Gender-equality paradox

Last updated
The Global Gender Gap Index compared to the female share of STEM degrees in different countries. The Global Gender Gap Index (GGGI) vs. the female share of STEM degrees.svg
The Global Gender Gap Index compared to the female share of STEM degrees in different countries.

The gender-equality paradox is the finding that various gender differences in personality and occupational choice are larger in more gender equal countries. Larger differences are found in Big Five personality traits, Dark Triad traits, self-esteem, depression, personal values, occupational and educational choices. This phenomenon is seemingly paradoxical because one would expect the differences to be reduced as countries become more gender egalitarian. [1] Such a paradox has been discussed by numerous studies ranging from science, mathematics, reading, personality traits, basic human values and vocational interests. [2]

Contents

Various explanations for the paradox have been proposed. Some scholars suggest that more stereotypes and gendered expectations in more gender equal countries are responsible [3] and that women in less developed nations are more likely to choose STEM fields, based on the increased need for security and good pay. Others theorize that deeply rooted and intrinsic gender differences are less restrained and materialize more easily in gender equal countries. [2]

The most prominent use of the term is in relation to the disputed claim that increased gender differences in participation in STEM careers arise in countries that have more gender equality, [4] [5] based on a study in Psychological Science by Gijsbert Stoet and David C. Geary, [6] which received substantial coverage in non-academic media outlets. [7] [8] [9] [10] However, separate Harvard researchers were unable to recreate the data reported in the study, and in December 2019, a correction was issued to the original paper. [11] [12] [13] The correction outlined that the authors had created a previously undisclosed and unvalidated method to measure "propensity" of women and men to attain a higher degree in STEM, as opposed to the originally claimed measurement of "women’s share of STEM degrees". [12] [11] [5] However, even incorporating the newly disclosed method, the investigating researchers could not recreate all the results presented. [5] [13] A follow-up paper in Psychological Science by the researchers who discovered the discrepancy found conceptual and empirical problems with the gender-equality paradox in STEM hypothesis. [14] [5] Another 2020 study did find evidence of the paradox in the pursuit of mathematical studies; however, they found that "the stereotype associating math to men is stronger in more egalitarian and developed countries" and could "entirely explain the gender-equality paradox". [15]

Gender-equality paradox in STEM

Fewer women are noted to major in STEM degrees in university in higher-income countries, with this decrease noted to occur between secondary and tertiary educational standard. [16] In more gender-equal countries, there are greater disparities in degree subject choices. [17]

Less developed countries experiencing growth in education may perceive women in higher education as already nonconforming, so pursuing this route further in what is considered a "masculine" subject may mean little in regards to nonconformity. [17]

Stoet and Geary (2018) study

This research originally claimed that within the study's sample, more gender equality in a country is linked with a lower proportion of women studying STEM fields. [18] [7] [8] [9] [10] It conducted an analysis of the 2015 results (n=472,242 across 67 nations/regions) of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), focusing on the results of questions based on science aptitude and attitudes. This was contrasted with the level of gender equality as defined by the Global Gender Gap Index (GGGI).

Findings

The study had a number of primary findings. These can be summarized as follows:

  • Girls performed similarly or better than boys in two out of every three countries, and were more capable of STEM tertiary education in nearly all countries examined.
  • Science or mathematics is much more likely to be a personal academic strength for boys than for girls.
  • More girls entered STEM degrees than graduated.
  • The difference between both the performance of girls in PISA was inversely related to the country's GGGI.
  • This gap was found to be correlated with the STEM graduation gap, showing that there is a similar gap between the number of girls and boys that enter STEM university programmes compared to those that complete their degrees in more gender-equal countries.

It is important to note that the absolute size of the gap found was not shown to be significant. Rather, it is the relative relationship between the two that was found to show an effect. In other words, no relation was found between the total number of girls who entered and completed STEM degrees and the GGGI of the country. Rather, the effect was between the relative difference in number of girls and boys who entered and completed STEM degrees and the GGGI of their country. [19]

Correction to original paper and Richardson et al. (2020)

Separate Harvard researchers were unable to recreate the data reported in the study, and after internal review at the journal, a correction was issued to the original paper. [11] [12] [13] The correction outlined that the authors had created a previously undisclosed and unvalidated method to measure "propensity" of women and men to attain a higher degree in STEM, as opposed to the originally claimed measurement of "women’s share of STEM degrees". [12] [11] [5] However, even incorporating the newly disclosed method, the investigating researchers could not recreate all the results presented. [5] [13] A follow-up paper by the researchers who discovered the discrepancy found conceptual and empirical problems with the gender-equality paradox in STEM hypothesis. [14] [5]

