causes of gender equality essay

10 Causes of Gender Inequality

Over the years, the world has gotten closer to achieving gender equality. There is better representation of women in politics, more economic opportunities, and better healthcare in many places of the world. However, the World Economic Forum estimates it will take another century before true gender equality becomes a reality. What drives the gap between genders? Here are 10 causes of gender inequality:

#1. Uneven access to education

Around the world, women still have less access to education than men. ¼ of young women between 15-24 will not finish primary school . That group makes up 58% of the people not completing that basic education. Of all the illiterate people in the world, ⅔ are women. When girls are not educated on the same level as boys, it has a huge effect on their future and the kinds of opportunities they’ll get.

#2. Lack of employment equality

Only 6 countries in the world give women the same legal work rights as men. In fact, most economies give women only ¾ the rights of men. Studies show that if employment became a more even playing field, it has a positive domino effect on other areas prone to gender inequality.

#3. Job segregation

One of the causes for gender inequality within employment is the division of jobs. In most societies, there’s an inherent belief that men are simply better equipped to handle certain jobs. Most of the time, those are the jobs that pay the best. This discrimination results in lower income for women. Women also take on the primary responsibility for unpaid labor, so even as they participate in the paid workforce, they have extra work that never gets recognized financially.

#4. Lack of legal protections

According to research from the World Bank , over one billion women don’t have legal protection against domestic sexual violence or domestic economic violence. Both have a significant impact on women’s ability to thrive and live in freedom. In many countries, there’s also a lack of legal protections against harassment in the workplace, at school, and in public. These places become unsafe and without protection, women frequently have to make decisions that compromise and limit their goals.

#5. Lack of bodily autonomy

Many women around the world do not have authority over their own bodies or when they become parents. Accessing birth control is frequently very difficult. According to the World Health Organization , over 200 million women who don’t want to get pregnant are not using contraception. There are various reasons for this such as a lack of options, limited access, and cultural/religious opposition. On a global scale, about 40% of pregnancies are not planned and while 50% of them do end in abortion, 38% result in births. These mothers often become financially dependent on another person or the state, losing their freedom.

#6. Poor medical care

In addition to limited access to contraception, women overall receive lower-quality medical care than men. This is linked to other gender inequality reasons such as a lack of education and job opportunities, which results in more women being in poverty. They are less likely to be able to afford good healthcare. There’s also been less research into diseases that affect women more than men, such as autoimmune disorders and chronic pain conditions. Many women also experience discrimination and dismissal from their doctors, broadening the gender gap in healthcare quality.

#7. Lack of religious freedom

When religious freedom is attacked, women suffer the most. According to the World Economic Forum , when extremist ideologies (such as ISIS) come into a community and restrict religious freedom, gender inequality gets worse. In a study performed by Georgetown University and Brigham Young University, researchers were also able to connect religious intolerance with women’s ability to participate in the economy. When there’s more religious freedom, an economy becomes more stable thanks to women’s participation.

#8. Lack of political representation

Of all national parliaments at the beginning of 2019, only 24.3% of seats were filled by women. As of June of 2019, 11 Heads of State were women. Despite progress in this area over the years, women are still grossly underrepresented in government and the political process. This means that certain issues that female politicians tend to bring up – such as parental leave and childcare, pensions, gender equality laws and gender-based violence – are often neglected.

It would be impossible to talk about gender inequality without talking about racism. It affects what jobs women of color are able to get and how much they’re paid, as well as how they are viewed by legal and healthcare systems. Gender inequality and racism have been closely-linked for a long time. According to Sally Kitch, a professor and author, European settlers in Virginia decided what work could be taxed based on the race of the woman performing the work. African women’s work was “labor,” so it was taxable, while work performed by English women was “domestic” and not taxable. The pay gaps between white women and women of color continues that legacy of discrimination and contributes to gender inequality.

#10. Societal mindsets

It’s less tangible than some of the other causes on this list, but the overall mindset of a society has a significant impact on gender inequality. How society determines the differences and value of men vs. women plays a starring role in every arena, whether it’s employment or the legal system or healthcare. Beliefs about gender run deep and even though progress can be made through laws and structural changes, there’s often a pushback following times of major change. It’s also common for everyone (men and women) to ignore other areas of gender inequality when there’s progress, such as better representation for women in leadership . These types of mindsets prop up gender inequality and delay significant change.

Related: Take a free course on Gender Equality

You may also like

16 Inspiring Civil Rights Leaders You Should Know

15 Trusted Charities Fighting for Housing Rights

15 Examples of Gender Inequality in Everyday Life

11 Approaches to Alleviate World Hunger 

15 Facts About Malala Yousafzai

12 Ways Poverty Affects Society

15 Great Charities to Donate to in 2024

15 Quotes Exposing Injustice in Society

14 Trusted Charities Helping Civilians in Palestine

The Great Migration: History, Causes and Facts

Social Change 101: Meaning, Examples, Learning Opportunities

Rosa Parks: Biography, Quotes, Impact

About the author, emmaline soken-huberty.

