The gender-equality paradox, widely discussed in the research literature and media in recent years, claims that differences between women and men within a range of phenomena are larger in countries that score highly on gender equality indices. The paradox seems to perfectly describe the situation in Finland, where the share of women in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) fields remains low (Eurostat, 2023), despite the country’s consistently high ranking in international indices. This paradox has been explained, for example, by the argument that greater gender equality provides individuals with more freedom to pursue their gender-specific ambitions and desires, which, counterintuitively, leads to a widening of the gender gap (Falk & Hermle, 2018).
A recent peer-reviewed study by two Finnish researchers Ilmarinen & Lönnqvist (2024) re-analysed three previous studies. One of them was a study by Stoet & Geary (2018) that focused on gender differences in attitudes towards STEM subjects, utilizing Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) data. Contrary to the original findings by Stoet and Geary,
Ilmarinen and Lönnqvist found that girls’ interest in science was not associated with the level of gender equality in their country and that boys did not show more interest in science in countries with higher gender equality.
The Finnish researchers argue that the correlation between the “gender gap” (the difference score between men’s and women’s mean levels) and gender equality tends to overestimate the actual differences between men’s and women’s scores as a function of gender equality. Consequently, they conclude that gender equality in a particular country does not generally correlate with differences observed between men and women.
Ilmarinen and Lönnqvist point out that the use of difference scores in the previous studies led to vague hypothesis tests. Furthermore, they highlight that the research community has previously not been able to find this clear deficiency in the statistical methods, despite the gender-equality paradox itself having been otherwise widely criticized.
Based on the findings presented by Ilmarinen and Lönnqvist, one must conclude that this persistence of gender differences in highly equal nations, particularly within STEM, cannot be explained by simplistic notions like the “gender-equality paradox,” biosocial roles, or greater freedom to express gender-specific inherent preferences and interests. Instead, the search for explanations must look elsewhere, focusing on factors such as “leaky pipelines,” underlying social structures, and masculine organizational cultures. (Bairoh, 2023.)
REFERENCES:
Bairoh, S. (2023). The Gender(ed) Gap(s) in STEM. Explaining the persistent underrepresentation of women in STEM careers. Publications of the Hanken School of Economics Nr. 373.
Eurostat (2023). EU had almost 7 million female scientists in 2021. Published 10.2.2023. (retrieved 4.11.2025). https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/en/web/products-eurostat-news/w/ddn-20230210-1
Falk, A., & Hermle, J. (2018). Relationship of gender differences in preferences to economic development and gender equality. Science, 362(6412). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aas9899
Ilmarinen, V.-J. & Lönnqvist, J.-E. (2024). Deconstructing the Gender-Equality Paradox. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Personality Processes and Individual Differences, 127(1), 217–237. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000508
Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2018). The gender-equality paradox in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Psychological Science, 29(4), 581–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617741719