In February 2020, Stoet and Geary issued a reply, as a commentary in Psychological Science, claiming that, despite their approach, the overall correlation that they had found remained the same, [20] and restated their hypothesis that "men are more likely than women to enter STEM careers because of endogenous interest" and acknowledged that independent studies like Falk and Hermle (2018) confirmed their finding, and expressed that future studies would "help to confirm or reject such a theoretical account." [21] [22]

The United Nations UNESCO report on gender divides in 2019 got similar results to Stoet and Geary and directly acknowledged them by saying "The ICT gender equality paradox, demonstrated here for the first time, bears similarities to a phenomenon that Stoet and Geary (2018) observed in cross-country analysis of gender participation in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education programmes." [23] A 2023 study investigated greater economic opportunities as an explanation for the paradox. [24] Two other reports by a United Nations women's expert group in 2022 noted the paradox and cite Stoet and Geary as well. [25] [26] [27]

Breda, Jouini, Napp and Thebault (2020) study on economic development and gendered study choices

In 2020, a study by Thomas Breda, Elyès Jouini, Clotilde Napp and Georgia Thebault on PISA 2012 data found that the "paradox of gender equality" could be "entirely explained" by the stereotype associating math to men being stronger in more egalitarian and developed countries. [15] [28] [29] They speculate that the phenomen may be a "product of new forms of social differentiation between women and men" rather than based on "male primacy ideology".

Personality and preference differences by gender

The gender equality paradox has also been used to describe gender differences in personality tests and preferences in more gender equal and wealthier countries, primarily in relation to studies conducted by Falk and Hermle (2018) [30] and by Mac Giolla and Kajonius (2018). [31] [32] [33] Falk and Hermle (2018) used the 2012 Gallup World Poll that explored the preferences of around 80,000 people from 76 countries and found that richer and more gender-equal countries had bigger gender gaps in people's preferences. [32] Mac Giolla and Kajonius (2018) found that women tend to rate higher than men on all five facets of personality on the IPIP‐NEO‐120 personality test and that the gap gets wider in countries that rank higher on the GGGI. [32] [33]

Sex differences have been found to be greater in countries with higher living conditions. One such explaining factor is the resource hypothesis: one can fully express their liking or disliking once basic needs are met, after which sex-specific tastes can grow. In countries with higher living conditions, these tastes can be fully expressed and men and women can pursue what they value, which differ more in these countries. [34]

The cultures of STEM fields have been found masculine and hostile towards women. However, this does not apply to all STEM fields, as they vary by gender distribution and the extent to which the aforementioned culture applies. Research has found that even when the culture is not overtly hostile, women are less likely to enter that field due to norms and expectations. On the flip side, fields with higher earning potential disproportionately attract males. [35]

Factors Affecting the Gender-Equality Paradox

Different factors have been researched and are theorized to affect the gender equality paradox. [36] Richer countries may have more advertising that promotes gender conformity. Previous research demonstrates that in the 1970s when women had more economic power, advertising emphasized female beauty which changed social pressure. [37]

In countries higher-income considered more gender-equal, women being stereotyped as "communal" or caring may have increased, thus creating higher identity-costs for those who pursue STEM careers. Thus, in poorer countries, the marginal utility of money matters more than identity costs, which is reversed in higher-income countries. [38]

Class status is also an actor in upholding gender roles. While higher class-status is associated with more supportive attitudes toward gender-equality, it is also associated with views upholding the social structures of work and family that are less egalitarianism. It is noted that higher socioeconomic status couples speak of gender equality, while lower socioeconomic status couples live in a manner that demonstrates gender equality. While lower socioeconomic status couples voice more support for specialized gender roles, their lived social structure incentivizes more egalitarianism. [39]

It is possible that due to personal decisions which may take into consideration advice based on expectancy value theory, people choose to go into fields they believe are their strengths. [36]

See also

Related Research Articles

A gender role, or sex role, is a set of socially accepted behaviors and attitudes deemed appropriate or desirable for individuals based on their sex. Gender roles are usually centered on conceptions of masculinity and femininity, although there are exceptions and variations.