Emmaline Soken-Huberty is a freelance writer based in Portland, Oregon. She started to become interested in human rights while attending college, eventually getting a concentration in human rights and humanitarianism. LGBTQ+ rights, women’s rights, and climate change are of special concern to her. In her spare time, she can be found reading or enjoying Oregon’s natural beauty with her husband and dog.

Gender Inequality: Causes and Impacts

How it works

Gender Equality is “A state of having same rights, status and opportunities like others, regardless of one’s gender.” Gender inequality is “unequal treatment or perception of an individual based on their gender.” In the United States of America Gender Equality has progressed through the past decades. Due to different Cultural context, countries around the world lack Gender Equality. Gender inequality remains a issue worldwide, mainly in the Middle East and North Africa. Equality of Gender is normalized in the United States of America but is lacked worldwide.

Countries around the world lack gender equality in the workplace, marriage, government, education and household roles.

Around the world Gender inequality has been a problem since ancient times. It is a problem that has been protested against, debated about and spoken for since the beginning of men and women interactions. This issue has been created through gender biases. The definition of Gender biases is “unequal treatment and expectations based on the sex of an individual.”

• 1 Gender Inequality in the workforce:
• 2 Gender equality vs Inequality in Marriage:
• 3 Gender equality vs inequality in Education:

Gender Inequality in the workforce:

Before the Equal pay act of 1963, which was signed by John f Kennedy, women made 59 cents of every dollar men made. The Equal Pay act is a labor law aimed to abolish wage disparity based on sex. Although this act was signed, there is still an issue of Gender biases in labor work today. In modern time American Women make only 77 cents for every dollar that a man will earn. Three-in-Ten employed women say they have experienced some form of discrimination in the workplace. (Amy DelPo and Lisa Guerin (Nolo).

Although there is still a pay gap in the United States of America, in 155 other economies there is at least one law preventing women’s economic opportunities. For example: Argentinian women looking to set up their own liquor stores are prevented to do so, this is considered a profession for men in the country. (Kate davidson 2016). Argentinian women are also prohibited from polishing glass. Another example is In Madagascar, women aren’t allowed to write literature, create posters or publish any material. If a woman in Madagascar does so, then she will be punished by the law. All around the world there are restrictions for women to pursue the line of work they would want to achieve. (Kate davidson 2016).

Gender equality vs Inequality in Marriage:

Child marriage is a global problem that is within cultures and religions. Over 12 million girls marry before the age of 18 worldwide. In South Asia, 40 percent of young women are married by the age of 18. Eighteen percent of the girls in South Asia are married by the age of 15. Young woman in South Asia are forced to marry the men that their parent choose, in an arranged marriage. The young women are stripped from the right to choose if they would like to get married or pursue work. While men get to choose if they desire to have career or not. Global divorce rate for arranged marriages is 6.3%. (Girls Not Brides 2018-2019)

The minimum age for marriage in America is eighteen years old, but it varies by each state. For all states except two, a couple can marry at eighteen years old or older without the requirement for parental consent. In most states, couples are allowed to marry at a younger age with the consent of both parents or with judicial consent. Both genders have the right to marry who they want when they want. (GirlsNotBrides 2017).

Gender equality vs inequality in Education:

In the United States of America both genders are given the right to have a education. Granted the freedom to study from Preschool-Senior Year of college. (John Gramilich 2019). 57% of college students are women, while the percentage for men in college is 43%. Men are considered the new minority in college. Since 1979, women have been in higher education than men. The feminist movement sparked during the civil war, pushing women to demand equal rights in education, including discrimination of race. (John Gramilich 2019)

There are over 20 nations that stop women from getting an education. Discrimination against women and little girls and preventing them from learning. Over 100 million children are out of their studies in developing nations, over 50% are girls. In Cambodia, 15% of women seeking higher education. While women struggle to get their education, they suffer from domestic violence, marital rape and prostitution from the age of 13. In Pakistan the rate for women to get a education is the lowest in the world. Pakistan also has the second lowest rate of women employed. If women attempt to pursue an education in pakistan the taliban punish them. The taliban shot a 15-year-old girl named malala Yousafazai in the head for attempting to get a education. In Chad only 10% of girls have completed elementary school due to underaged marriages. Chadian women have to obey their husbands, while they dictate their lives. Women are stripped from the option to have an education around the world, while men are seen as superior and have more rights. (Jon marcus 2017).

