1. ? . . . 1 2 , 5000 20-50 . 6 20-50 . . 2010 80.7, (OECD) 79.5 . , . , . . . ! ! , , . - i - 2. , , . , . .2012 8 23 - ii - 3. . . . . , . 2009 83.8 OECD 32 6 . . , 2011 , 93.7% . 17.6% , (33.6%) , 12.2% .- iii - 4. , . . . , , . . 2012 8 23 - iv - 5. . . . , , . , . , . , , , , , , . , .- v - 6. , . , . . .2012 8 23 - vi - 7. ? . . , . , , . , , , . . , . 3 (2008~2012) , , . - vii - 8. , . , . 4 (2013~2017) . , . .2012 8 23 - viii - 9. 09:3010:00 < 1 > : 10:0010:20 : () < 2 > 10:2010:40 : - ( )10:4011:00 1 : ( )11:0011:20 2 : ( )11:2011:30 < 3 > 11:3012:30 ( ) ( ) : ( ( ) ) ( ) ( )12:2013:30 & 13:30 : - ix - 10. : - 1 ( ) 1 : 17 ( ) 2 : 49 ( ) ( ) 73 ( ) 79 ( ) 83 ( ) 89 ( ) 95 - x - 11. - ( ) 12. - 3 13. 4 14. - 5 15. 6 16. - 7 17. 8 18. - 9 19. 10 20. - 11 21. 12 22. - 13 23. 14 24. - 15 25. 16 26. 1 ( ) 27. 19 ( )1. , . . , , . . , . , (sex) (gender) . , , . , ,// , & . . (sex) (gender) . . . , 28. 20 - . . 1) , , 2) , , 3) , , 4) 5) .2. , ? 1) . , . 1) (sex) . (sex) X Y . XX, XY (genotype), (phenotype), (, 2005). , 2 . , . . 2). , , . , ,, (EOC, 2003). 1) (2010) 2) (Wizemann & Pardue, 2001). 29. 21 (Legato, 1998:2004) . 2) . (Hunt and Annandale, 1999;Lorber & Moore, 2002). (gender role) . ,, . (Doyal, 1995,Ross & Bird, 1994). . . (, ) . , (masculinity) . , (, ) . . , , , , . , (Doyal, 1995; WHO,1998; Hammastrom et al., 2001). , (Verbrugge, 1985), . (gender paradox) . (Walsh et al., 1995; WHO, 1998; Hammastrom et al., 2001) . . 30. 22 . (Verbrugge 1985, 1989; Bird & Pieker, 1999; Wizemann &Pardue, 2001). , . , , (Bird & Pieker, 1999; Doyal, 2000; Krieger, 2003). , (Lorber & Moore, 2002; Chun, 2006). , , .3. ? . . . (, ) . . (city) . . . 31. 23 . . , ( ) . 1) , . . . , , . , , . 3). . . (post modern) (, 2008).4) 1986 2006 3) 1948 46.8 2008 80.1 60 33 . 49.0, 44.5 83.3, 76.5 1980 7-8 . . . . 2005 0 78.6 68.6. 10 . . 2005 6.7 2.1 . .4) . 32. 24 45% 17% . .< 1> OECD 15 OECD 67%, 72% 41%, 54% . OECD . , . 33. 25 2) , , . , . , . . , , , . , . , , , . , . , . , , . . , . 5) 34 4.4% 90% ( , 2005). 27.4% (36.8%) (15.2%) 72.6%. . . 5) . 34. 26 (Sedgh et al, 2007). , , . (Lazdane, 2005; WHO, 2009). , . . , , , 6) . 5 , . 70% . . , (auditing) (,2010). , , , , 7). , , ( , ) . . , 2-3 6) .7) 2003 : (Safe abortion: Technical and policy guidance for health system) . 35. 27 . , . , , , . , () . - - . . 1990 18.1% 1999 41.3% . 2000 35-40% 2008 36.3%. WHO 5~15% , OECD , , , 18.8~31.8% (, 2004). , , , , , , , . 2-4 , 5-10 (, 2004). , , , , , , , . , , . 1990 . . . 3.2 , . (, 2000). 36. 28 . , (, 2000). . , , . . , . , . , , . . , . . . , , , , , , , . , . . 37. 