Sex differences in psychology are differences in the mental functions and behaviors of the sexes and are due to a complex interplay of biological, developmental, and cultural factors. Differences have been found in a variety of fields such as mental health, cognitive abilities, personality, emotion, sexuality, friendship, and tendency towards aggression. Such variation may be innate, learned, or both. Modern research attempts to distinguish between these causes and to analyze any ethical concerns raised. Since behavior is a result of interactions between nature and nurture, researchers are interested in investigating how biology and environment interact to produce such differences, although this is often not possible.

Social dominance orientation (SDO) is a personality trait measuring an individual's support for social hierarchy and the extent to which they desire their in-group be superior to out-groups. SDO is conceptualized under social dominance theory as a measure of individual differences in levels of group-based discrimination; that is, it is a measure of an individual's preference for hierarchy within any social system and the domination over lower-status groups. It is a predisposition toward anti-egalitarianism within and between groups.

The gender pay gap in the United States is a measure comparing the earnings of men and women in the workforce. The average female annual earnings is around 80% of the average male's. When variables such as hours worked, occupations chosen, and education and job experience are controlled for, the gap diminishes with females earning 95% as much as males. The exact figure varies because different organizations use different methodologies to calculate the gap. The gap varies depending on industry and is influenced by factors such as race and age. The causes of the gender pay gap are debated, but popular explanations include the "motherhood penalty," hours worked, occupation chosen, willingness to negotiate salary, and gender bias.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hypergamy</span> Practice of a person marrying a spouse of higher social status

Hypergamy is a term used in social science for the act or practice of a person dating or marrying a spouse of higher social status or sexual capital than themselves, and continuingly attempting to replace their current partner with someone they deem superior.

Gender inequality is the social phenomenon in which people are not treated equally on the basis of gender. This inequality can be caused by gender discrimination or sexism. The treatment may arise from distinctions regarding biology, psychology, or cultural norms prevalent in the society. Some of these distinctions are empirically grounded, while others appear to be social constructs. While current policies around the world cause inequality among individuals, it is women who are most affected. Gender inequality weakens women in many areas such as health, education, and business life. Studies show the different experiences of genders across many domains including education, life expectancy, personality, interests, family life, careers, and political affiliation. Gender inequality is experienced differently across different cultures.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Occupational sexism</span> Discrimination based on the sex in a place of employment

Occupational sexism is discrimination based on a person's sex that occurs in a place of employment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sex differences in education</span> Educational discrimination on the basis of sex

Sex differences in education are a type of sex discrimination in the education system affecting both men and women during and after their educational experiences. Men are more likely to be literate on a global average, although higher literacy scores for women are prevalent in many countries. Women are more likely to achieve a tertiary education degree compared to men of the same age. Men tended to receive more education than women in the past, but the gender gap in education has reversed in recent decades in most Western countries and many non-Western countries.

Feminist psychology is a form of psychology centered on social structures and gender. Feminist psychology critiques historical psychological research as done from a male perspective with the view that males are the norm. Feminist psychology is oriented on the values and principles of feminism.

<i>Delusions of Gender</i> 2010 book by Cordelia Fine

Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference is a 2010 book by Cordelia Fine, written to debunk the idea that men and women are hardwired with different interests. The author criticizes claimed evidence of the existence of innate biological differences between men and women's minds as being faulty and exaggerated, and while taking a position of agnosticism with respect to inherent differences relating to interest/skill in "understanding the world" versus "understanding people", reviews literature demonstrating how cultural and societal beliefs contribute to sex differences.

The women-are-wonderful effect is the phenomenon found in psychological and sociological research which suggests that people associate more positive attributes with women when compared to men. This bias reflects an emotional bias toward women as a general case. The phrase was coined by Alice Eagly and Antonio Mladinic in 1994 after finding that both male and female participants tend to assign positive traits to women, with female participants showing a far more pronounced bias. Positive traits were assigned to men by participants of both genders, but to a far lesser degree.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Women in STEM fields</span> Female participants in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics

Many scholars and policymakers have noted that the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) have remained predominantly male with historically low participation among women since the origins of these fields in the 18th century during the Age of Enlightenment.