In this modern time in America both genders are able to be a high government official. Today 30% of government official roles are reserved by women. On June 4,1919, congress passed the 19th amendment which gave women the right to vote. The 19th amendment was ratified in 1920. (Rutger university 2019) The first woman to run for president was Victoria Woodhull in 1872 (part of the equal rights party). 307 women have served in congress, about 47 of them as senators. Today there are 104 women serving in congress. Thirty women have served as cabinet secretaries. Out of those thirty women eight of them served under past president Barak Obama. Thirty-six women have served as governors, 22 democrats and 14 republicans. Currently 1,813 seats in state legislatures are held by women. (Henry Roseto, 2016)

In other countries around the world, women face the prevention of voting. In Vatican City, Rome women aren’t allowed to vote.In Vatican City the main Religion is catholic,meaning that there isn’t any government officials to vote for, they vote for a pope. In 2009 women in afghanistan were required to have permission from their husbands to vote.While Women do vote in afghanistan, they are protested and threatened with violence at the polls. In Nigeria only 7 women have been elected since 1975. Women in nigeria can’t buy votes from PNG because they aren’t allowed to have access to the same sources as men. In Zanzibar women were finally able to start voting in 2015, but most were divorced by their husbands who didn’t approve. Women lack gender equality around the world, restricting them from basic human rights such as voting. (Georgia Aspinall 2018)

As Gender inequality remains an issue worldwide, Nations fail to give women their rights. Countries around the world lack gender equality in the workplace, marriage, government, education and household roles. When society is based on religion and Cultures, it takes away human rights due to beliefs. With gender biases and Gender inequality, there will be no peace. It will affect countries going forward, causing violence, protests and a never ending fight for freedom of dictatorship.

Cite this page

Gender Inequality: Causes and Impacts. (2021, Mar 05). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/gender-inequality-causes-and-impacts/

"Gender Inequality: Causes and Impacts." PapersOwl.com , 5 Mar 2021, https://papersowl.com/examples/gender-inequality-causes-and-impacts/

PapersOwl.com. (2021). Gender Inequality: Causes and Impacts . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/gender-inequality-causes-and-impacts/ [Accessed: 3 Jun. 2024]

"Gender Inequality: Causes and Impacts." PapersOwl.com, Mar 05, 2021. Accessed June 3, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/gender-inequality-causes-and-impacts/

"Gender Inequality: Causes and Impacts," PapersOwl.com , 05-Mar-2021. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/gender-inequality-causes-and-impacts/. [Accessed: 3-Jun-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2021). Gender Inequality: Causes and Impacts . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/gender-inequality-causes-and-impacts/ [Accessed: 3-Jun-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Goal 5: Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls

Gender equality is not only a fundamental human right, but a necessary foundation for a peaceful, prosperous and sustainable world. There has been progress over the last decades, but the world is not on track to achieve gender equality by 2030.

Women and girls represent half of the world’s population and therefore also half of its potential. But gender inequality persists everywhere and stagnates social progress. On average, women in the labor market still earn 23 percent less than men globally and women spend about three times as many hours in unpaid domestic and care work as men.

Sexual violence and exploitation, the unequal division of unpaid care and domestic work, and discrimination in public office, all remain huge barriers. All these areas of inequality have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic: there has been a surge in reports of sexual violence, women have taken on more care work due to school closures, and 70% of health and social workers globally are women.

At the current rate, it will take an estimated 300 years to end child marriage, 286 years to close gaps in legal protection and remove discriminatory laws, 140 years for women to be represented equally in positions of power and leadership in the workplace, and 47 years to achieve equal representation in national parliaments.

Political leadership, investments and comprehensive policy reforms are needed to dismantle systemic barriers to achieving Goal 5 Gender equality is a cross-cutting objective and must be a key focus of national policies, budgets and institutions.

How much progress have we made?

International commitments to advance gender equality have brought about improvements in some areas: child marriage and female genital mutilation (FGM) have declined in recent years, and women’s representation in the political arena is higher than ever before. But the promise of a world in which every woman and girl enjoys full gender equality, and where all legal, social and economic barriers to their empowerment have been removed, remains unfulfilled. In fact, that goal is probably even more distant than before, since women and girls are being hit hard by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Are they any other gender-related challenges?

Yes. Worldwide, nearly half of married women lack decision-making power over their sexual and reproductive health and rights. 35 per cent of women between 15-49 years of age have experienced physical and/ or sexual intimate partner violence or non-partner sexual violence.1 in 3 girls aged 15-19 have experienced some form of female genital mutilation/cutting in the 30 countries in Africa and the Middle East, where the harmful practice is most common with a high risk of prolonged bleeding, infection (including HIV), childbirth complications, infertility and death.

