International Health Research Group, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Pembroke Place, Liverpool L3 5QA, UK.
Soc Sci Med. 2012 Jun;74(11):1825-32. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.08.025. Epub 2011 Sep 24.
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. Focussing on key discussions around sexualities and (dis)ability and their interactions with gender, we explore issues around intersectionality across the five key themes for research and action identified by participants: (1) Addressing the disconnect between gender mainstreaming praxis and contemporary feminist theory; (2) Developing appropriate analysis methodologies; (3) Developing a coherent theory of change; (4) Seeking resolution to the dilemmas and uncertainties around the 'place' of men and boys in GM as a feminist project; and (5) Developing a politics of intersectionality. We conclude that there needs to be a coherent and inclusive strategic direction to improve policy and practice for promoting gender equity in health which requires the full and equal participation of practitioners and policy makers working alongside their academic partners.
对将性别主流化（GM）作为国际上促进健康领域性别平等的官方认可策略的批评已经达到了临界点。在全球北方和南方的政策制定者和实践者、政府和非政府组织（NGO）之间，性别倡导者之间缺乏明显的对话。本文通过独特地汇集来自不同背景的不同行为者的声音，为未来促进健康领域性别平等的行动形式的辩论做出了贡献，这些声音首先在 2008 年和 2009 年期间举行的一系列四次研讨会上听到，涉及来自 15 个不同国家背景的近 200 名参与者。该系列研讨会采用（女性主义）参与式行动研究（FPAR）方法，就 GM 的发展理论以及政策和实践方面有时脱节的经验，进行了富有成效的对话。我们使用具体的、具体背景的例子，从研究、倡导、政策和方案制定的角度分析研讨会系列中的辩论和经验，这些例子来自南方和北方背景的参与者，包括肯尼亚、莫桑比克、印度、刚果民主共和国、加拿大和澳大利亚。我们重点讨论了围绕性行为和（残疾）及其与性别相互作用的关键讨论，探讨了参与者确定的五个研究和行动的关键主题中的交叉问题：（1）解决性别主流化实践与当代女性主义理论之间的脱节问题；（2）制定适当的分析方法；（3）发展连贯的变革理论；（4）寻求解决在 GM 作为女性主义项目中男性和男孩的“位置”方面的困境和不确定性；（5）发展交叉问题的政治。我们的结论是，需要有一个连贯和包容的战略方向，以改善促进健康领域性别平等的政策和实践，这需要从事实践和政策制定工作的从业者和决策者与他们的学术伙伴充分和平等地参与。