Gender inequality in the United States has been diminishing throughout its history and significant advancements towards equality have been made beginning mostly in the early 1900s. However, despite this progress, gender inequality in the United States continues to persist in many forms, including the disparity in women's political representation and participation, occupational segregation, and the unequal distribution of household labor. The alleviation of gender inequality has been the goal of several major pieces of legislation since 1920 and continues to the present day. As of 2021, the World Economic Forum ranks the United States 30th in terms of gender equality out of 149 countries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gender pay gap</span> Average difference in remuneration amounts between men and women

The gender pay gap or gender wage gap is the average difference between the remuneration for men and women who are working. Women are generally found to be paid less than men. There are two distinct numbers regarding the pay gap: non-adjusted versus adjusted pay gap. The latter typically takes into account differences in hours worked, occupations chosen, education and job experience. In other words, the adjusted values represent how much women and men make for the same work, while the non-adjusted values represent how much the average man and woman make in total. In the United States, for example, the non-adjusted average woman's annual salary is 79–83% of the average man's salary, compared to 95–99% for the adjusted average salary.

Sex differences in human intelligence have long been a topic of debate among researchers and scholars. It is now recognized that there are no significant sex differences in average IQ, though particular subtypes of intelligence vary somewhat between sexes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gender disparity in computing</span> Imbalance

Gender disparity in computing concerns the disparity between the number of men in the field of computing in relation to the lack of women in the field. Originally, computing was seen as a female occupation. As the field evolved, so too did the demographics, and the gender gap shifted from female dominated to male dominated. The believed need for more diversity and an equal gender gap has led to public policy debates regarding gender equality. Many organizations have sought to create initiatives to bring more women into the field of computing.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Female education in STEM</span>

Female education in STEM refers to child and adult female representation in the educational fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). In 2017, 33% of students in STEM fields were women.

The male-female health survival paradox, also known as the morbidity-mortality paradox or gender paradox, is the phenomenon in which female humans experience more medical conditions and disability during their lives, but they unexpectedly live longer than males. This paradox, where females experience greater morbidity (diseases) but lower mortality (death) in comparison to males, is unusual since it is expected that experiencing disease increases the likelihood of death. However, in this case, the part of the population that experiences more disease and disability is the one that lives longer.

A gender empathy gap, sometimes referred to as an gender empathy bias, is a gendered breakdown or difference in empathy where it might otherwise be expected to occur. Empathy gaps may occur due to a failure in the process of empathizing based on gender of either the person who should be empathizing or the person in need of empathy or as a consequence of stable personality characteristics, and may reflect either a lack of ability or motivation to empathize. Many studies show that females have an on-average advantage in empathic accuracy skills.

According to the National Science Foundation (NSF), women and racial minorities are underrepresented in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Scholars, governments, and scientific organizations from around the world have noted a variety of explanations contributing to this lack of racial diversity, including higher levels of discrimination, implicit bias, microaggressions, chilly climate, lack of role models and mentors, and less academic preparation.