This type of violence doesn’t just harm individual women and girls; it also undermines their overall quality of life and hinders their active involvement in society.

Why should gender equality matter to me?

Regardless of where you live in, gender equality is a fundamental human right. Advancing gender equality is critical to all areas of a healthy society, from reducing poverty to promoting the health, education, protection and the well-being of girls and boys.

What can we do?

If you are a girl, you can stay in school, help empower your female classmates to do the same and fight for your right to access sexual and reproductive health services. If you are a woman, you can address unconscious biases and implicit associations that form an unintended and often an invisible barrier to equal opportunity.

If you are a man or a boy, you can work alongside women and girls to achieve gender equality and embrace healthy, respectful relationships.

You can fund education campaigns to curb cultural practices like female genital mutilation and change harmful laws that limit the rights of women and girls and prevent them from achieving their full potential.

The Spotlight Initiative is an EU/UN partnership, and a global, multi-year initiative focused on eliminating all forms of violence against women and girls – the world’s largest targeted effort to end all forms of violence against women and girls.

Facts and figures

Goal 5 targets.

• With only seven years remaining, a mere 15.4 per cent of Goal 5 indicators with data are “on track”, 61.5 per cent are at a moderate distance and 23.1 per cent are far or very far off track from 2030 targets.
• In many areas, progress has been too slow. At the current rate, it will take an estimated 300 years to end child marriage, 286 years to close gaps in legal protection and remove discriminatory laws, 140 years for women to be represented equally in positions of power and leadership in the workplace, and 47 years to achieve equal representation in national parliaments.
• Political leadership, investments and comprehensive policy reforms are needed to dismantle systemic barriers to achieving Goal 5. Gender equality is a cross-cutting objective and must be a key focus of national policies, budgets and institutions.
• Around 2.4 billion women of working age are not afforded equal economic opportunity. Nearly 2.4 Billion Women Globally Don’t Have Same Economic Rights as Men  
• 178 countries maintain legal barriers that prevent women’s full economic participation. Nearly 2.4 Billion Women Globally Don’t Have Same Economic Rights as Men
• In 2019, one in five women, aged 20-24 years, were married before the age of 18. Girls | UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence Against Children

Source: The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2023

5.1 End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere

5.2 Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres, including trafficking and sexual and other types of exploitation

5.3 Eliminate all harmful practices, such as child, early and forced marriage and female genital mutilation

5.4 Recognize and value unpaid care and domestic work through the provision of public services, infrastructure and social protection policies and the promotion of shared responsibility within the household and the family as nationally appropriate

5.5 Ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decisionmaking in political, economic and public life

5.6 Ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights as agreed in accordance with the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development and the Beijing Platform for Action and the outcome documents of their review conferences

5.A  Undertake reforms to give women equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to ownership and control over land and other forms of property, financial services, inheritance and natural resources, in accordance with national laws

5.B Enhance the use of enabling technology, in particular information and communications technology, to promote the empowerment of women

5.C Adopt and strengthen sound policies and enforceable legislation for the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls at all levels

He for She campaign

United Secretary-General Campaign UNiTE to End Violence Against Women

Every Woman Every Child Initiative

Spotlight Initiative

United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)

UN Population Fund: Gender equality

UN Population Fund: Female genital mutilation

UN Population Fund: Child marriage

UN Population Fund: Engaging men & boys

UN Population Fund: Gender-based violence

World Health Organization (WHO)

UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)

UN Education, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO)

UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Gender Statistics

Fast Facts: Gender Equality

Infographic: Gender Equality

The Initiative is so named as it brings focused attention to this issue, moving it into the spotlight and placing it at the centre of efforts to achieve gender equality and women’s empowerment, in line with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

An initial investment in the order of EUR 500 million will be made, with the EU as the main contributor. Other donors and partners will be invited to join the Initiative to broaden its reach and scope. The modality for the delivery will be a UN multi- stakeholder trust fund, administered by the Multi-Partner Trust Fund Office, with the support of core agencies UNDP, UNFPA and UN Women, and overseen by the Executive Office of the UN Secretary-General.

Related news

Press release| the world is failing girls and women, according to new un report.

Yinuo 2023-09-06T19:30:02-04:00 07 Sep 2023 |

The world is failing girls and women, according to new UN report New figure points to the need of an additional $360 billion in investment per year to achieve genderequality and women’s empowerment by 2030. [...]

Liberia, Mexico, Niger, Senegal and Sierra Leone to tackle barriers to the deployment of women in peace operations with the support of the UN Elsie Initiative Fund 

Vesna Blazhevska 2021-04-28T13:20:09-04:00 28 Apr 2021 |

PRESS RELEASE 28 APRIL 2021 MEDIA ENQUIRIES [email protected] Liberia, Mexico, Niger, Senegal and Sierra Leone to tackle barriers to the deployment of women in peace operations with the support of the UN Elsie Initiative [...]