29 . , , .3) , (1) . , , (Arber & Khalt, 2002; Doyal, 1995). (Arber, 1997; Marmot et al., 1997; Bartley, 2004; , 2006). Link Phelen(1995) . . , , , . (Popay et al., 1993; Kauferf,1996). Popay (1993) , . (Chun, 2006) 1997 . . < 3> ( , 2008). 39.1%, 50.6% . . / , 17.5% , 55% . 38. 30 19.1%, 11.6% . , , / , / . 40 ( ) 2.2%, 1.7% . . , . .(2) , . . . . , , , (Annandale & Hunt, 2000). , . , , . . . 39. 31(3) . . , , , . . , (double burden) (Doyal, 1995). . . , . . , , , . , (Doyal, 1995; Ross & Bird, 1994). / , . . , . , . . , , , , . . DDT 40. 32 PCBs (WHO, 1998). (Kauppinen et al.,2003). , , , , , , , , , /, (European Agency for Safety and Health atWork, 2003). , , . , , , , . . 1964 . , . . 1985 11.4% 2008 17.7% (, 2009) . (, 2011) 13.0%, 23.4% . (71.7%), (10.9%) (43.8%), (26.5%) . . 79.4% 52.4% . 41. 33< 1> 5(29.4)1(3.4)6(13.0)9(21.0)6(28.6)15(23.4) 1(5.9) 4(13.8) 5(10.9)25(58.1) 3(14.3)28(43.8) 10(58.8) 23(79.4) 33(71.7) 6(14.0)11(52.4) 17(26.5) 1(5.9) 1(3.4) 2(4.4) 3(7.1) 1(4.8) 4(6.3) 17(100.) 29(100.) 46(100.) 43(100.) 21(100.) 64(100.): (2007) . 34 1. . 2009 . 3 1 . 2 . 33.3% (32.0%) . 15.8% . , . 4) / . . , . . , . , 5 42. 34 . . . , . ? . . .4. , ? . ? 2010 . 72, 69.7, 74.2 2010 . 4 , , , . 2010 . (, , , ) . , , . 5 1. , 2. - , , , -,3. . 43. 35 18 () . () . . (sex) (gender) . . 1 (1998-2002) , , 2 (2003-2007) , , . 1 . 1 . , . 2 . 1 . 1 2 . , , . . . 3 (2008-2012) , , , . , 44. 36 , .< > 3 () , , , , . 3 , , , , . 45. 37 2-1-1 - - - - - - (08. 12. 6 - , - - inistry of Gender Equalit - 1,2 . . , , , . 46. 38 . . .5. ? 1) , . . 8 3 , .< 2> (Federal Plan for Gender Equality, 1995) 1. (GBA) . 2. . 3. , . 4. , . 5. . 6. . 7. . 8. . 64 . 1) , 2) 3) . . 1990 , , . . 47. 39 : , (GBA, gender based approach) . / . , , . . . 1993 : (Creating Opportunity: The Liberal Plan for Canada), (Red Book) .8) 1993 , , , , , (Liberal Party ofCanada, 1993: 9). , . , 1994 (Medical Research Council ofCanada) (Advisory Committee on Womens Health Research) . 5% , 8) 1992 1993 Paul Martin Chaviva Hosek (Liberal Partys Platform Committee) 1990-91 . 1993 , , , . 177 , . 1996 78% (History of Liberal Party Canada, http://www.liberal.ca/pdf/docs/070417_lpc_history_en.pdf). 48. 40 (Caron, 2003: 52). 1996 . , . BC . BC , , , ( NGO) , . . BC . < 2> BC . BC , . < 2> BC 49. 41 . , , NGO . , . [ 3] NGO , , . (Institute forGender & Health) . , , , . . 1989 7 5 National Womens Health Policy (NWHP) , . 1992 , , 50. 42 , . 1974 (Holistic) . , , (), , , , , , , . NWS 23 . 51. 43 , . . 2) . . . . . . . ? (EU) . EU , , EU (gender-mainstreming) , . 1998 5 FP( ) EU . EU 1999 FP5 : (Women and Science: Mobilizing Women to Enrich European Research) , . FP5, EU , EU 15 , 9 . (by women), (for women), (about women) FP5 . EU . , , ,