References

  1. ↑ Fors Connolly, Filip; Goossen, Mikael; Hjerm, Mikael (2020-07-01). "Does Gender Equality Cause Gender Differences in Values? Reassessing the Gender-Equality-Personality Paradox". Sex Roles. 83 (1): 101–113. doi: 10.1007/s11199-019-01097-x . ISSN   1573-2762.
  2. 1 2 Balducci, Marco (2023). "Linking gender differences with gender equality: A systematic-narrative literature review of basic skills and personality". Frontiers in Psychology. 14. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1105234 . ISSN   1664-1078. PMC   9978710 . PMID   36874846.
  3. ↑ Breda, Thomas; Jouini, Elyès; Napp, Clotilde; Thebault, Georgia (2020-12-08). "Gender stereotypes can explain the gender-equality paradox". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 117 (49): 31063–31069. Bibcode:2020PNAS..11731063B. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2008704117 . ISSN   0027-8424. PMC   7733804 . PMID   33229558.
  4. ↑ Khazan, Olga (2018-02-18). "The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2020-12-28.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 "Scholars Debate Causes of Women's Underrepresentation in STEM". The Scientist Magazine®. Retrieved 2020-03-03.
  6. ↑ Stoet, Gijsbert; Geary, David C. (14 February 2018), "The Gender-Equality Paradox in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education" (PDF), Psychological Science , 29 (4): 581–593, doi:10.1177/0956797617741719, PMID   29442575, S2CID   4874507
  7. 1 2 Khazan, Olga (2018-02-18). "The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2019-12-23.
  8. 1 2 "Women in gender-equal countries less likely to gain STEM degrees". Times Higher Education (THE). 2018-02-23. Retrieved 2019-12-23.
  9. 1 2 Timmer, John (2018-02-19). "Women go into science careers more often in countries without gender equality". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2019-12-23.
  10. 1 2 Taylor, Peter Shawn (March 26, 2019). "Could helping boys be the key to closing the STEM gap?". Maclean's. Retrieved 2019-12-22.
  11. 1 2 3 4 Richardson, Sarah S.; Reiches, Meredith (2020-02-11). "We Dug Into Data to Disprove a Myth About Women in STEM". Slate Magazine. Retrieved 2020-03-03.
  12. 1 2 3 4 "Corrigendum: The Gender-Equality Paradox in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education". Psychological Science. 31 (1): 110–111. 2020-01-01. doi: 10.1177/0956797619892892 . ISSN   0956-7976. PMID   31809229.
  13. 1 2 3 4 "A Controversial Study Claimed To Explain Why Women Don't Go Into Science And Tech. It Just Got A 1,113-Word Correction". BuzzFeed News. 13 February 2020. Retrieved 2020-03-03.
  14. 1 2 Richardson, Sarah S.; Reiches, Meredith W.; Bruch, Joe; Boulicault, Marion; Noll, Nicole E.; Shattuck-Heidorn, Heather (2020-02-11). "Is There a Gender-Equality Paradox in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM)? Commentary on the Study by Stoet and Geary (2018)". Psychological Science. 31 (3): 338–341. doi:10.1177/0956797619872762. ISSN   0956-7976. PMID   32043923. S2CID   211079357.
  15. 1 2 Breda, Thomas; Jouini, Elyes; Napp, Clotilde; Thebault, Georgia (November 2020). "Gender stereotypes can explain the gender-equality paradox". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 117 (49): 31063–31069. Bibcode:2020PNAS..11731063B. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2008704117 . ISSN   1091-6490. PMC   7733804 . PMID   33229558.
  16. ↑ Cherney, I D (2023-02-01). "The STEM paradox: Factors affecting diversity in STEM fields". Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 2438 (1): 012005. Bibcode:2023JPhCS2438a2005C. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/2438/1/012005 . ISSN   1742-6588.
  17. 1 2 Thelwall, Mike; Mas-Bleda, Amalia (2020-05-28). "A gender equality paradox in academic publishing: Countries with a higher proportion of female first-authored journal articles have larger first-author gender disparities between fields". Quantitative Science Studies. 1 (3): 1260–1282. arXiv: 2004.12159 . doi: 10.1162/qss_a_00050 .
  18. ↑ Geary, David. 2020. Male, Female: The Evolution of Human Sex Differences. American Psychological Association. ISBN   9781433832642. p 432–433.
  19. ↑ Stoet, Gijsbert; Geary, David C. (2018). "The Gender-Equality Paradox in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education". Psychological Science. 29 (4): 585. doi:10.1177/0956797617741719. ISSN   0956-7976. PMID   29442575.
  20. ↑ "A Controversial Study Claimed To Explain Why Women Don't Go Into Science And Tech. It Just Got A 1,113-Word Correction". BuzzFeed News. 13 February 2020. Retrieved 2021-03-25.
  21. ↑ Stoet, Gijsbert; Geary, David C. (2020-02-11). "The Gender-Equality Paradox Is Part of a Bigger Phenomenon: Reply to Richardson and Colleagues (2020)". Psychological Science. 31 (3): 342–344. doi:10.1177/0956797620904134. PMID   32043920. S2CID   211079901.
  22. ↑ "STEM's ongoing sex-difference debate". www.insidehighered.com. Retrieved 2021-01-08.
  23. ↑ I'd Blush If I Could: Closing Gender Divides in Digital Skills Through Education. United Nations (UNESCO). 1 January 2019. pp. 78–79. doi:10.54675/RAPC9356. hdl:20.500.12799/6598. S2CID   189663931.