Women’s job market participation stagnating at less than 50% for the past 25 years, finds UN report

Vesna Blazhevska 2020-10-20T15:06:56-04:00 20 Oct 2020 |

New York, 20 October – Less than 50% of working-age women are in the labour market, a figure that has barely changed over the last quarter of a century, according to a new UN report launched today. Unpaid domestic and care work falls disproportionately on women, restraining their economic potential as the COVID-19 pandemic additionally affects women’s jobs and livelihoods, the report warns.

Related videos

Global ai summit tackles misinformation and deepfakes with a little ‘bot’ of help.

The thorny issue of how to protect the unwary from deepfakes was just one of the key issues in the spotlight at a UN conference on Artificial Intelligence (AI) held in Geneva this week, where a staggering 25,000 enthusiasts – and robots - from 145 countries added their voices to longstanding calls for checks and balances on the all-conquering tech.

Press Release | UN Conference on Small Island Developing States delivers new era of resilience amidst SIDS’ crippling debt crisis

The Fourth United Nations Conference on Small Island Developing States (SIDS4) wrapped up today in Antigua and Barbuda with unanimous support for a bold new 10-year plan of action that will deliver meaningful change for this group of vulnerable countries.

Global We the Women survey reveals women’s resolve to champion rights and representation in government

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• 06 September 2023

Gender equality: the route to a better world

You have full access to this article via your institution.

The Mosuo people of China include sub-communities in which inheritance passes down either the male or the female line. Credit: TPG/Getty

The fight for global gender equality is nowhere close to being won. Take education: in 87 countries, less than half of women and girls complete secondary schooling, according to 2023 data. Afghanistan’s Taliban continues to ban women and girls from secondary schools and universities . Or take reproductive health: abortion rights have been curtailed in 22 US states since the Supreme Court struck down federal protections, depriving women and girls of autonomy and restricting access to sexual and reproductive health care .

SDG 5, whose stated aim is to “achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls”, is the fifth of the 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, all of which Nature is examining in a series of editorials. SDG 5 includes targets for ending discrimination and violence against women and girls in both public and private spheres, eradicating child marriage and female genital mutilation, ensuring sexual and reproductive rights, achieving equal representation of women in leadership positions and granting equal rights to economic resources. Globally, the goal is not on track to being achieved, and just a handful of countries have hit all the targets.

How the world should oppose the Taliban’s war on women and girls

In July, the UN introduced two new indices (see go.nature.com/3eus9ue ), the Women’s Empowerment Index (WEI) and the Global Gender Parity Index (GGPI). The WEI measures women’s ability and freedoms to make their own choices; the GGPI describes the gap between women and men in areas such as health, education, inclusion and decision making. The indices reveal, depressingly, that even achieving a small gender gap does not automatically translate to high levels of women’s empowerment: 114 countries feature in both indices, but countries that do well on both scores cover fewer than 1% of all girls and women.

The COVID-19 pandemic has made things worse, with women bearing the highest burden of extra unpaid childcare when schools needed to close, and subjected to intensified domestic violence. Although child marriages declined from 21% of all marriages in 2016 to 19% in 2022, the pandemic threatened even this incremental progress, pushing up to 10 million more girls into risk of child marriage over the next decade, in addition to the 100 million girls who were at risk before the pandemic.

Of the 14 indicators for SDG 5, only one or two are close to being met by the 2030 deadline. As of 1 January 2023, women occupied 35.4% of seats in local-government assemblies, an increase from 33.9% in 2020 (the target is gender parity by 2030). In 115 countries for which data were available, around three-quarters, on average, of the necessary laws guaranteeing full and equal access to sexual and reproductive health and rights had been enacted. But the UN estimates that worldwide, only 57% of women who are married or in a union make their own decisions regarding sexual and reproductive health and rights.

Systemic discrimination against girls and women by men, in many contexts, remains a colossal barrier to achieving gender equality. But patriarchy is not some “natural order of things” , argues Ruth Mace, an anthropologist at University College London. Hundreds of women-centred societies exist around the world. As the science writer Angela Saini describes in her latest book, The Patriarchs , these are often not the polar opposite of male-dominated systems, but societies in which men and women share decision making .

After Roe v. Wade: dwindling US abortion access is harming health a year later

One example comes from the Mosuo people in China, who have both ‘matrilineal’ and ‘patrilineal’ communities, with rights such as inheritance passing down either the male or female line. Researchers compared outcomes for inflammation and hypertension in men and women in these communities, and found that women in matrilineal societies, in which they have greater autonomy and control over resources, experienced better health outcomes. The researchers found no significant negative effect of matriliny on health outcomes for men ( A.  Z. Reynolds et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117 , 30324–30327; 2020 ).

