Further implications can be drawn by noting that women’s seclusion is a public act and women’s decision making is a
private negotiation that takes place behind closed doors. One implication is that it may be important to consider the public
or private nature of health-shaping gendered practices. Who benefits from public or private gendered practices? Who is negatively
affected? It may be that gendered practices are tethered to the health of men and women in opposing ways and it
could be interpreted that gender is operating as a zero-sum game. Such a conclusion, however, would be premature given
the lack of granularity in the current measurement of seclusion. At the least, when a public practice such as seclusion is
reduced, policymakers may provide additional attention and support to help buffer any possible health-damaging effects
for men in households where seclusion is practiced. These concerns, however, must be weighed against the results of this
study which indicate that the public practice of seclusion damages women’s health more than protects men’s health. In
contrast, changes in private practices such as greater intra-household decision-making equity appear to have altogether
uncomplicated and beneficial effects