Gender-Equality Paradox

Stoet and Geary reported the pattern in 2018 from international test and graduation data, and explained it by comparative advantage: girls in more equal countries were as strong in science but stronger still in reading, so fewer had science as their best subject. Richardson and colleagues showed in 2020 that the measure used was not the share of women among STEM graduates but a ratio of propensities, that the reported figures did not match the source data, and that other equality indices produce no such pattern. A corrigendum in 2019 clarified the measure, and the authors defended it.

In practice

• A policy team concludes that its equality programme has backfired because a headline chart points the wrong way, when the denominator is doing the work.
• A university compares its intake with a foreign one, forgetting that the two count graduates differently.

Possible explanations

One explanation offered is comparative advantage, where girls in more equal countries are as strong in science but stronger still in reading. Another is economic security, which may let students follow interests rather than earnings. A third is measurement, since the pattern depends on how the share of women is calculated.

In its favour

A relationship between country-level gender equality indices and women's representation in science appears in several datasets, and the puzzle it poses is a real one.

Against it

The measure used was a ratio of propensities rather than the share of women among graduates, other equality indices produce no such pattern, and the comparative-advantage mechanism has not been tested directly.

Standing

Contested in both measurement and interpretation. That country-level gender gaps in science vary in ways income and equality do not simply explain is not disputed; the paradox as stated is.

Further reading

Wikipedia

Subject

Sociology & Culture

Essay

The measured patterns of social life