When it comes to the SDGs, evidence is emerging that a more gender-equal approach to politics and power benefits many goals. In a study published in May, Nobue Amanuma, deputy director of the Integrated Sustainability Centre at the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies in Hayama, Japan, and two of her colleagues tested whether countries with more women legislators, and more younger legislators, are performing better in the SDGs ( N. Amanuma et al. Environ. Res. Lett. 18 , 054018; 2023 ). They found it was so, with the effect more marked for socio-economic goals such as ending poverty and hunger, than for environmental ones such as climate action or preserving life on land. The researchers recommend further qualitative and quantitative studies to better understand the reasons.

The reality that gender equality leads to better outcomes across other SDGs is not factored, however, into most of the goals themselves. Of the 230 unique indicators of the SDGs, 51 explicitly reference women, girls, gender or sex, including the 14 indicators in SDG 5. But there is not enough collaboration between organizations responsible for the different SDGs to ensure that sex and gender are taken into account. The indicator for the sanitation target (SDG 6) does not include data disaggregated by sex or gender ( Nature 620 , 7; 2023 ). Unless we have this knowledge, it will be hard to track improvements in this and other SDGs.

The road to a gender-equal world is long, and women’s power and freedom to make choices is still very constrained. But the evidence from science is getting stronger: distributing power between genders creates the kind of world we all need and want to be living in.

Nature 621 , 8 (2023)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-02745-9

Reprints and permissions

Related Articles

• Sustainability
• Public health

Chance of heatwaves in India rising with climate change

News Explainer 29 MAY 24

Nature’s message to South Africa’s next government: talk to your researchers

Editorial 29 MAY 24

Adopt stricter regulation to stop ‘critical mineral’ greenwashing

Correspondence 28 MAY 24

A myopia epidemic is sweeping the globe. Here’s how to stop it

News Feature 29 MAY 24

Ozempic keeps wowing: trial data show benefits for kidney disease

News 24 MAY 24

Who owns your voice? Scarlett Johansson OpenAI complaint raises questions

Why babies in South Korea are suing the government

News 20 MAY 24

US TikTok ban: how the looming restriction is affecting scientists on the app

News 09 MAY 24

Nanjing Forestry University is globally seeking Metasequoia Scholars and Metasequoia Talents

Located next to Purple Mountain and Xuanwu Lake, Nanjing Forestry University (NJFU) is a key provincial university jointly built by Jiangsu Province

Nanjing, Jiangsu, China

Nanjing Forestry University (NFU)

Career Opportunities at the Yazhouwan National Laboratory, Hainan, China

YNL recruits leading scientists in agriculture: crop/animal genetics, biotech, photosynthesis, disease resistance, data analysis, and more.

Sanya, Hainan, China

Yazhouwan National Laboratory

Associate Editor, High-energy physics

As an Associate Editor, you will independently handle all phases of the peer review process and help decide what will be published.

Homeworking

American Physical Society

Postdoctoral Fellowships: Immuno-Oncology

We currently have multiple postdoctoral fellowship positions available within our multidisciplinary research teams based In Hong Kong.

Hong Kong (HK)

Centre for Oncology and Immunology

Chief Editor

Job Title:  Chief Editor Organisation: Nature Ecology & Evolution Location: New York, Berlin or Heidelberg - Hybrid working Closing date: June 23rd...

New York City, New York (US)

Springer Nature Ltd

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Closing the equity gap

Jeni Klugman

Caren Grown and Odera Onyechi

Why addressing gender inequality is central to tackling today’s polycrises

Nonresident Senior Fellow, Africa Growth Initiative, Global Economy and Development, Brookings Institution

As we enter 2023, the term “ polycrisis ” is an increasingly apt way to describe today’s challenges. 1 Major wars, high inflation, and climate events are creating hardship all around the world, which is still grappling with a pandemic death toll approaching 7 million people.

Faced with such daunting challenges, one might well ask why we should be thinking about the gender dimensions of recovery and resilience for future shocks. The answer is simple: We can no longer afford to think in silos. Today’s interlocking challenges demand that sharp inequalities, including gender disparities, must be addressed as part and parcel of efforts to tackle Africa’s pressing issues and ensure the continent’s future success.

“We can no longer afford to think in silos. … Gender disparities, must be addressed as part and parcel of efforts to tackle Africa’s pressing issues and ensure the continent’s future success.”

