The gender-equality paradox, a provocative thesis in social research, suggests that in countries with greater gender equality, men and women exhibit more pronounced differences in preferences, such as career choices, with women opting for traditionally female-dominated fields like nursing over STEM disciplines. A new study from Uppsala University, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in June 2025, challenges this paradox, arguing that it may be an artifact of Western-centric methodologies and not universally applicable. While this finding reframes the paradox as a Western phenomenon, it nonetheless poses a significant challenge to mainstream feminism, which often assumes that gender equality will lead to uniform outcomes across genders. This piece explores the study's findings, critiques the paradox's relevance to Western contexts, and argues that its implications unsettle feminist narratives about choice and equality.

The gender-equality paradox has gained attention for suggesting that higher gender equality, as seen in Western nations like Sweden, correlates with larger gender differences in fields like education and career paths. For instance, women in gender-equal countries are less likely to pursue engineering or mathematics compared to women in less equal nations like Algeria, where economic necessity may drive less traditional choices. The paradox posits that greater freedom allows innate gender differences to emerge, challenging the idea that equality erases gendered preferences.

However, the Uppsala University study, led by Mathias Berggren, dismantles this narrative by highlighting methodological flaws in prior research. Analysing data from millions of participants across 130 countries, the researchers found that the paradox's correlations vanish when accounting for cultural clusters and measurement reliability. Tools designed to measure personality traits or preferences, often developed in Western contexts, lose validity in non-Western cultures. For example, a statement like "I tend to vote for liberal politicians" may reflect personality differences in the West but is less meaningful in countries with restricted voting rights. By controlling for cultural differences and measurement quality, the study found no consistent link between gender equality and larger gender differences in personality, cognitive abilities, or behaviours like aggression.

This suggests the paradox is a Western phenomenon, rooted in the cultural assumptions of the tools used to study it. In non-Western contexts, where social, economic, or political constraints shape behaviour differently, the paradox doesn't hold. For instance, in countries with less gender equality, women may enter STEM fields not out of preference but due to economic pressures or limited options, masking any "innate" differences.

Even if the gender-equality paradox is limited to Western contexts, its persistence in these societies raises uncomfortable questions for mainstream feminism, which often champions the idea that gender equality should lead to similar outcomes for men and women in all spheres, including career choices. The paradox suggests that when given more freedom, women in gender-equal Western countries like Sweden or Norway often choose fields like healthcare or education over STEM, while men gravitate toward engineering or technology. This pattern challenges the feminist assumption that gendered occupational segregation is primarily a product of systemic barriers rather than individual preferences.

Mainstream feminism frequently argues that removing structural inequalities, such as discrimination in hiring or education, will result in proportional representation across all fields. Yet, in countries with high gender equality, where such barriers are minimised, the gender gap in certain professions widens. For example, in Sweden, only about 20% of engineering students are women, compared to over 30% in countries like India with lower gender equality scores. This suggests that factors beyond systemic oppression, such as personal interests or cultural norms, may influence choices, a possibility that some feminist frameworks struggle to accommodate, or just ignore.

The paradox also complicates feminist narratives about empowerment. If women in gender-equal societies freely choose traditionally feminine roles, does this undermine the push for equal representation in male-dominated fields? Critics of the paradox, including some feminists, argue that these choices are still shaped by subtle cultural expectations or socialisation, not just "innate" differences. However, the Uppsala study's findings weaken the evolutionary explanation for the paradox, suggesting that Western cultural contexts, not biology, may amplify these differences. This shifts the challenge back to feminism: how to address cultural influences without dismissing individual agency or reinforcing stereotypes?

The Uppsala study's revelation that the gender-equality paradox is a Western artifact doesn't negate its relevance in Western societies, where it continues to spark debate. For mainstream feminism, the paradox highlights the need for a more careful approach to gender equality. Rather than aiming for identical outcomes, feminist advocacy could focus on ensuring genuine choice, free from both overt discrimination and subtle cultural pressures, while acknowledging that preferences may differ across genders and cultures. This might mean celebrating women who choose nursing as much as those who pursue engineering, without assuming either choice is less valid. Or accepting that being stay-home wives and mothers is fine as well.