  24. ↑ Uunk, Wilfred (22 June 2023). "Does the gender-equality paradox hold on the micro level? An assessment of the effect of household wealth on gendered math intentions for 60 countries". Frontiers in Education. 8. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2023.1155492 .
  25. ↑ "CSW67 Expert Group Meeting". UN Women – Headquarters.
  26. ↑ CSW67 Expert Group Meeting. "Findings and recommendations from the Expert Group Meeting on the priority theme (10-13 October 2022)" (PDF). UN Women. United Nations. Women are highly represented in STEM fields associated with health and the provision of care, (such as medicine, chemistry, or biology), and highly underrepresented in other fields (mathematics, engineering), which reinforces gender stereotypes around caregiving. Current research has identified a paradox between levels of gender equality and the participation of women in STEM fields. The more egalitarian a country is, the fewer women participate in STEM fields. Conversely, countries that rank lower on gender equality indices present better levels of female participation in STEM fields{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  27. ↑ Ibáñez, Milagros Sáinz (2022). "How to Address Stereotypes and Practices Limiting Access to STEM-Related Education for Women and Girls" (PDF). UN Women. United Nations. p. 1. Interestingly, current research has identified a paradox between levels of gender equality and the participation of women in STEM fields (Stoet and Geri, 2018). In this way, the more egalitarian the countries are (for example, Norway or Finland), the less female participation in STEM fields. However, countries with less advanced policies in terms of equality (such as India) presented better levels of female presence in STEM fields. Similarly, a more recent study by UNESCO (2019) corroborates the existence of this paradox in the participation of women in studies related to Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs).
  28. ↑ "Les stéréotypes de genre peuvent expliquer le paradoxe de l'égalité des sexes". CNRS (in French). 24 November 2020. Retrieved Jan 9, 2021.
  29. ↑ Delaney, Judith M.; Devereux, Paul J. (31 August 2021). "The Economics of Gender and Educational Achievement: Stylized Facts and Causal Evidence". Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Economics and Finance. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190625979.013.663. ISBN   978-0-19-062597-9 . Retrieved 2021-11-30.
  30. ↑ Falk, Armin; Hermle, Johannes (2018-10-19). "Relationship of gender differences in preferences to economic development and gender equality". Science. 362 (6412): eaas9899. doi:10.1126/science.aas9899. hdl: 10419/193353 . ISSN   0036-8075. PMID   30337384. S2CID   53012633.
  31. ↑ Mac Giolla, Erik; Kajonius, Petri J. (2018-10-19). "Sex differences in personality are larger in gender equal countries: Replicating and extending a surprising finding". International Journal of Psychology. 54 (6): 705–711. doi: 10.1002/ijop.12529 . ISSN   0020-7594. PMID   30206941. S2CID   52189807.
  32. 1 2 3 O'Grady, Cathleen (2018-10-18). "Why figuring out what's behind a big gender paradox won't be easy". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2021-01-10.
  33. 1 2 Radio, Sveriges (27 November 2018). "Jordan B Peterson har delvis rätt om jämställdhetsparadoxen - Faktiskt". Sveriges Radio (in Swedish). Retrieved 2021-01-10.
  34. ↑ Herlitz, Agneta; Hönig, Ida; Hedebrant, Kåre; Asperholm, Martin (2024-01-03). "A Systematic Review and New Analyses of the Gender-Equality Paradox". Perspectives on Psychological Science. doi: 10.1177/17456916231202685 . ISSN   1745-6916. PMID   38170215.
  35. ↑ Cherney, I D (2023-02-01). "The STEM paradox: Factors affecting diversity in STEM fields". Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 2438 (1): 012005. Bibcode:2023JPhCS2438a2005C. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/2438/1/012005 . ISSN   1742-6588.
  36. 1 2 Cherney, I D (2023-02-01). "The STEM paradox: Factors affecting diversity in STEM fields". Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 2438 (1): 012005. Bibcode:2023JPhCS2438a2005C. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/2438/1/012005 . ISSN   1742-6588.
  37. ↑ Thelwall, Mike; Mas-Bleda, Amalia (2020-05-28). "A gender equality paradox in academic publishing: Countries with a higher proportion of female first-authored journal articles have larger first-author gender disparities between fields". Quantitative Science Studies. 1 (3): 1260–1282. arXiv: 2004.12159 . doi: 10.1162/qss_a_00050 .
  38. ↑ Osterloh, Margit; Rost, Katja; Hizli, Louisa; Mösching, Annina (2023-12-04). "The Gender Equality Paradox in STEM fields: Evidence, criticism, and implications". Routledge Open Research. 2: 48. doi: 10.12688/routledgeopenres.17975.1 . ISSN   2755-1245.
  39. ↑ Usdansky, Margaret L. (2011). "The Gender-Equality Paradox: Class and Incongruity Between Work-Family Attitudes and Behaviors". Journal of Family Theory & Review. 3 (3): 163–178. doi:10.1111/j.1756-2589.2011.00094.x. ISSN   1756-2589.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.