The burdens of the pandemic have been unequally borne across regions and countries, and between the poor and better off. Inequalities exist around gender—which can be defined as the “socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, attributes and opportunities that any society considers appropriate for men and women, boys and girls” and people with non-binary identities. 2 As Raewyn Connell laid out more than two decades ago, existing systems typically distribute greater power, resources, and status to men and behaviors considered masculine . 3 As a result, gender intersects with other sources of disadvantage, most notably income, age, race, and ethnicity.

This understanding is now mainstream. As recently observed by the IMF, “The gender inequalities exposed by the COVID-19 pandemic follow different paths but almost always end up the same: Women have suffered disproportionate economic harm from the crisis.” 4 Among the important nuances revealed by micro-surveys is that rural women working informally continued to work through the pandemic , but with sharply reduced earnings in Nigeria and elsewhere. 5 And as the burden of child care and home schooling soared, rural households headed by women were far less likely than urban households to have children engaged in learning activities during school closures.

Important insights emerge from IFPRI’s longitudinal panel study (which included Ghana, Kenya, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, and Uganda) covering income loss, coping strategies, labor and time use, food and water insecurity, and child education outcomes. 6

Among the especially adverse impacts for women were greater food and water insecurity compared to men, including worrying about insufficient food and eating less than usual, while a large proportion of women also did not have adequately diverse diets. Moreover, many women had to add hours to their workday caring for sick family members, and their economic opportunities shrank, cutting their earnings and widening gender income gaps.

While today’s problems seem daunting, there remain huge causes for optimism, especially in Africa. Over the past three decades, many African countries have achieved enormous gains in levels of education, health, and poverty reduction. Indeed, the pace of change has been staggering and commendable. As captured in the Women Peace and Security Index , which measures performance in inclusion, justice, and security, 6 of the top 10 score improvers during the period 2017-2021 were in sub-Saharan Africa. [GIWPS.2022. “Women Peace and Security Index” Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security.] The Democratic Republic of Congo was among top score improvers since 2017, as the share of women with financial accounts almost tripled, to 24 percent; and increases exceeding 5 percentage points were registered in cell phone use and parliamentary representation. In the Central African Republic, improvements were experienced in the security dimension, where organized violence fell significantly, and women’s perceptions of community safety rose 6 percentage points up to 49 percent.

Looking ahead, efforts to mitigate gender inequalities must clearly be multi-pronged, and as highlighted above—we need to think outside silos. That said, two major policy fronts emerge to the fore.

Ensure cash transfers that protect against poverty , are built and designed to promote women’s opportunities, with a focus on digital payments. 7 Ways to address gender inequalities as part of social protection program responses 8 include deliberate efforts to overcome gender gaps in cell phone access by distributing phones to those women who need them, as well as private sector partnerships to subsidize airtime for the poorest, and to make key information services and apps freely available . 9 Programs could also make women the default recipient of cash transfer schemes, instead of the head of household. Furthermore, capacity-building initiatives can be built into program design to give women the skills and capabilities needed to successfully manage accounts and financial decisionmaking. 10

Reducing the risk of violence against women. Women who are not safe at home are denied the freedom from violence needed to pursue opportunities that should be afforded to all. In 2018, 10 of the 15 countries with the worst rates of intimate partner violence were in sub-Saharan Africa—in descending order of average intimate partner violence these were, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Madagascar, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Zambia, Ethiopia, Liberia, South Sudan, Djibouti, and Uganda.

“As the burden of child care and home schooling soared, rural households headed by women were far less likely than urban households to have children engaged in learning activities.”

Conflicts and crises multiply women’s risk of physical, emotional, and sexual violence . During the pandemic, risk factors like economic stress were compounded by service closures and stay-at-home orders, which increased exposure to potential perpetrators. 11 Several governments responded by strengthening existing help services , including police and justice, supporting hotlines, ensuring the provision of psychological support, and health sector responses. 12 Examples of good practice included an NGO in North-Eastern Nigeria, which equipped existing safe spaces with phone booths to enable survivors to contact caseworkers.

However, given the high levels of prevalence and often low levels of reporting, prevention of gender-based violence is key. Targeted programs with promising results in prevention include community dialogues and efforts to change harmful norms, safe spaces, as well as possibilities to reduce the risk of violence through cash plus social protection programs. These efforts should be accompanied by more systematic monitoring and evaluation to build evidence about what works in diverse settings.