Moreover, the study underscores the importance of culturally sensitive research methods. If Western tools misrepresent gender differences in non-Western contexts, feminist scholarship must adopt more global perspectives to avoid universalising Western experiences. Longitudinal studies or natural experiments, as Berggren suggests, could better isolate the effects of gender equality reforms, providing clearer evidence of cause and effect.

The Uppsala University study reveals that the gender-equality paradox may be a product of Western-centric methodologies, with no universal link between greater gender equality and larger gender differences. Yet, its persistence in Western contexts remains a thorny issue for mainstream feminism, challenging the expectation that equality will erase gendered preferences in career and life choices. By exposing the cultural limits of the paradox, the study invites feminists to rethink assumptions about choice, agency, and outcomes, advocating for a vision of equality that embraces diverse paths. As global societies grapple with gender dynamics, this research reminds us that true equality requires not just freedom, but a deeper understanding of the cultural forces that shape our choices.

https://phys.org/news/2025-06-western-standards-gender-equality-paradox.html

"Previous research has asserted that women and men in gender-equal countries differ more in their preferences than women and men in less equal countries, for example, by making more traditional educational choices. This relationship is known as the gender-equality paradox.

However, new research from Uppsala University now shows that it is not possible to draw these conclusions from the data studied. The paper, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows that the question is based on western perspectives and conditions and cannot be applied to other countries.

"I became interested in this paradox when I noticed that all the more gender-equal countries were Western," says Mathias Berggren. "That made me want to investigate whether the methodology really held up and how they had designed their studies. There are major data problems, for example with personality measures developed in Western countries."

The so-called gender-equality paradox has been a recurrent but controversial thesis in social research over the past decade. It assumes that when both women and men have more freedom to do what they want, i.e. when gender equality is high, they are more prone to adopt traditional gender roles. This could explain why, for example, female students in Sweden are less likely to apply for engineering, technology or math programs than women in less gender-equal countries such as Algeria.

Men and women are innately different, and more gender equality only makes it easier for them to show their true colors, the thesis goes. The paradox has received widespread attention both in research and in social media, and has led some to argue, for example, that gender equality efforts may be dysfunctional or meaningless. In recent years, the thesis has been questioned, and now researchers at Uppsala University have decided to thoroughly scrutinize the methodology to discover potential flaws.

The research team hypothesized that the link between more gender equality and larger gender differences is actually due to Western measures not working as well in other cultures. In other words, when Western researchers have found large gender differences in some characteristics in, say, the United States, it is often possible to find the same phenomenon in countries with similar cultures, for example in Western Europe.

"However, it does not work as well in countries that differ more from the West. For example, personality can manifest itself differently in different cultures and in some cases reliability drops significantly outside the Western world. This makes it very difficult to find the same large gender differences—because the search is simply carried out in the wrong way.

"For example, statements such as 'I tend to vote for liberal politicians' may systematically differ between people with different personalities in the West, but do not necessarily do so in countries with limited voting rights," Berggren explains.

In the article, the researchers re-analyzed data from multiple studies that demonstrated the gender-equality paradox.

When they took account of cultural clusters of countries as well as reliability and other statistical indications of measurement quality, the correlations between increased gender equality and larger gender differences disappeared. The researchers also tested a number of other variables besides gender equality, such as indications of economic development, but there were no general associations with gender differences in personality and the like after statistically controlling for cultural clusters and measurement quality.

Bottom of Form

The researchers chose to look at a wide range of other variables, such as cognitive abilities, school performance and aggression. Again, after controlling for reliability and cultural clusters, they did not observe any major differences associated with higher gender equality. In all, millions of participants from over 130 different countries were analyzed.

In their study, the researchers go on to show that fictional explanations also exhibit the same association with gender differences as the evolutionary thesis, as long as the variables are similarly linked to the Western world.

Overall, the article suggests that there may be no connection at all between greater gender equality and larger gender differences.

"There is currently no strong evidence that increased gender equality leads to women and men more clearly revealing any underlying distinctions. We show that this type of study provides very poor evidence for such conclusions. If researchers want to investigate the effects of gender equality reforms, they need methods that better show cause and effect, for example using extensive data over time and/or natural experiments," Berggren concludes."

Mathias Berggren et al, Simpson's gender-equality paradox, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2025). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2422247122