Publication year: 2011
Source: Social Science & Medicine, Available online 24 September 2011
Rachel Tolhurst, Beryl Leach, Janet Price, Jude Robinson, Elizabeth Ettore, …
Critiques of gender mainstreaming (GM) as the officially agreed strategy to promote gender equity in health internationally have reached a critical mass. There has been a notable lack of dialogue between gender advocates in the global north and south, from policy and practice, governments and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). This paper contributes to the debate on the shape of future action for gender equity in health, by uniquely bringing together the voices of disparate actors, first heard in a series of four seminars held during 2008 and 2009, involving almost 200 participants from 15 different country contexts. The series used (Feminist) Participatory Action Research (FPAR) methodology to create a productive dialogue on the developing theory around GM and the at times disconnected empirical experience of policy and practice. We analyse the debates and experiences shared at the seminar series using concrete, context specific examples from research, advocacy, policy and programme development perspectives, as presented by participants from southern and northern settings, including Kenya, Mozambique, India, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Canada and Australia.
Highlights
► Gender Mainstreaming (GM) has become disconnected with contemporary feminist theory and has lacked a coherent change theory. ► GM needs to better conceptualise how to include boys and men in pursuing gender equity. ► Gender equity advocates need to develop and articulate theories of change and build coalitions to achieve explicit goals. ► Critiques of GM demand a new strategic approach to pursuing gender equity and transversal politics offers ways forward.