Gender-Transformative Approaches to Engaging Men in Reducing Gender-Based Violence: A Response to Brush & Miller's "Trouble in Paradigm"

Brush and Miller's paper is critical of gender-transformative interventions and they believe that the paradigm is in trouble. In this response, we examine the body of evidence and the conceptual frames that undergird gender-transformative interventions, along with the emergence of these interventions and their efficacy. We argue here that it is reductionist to state either (a) that gender-transformative programs do not work, or (b) that gender-transformative programs only rely on social norms theory. We reveal how these claims omit important developments emerging from research on homophobia, feminist thought, and intersectionality that have made their way into gender-transformative interventions in several countries. We show that the implementation of gender-transformative interventions is far from uniform and we examine how changing power relations, relationships, communities, and masculinities, as well as other structures and practices that negatively influence health and well-being are integrated into this large body of work. We highlight how gender-transformative interventions show solid promise on balance, as measured in several evaluation studies in several settings, when implemented well and sustained. Overall then, gender-transformative interventions represent a tremendous advance over the previous "risk group-focused," single-topic approaches with men that have been implemented in public and global health interventions.