
Agrees with all of the specified reasons |
84.0 |
Agrees with none of the specified reasons |
3.2 |
* Response of 13,633 women respondents in the 2003 National Demographic and Health Survey
Table 11. Highest Educational Attainment of Population Aged 10 Years and Over, 1995 & 2000 (Numbers in Thousands)
Educational Attainment |
1995 |
2000 |
||||||
Female |
Male |
Female |
Male |
|||||
Number |
% |
Number |
% |
Number |
% |
Number |
% |
|
No Grade Completed |
966 |
3.9 |
867 |
3.5 |
869 |
3.1 |
780 |
2.8 |
Pre-School |
67 |
0.3 |
79 |
0.3 |
39 |
0.1 |
40 |
0.1 |
Elementary |
10,437 |
41.9 |
10,983 |
44.2 |
10,895 |
39.2 |
11,804 |
42.3 |
High School |
8,278 |
33.3 |
8,171 |
32.9 |
9,546 |
34.3 |
9,357 |
33.5 |
Post Secondary |
611 |
2.5 |
729 |
2.9 |
1,234 |
4.4 |
1,328 |
4.8 |
College Undergraduate |
2,016 |
8.1 |
2,055 |
8.3 |
3,421 |
12.3 |
3,265 |
11.7 |
College Graduate and Higher |
2,509 |
10.1 |
1,987 |
8.0 |
1,821 |
6.5 |
1,323 |
4.7 |
Total |
24,884 |
100.0 |
24,871 |
100.0 |
27,825 |
100.0 |
27,897 |
100.0 |
Source : 1995 and 2000 Censuses of Population and Housing, NSO
Table 12. Average Per Capita Income and Expenditure on Education and Health by Sex of Household Head, 2000-2003
Income/Expenditure |
Male- |
Female-headed |
Per capita income |
29,371.61 |
45,020.18 |
Per capita educational fees |
957.55 |
1,728.57 |
Per capita medical care |
524.11 |
963.06 |
Note: The above statistics are special computations by the NSCB Technical Staff (Social Sectors B Division). It should also be noted that the estimates were computed from the public use files of the 2000 and 2003 FIES, the weights of which were intended only for generating statistics by geographic level of disaggregation and not by demographic characteristics of the family/household.
Table 13. Poverty incidence by sex of household head, 2000-2003
Characteristic of the household head |
Percent distribution |
Poverty incidence among families (%) |
||||
Total Families |
Poor Families |
|||||
2000 |
2003 |
2000 |
2003 |
2000 |
2003 |
|
Sex of the Household Head |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Male |
82.5 |
83.3 |
89.1 |
90.8 |
29.7 |
26.6 |
Female |
7.5 |
16.7 |
10.9 |
9.2 |
17.1 |
13.4 |
Note: The above statistics are special computations by the NSCB Technical Staff (Social Sectors B Division). It should also be noted that the estimates were computed from the public use files of the 2000 and 2003 FIES, the weights of which were intended only for generating statistics by geographic level of disaggregation and not by demographic characteristics of the family/household.
Table 14. Percent Distribution of Women Employed in the Twelve Months Preceding the Survey Receiving Cash Earnings by Person Who Decides How Earnings Are to be Used by Marital Status, Philippines, 2003
Marital Status |
Person who decides how earnings are used |
||||
Self |
Jointly 1/ |
Someone else only 2/ |
Total |
No. of Women |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Never married |
89.9 |
4.7 |
5.3 |
100.0 |
1,811 |
Married/ living |
60.4 |
33.6 |
5.8 |
100.0 |
3,763 |
together |
|
|
|
|
|
Divorced/ not |
97.7 |
0.8 |
1.2 |
100.0 |
242 |
living together |
|
|
|
|
|
Widowed |
99.4 |
0.6 |
0 |
100.0 |
136 |
Total |
71.8 |
22.7 |
5.3 |
100.0 |
5,952 |
Source: 2003 National Demographic and Health Survey, NSO
Note: Total includes women with missing information.
1/ With husband or someone else
2/ Includes husband
Figure 1. Average age at marriage by sex, 1960-1995
Source of basic data: Population Censuses, NSO
Figure 2. Average number of children per woman, 1973-2003
Note: Data refer to the total fertility rates of women aged 15-49 years.
Source: Various Surveys
NDS (NSO) - National Demographic Survey
NDHS - National Demographic and Health Survey
RPFS (NSO) - Republic of the Philippines Fertility Survey
CPS (UPPI) - Contraceptive Prevalence Survey
Figure 3. Recent Levels and Trends in Maternal Mortality Rates, 1991- 2002
(maternal deaths per 100,000 births)
Source of basic data: 1991-1995 TWG on Maternal and Child Mortality, NSCB
1998 National Demographic and Health Survey, NSO, 2000-2002 Vital Statistics, NSO
Figure 4. Leading causes of maternal deaths, 2002
Source of basic data: Vital Statistics, NSO
Reactions and views are welcome thru email to the author at jo.encarnacion@nscb.gov.ph