In the Gender Equality Paradox, gender equality is assumed to imply gender neutrality. In this post, I explain why this assumption is unfounded, drawing on social psychological research. When we recognize that gender-equal is not synonymous with gender-neutral in terms of stereotypes and attitudes, the Gender Equality Paradox falls apart.

The goal of this post is to identify the assumptions underlying an evolutionary explanation of the Gender Equality Paradox and to offer some equally strong, if not stronger, hypotheses that could be tested.

Here, we situate the Gender Equality Paradox in the larger field of understanding gender segregation in STEM fields by talking to renowned scholar Professor Maria Charles, Professor of Sociology, Director of the Broom Center for Demography, and Feminist Studies affiliate at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Professor Charles has worked for decades to understand why postindustrial countries have greater segregation in STEM fields, and she draws on her broad expertise on the persistence of gender inequalities in gender-progressive societies and global variation in gender equality to help us understand the Gender Equality Paradox.

According to the Gender Equality Paradox, the more gender equal a country, the fewer women in that country participate in STEM. But how is a country's gender equality measured? In this post, we show how looking carefully at measurement choices might lead us to re-think scientific claims about the so-called Gender Equality Paradox.

This post is an explainer and supplement to our Psychological Sciences Commentary. We discuss five key problems with data and inferences that we identified in Stoet and Geary’s study. In places it’s a bit of a wonky read, but we unpack some serious issues, including issues with replicating the findings, spurious correlations, study design, and the ecological fallacy.

Is the feminist project to bring about parity for women and men in traditionally male fields doomed? In this blog post series, we expand on these contributions and offer a thorough consideration of the “Gender Equality Paradox” hypothesis and its theoretical and methodological underpinnings and the assumptions required for it to operate.