Finally, but certainly not least, women should have space and voices in decisionmaking. This case was powerfully put by former President Sirleaf Johnson in her 2021 Foresight essay, which underlined that “ economic, political, institutional, and social barriers persist throughout the continent, limiting women’s abilities to reach high-level leadership positions .” 13 Persistent gender gaps in power and decision-making, not only limits innovative thinking and solutions, but also the consideration of more basic measures to avoid the worsening of gender inequalities. Overcoming these gaps in power and decision-making requires safeguarding legal protections and rights, investing in women and girls financially, and opening space for women in political parties so that women have the platforms to access high-level appointed and competitive positions across national, regional, and international institutions. 14

Strengthening fiscal policy for gender equality

Senior Fellow, Center for Sustainable Development, Global Economy and Development, Brookings Institution

Research Analyst, Center for Sustainable Development, Global Economy and Development, Brookings Institution

It is often said that women act as “shock absorbers” during times of crisis; this is even more so in the current context of climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, and increased geopolitical conflict. These three global crises have simultaneously stretched women’s ability to earn income and intensified their unpaid work. Well-designed fiscal policy can help cushion the effects of these shocks and enable women and their households to recover more quickly.

Over 60 percent of employed women in Africa work in agriculture, including in small-scale food production; women are the primary sellers in food markets, and they work in other sectors such as informal trading. At the same time, women are an increasing share of entrepreneurs in countries such as Ghana and Uganda, even as they face financial and other constraints to start and grow their firms. [Africa Gender Innovation Lab (GIL). 2020. “Supporting Women Throughout the Coronavirus Emergency Response and Economic Recovery.” World Bank Group. ] In addition to earning income for their households, women bear the major responsibility for unpaid domestic activities such as cooking; collecting water and fuelwood; caring for children, elderly, and other dependents—so women are more time-poor than are men.

African women and entrepreneurs have been impacted disproportionately more than men by the triple shocks mentioned earlier. Extreme weather events disrupt food production and agricultural employment, making it harder for women to earn income . 15 16 17 The pandemic and conflict in Ukraine further intensified women’s paid and unpaid activities . 18 19 Beyond climate change and the war in Ukraine, localized conflicts and insecurity in East and West Africa exposes women and girls to gender-based violence and other risks as they seek to support their families and develop new coping strategies. 20 21 22

“Responding to these shocks necessitates a large infusion of resources. In this context, fiscal policy can be deployed more smartly to advance gender equality and create an enabling environment for women to play a greater role in building their economies’ recovery and resilience.”

Responding to these shocks necessitates a large infusion of resources. In this context, fiscal policy can be deployed more smartly to advance gender equality and create an enabling environment for women to play a greater role in building their economies’ recovery and resilience. Public expenditure supports critical sectors such as education, health, agriculture, social protection, and physical and social infrastructure, while well-designed tax policy is essential to fund the public goods, services, and infrastructure on which both women and men rely.

Gender-responsive budgets, which exist in over 30 countries across the continent, can be strengthened. Rwanda provides a good model for other countries. After an early unsuccessful attempt, Rwanda invested seriously in gender budgeting beginning in 2011. 23 24 The budget is focused on closing gaps and strengthening women’s roles in key sectors—agriculture, education, health, and infrastructure—which are all critical for short- and medium-term economic growth and productivity. The process has been sustained by strong political will among parliamentarians. Led by the Ministry of Finance, the process has financed and been complemented by important institutional and policy reforms. A constitutional regulatory body monitors results, with additional accountability by civil society organizations.

However, raising adequate fiscal revenue to support a gender budget is a challenge in the current macro environment of high public debt levels, increased borrowing costs, and low levels of public savings. Yet, observers note there is scope to increase revenues through taxation reforms, debt relief, cutting wasteful public expenditure, and other means. 25 26 We focus here on taxation.

Many countries are reforming their tax systems to strengthen revenue collection. Overall tax collection is currently low; the average tax-to-GDP ratio in Africa in 2020 was 14.8 percent and fell sharply during the pandemic, although it may be rebounding. 27 Very few Africans pay personal income tax or other central government taxes, 28 29 and statutory corporate tax rates (which range from 25-35 percent), are higher than even the recent OECD proposal for a global minimum tax 30 so scope for raising them further is limited. Efforts should be made to close loopholes and reduce tax evasion.

As countries reform their tax policies, they should be intentional about avoiding implicit and explicit gender biases. 31 32 33 34 Most African countries rely more on indirect taxes than direct taxes, given the structure of their economies, but indirect taxes can be regressive as their incidence falls primarily on the poor. Presumptive or turnover taxes, for example, which are uniform or fixed amounts of tax based on the “presumed” incomes of different occupations such as hairdressers, can hit women particularly hard, since the burden often falls heavily on sectors where women predominate. 35 36

Property taxes are also becoming an increasingly popular way to raise revenue for local governments. The impact of these efforts on male and female property owners has not been systematically evaluated, but a recent study of land use fees and agricultural income taxes in Ethiopia finds that female-headed and female adult-only households bear a larger tax burden than male-headed and dual-adult households of property taxes. This is likely a result of unequal land ownership patterns, gender norms restricting women’s engagement in agriculture, and the gender gap in agricultural productivity. 37

“Indirect taxes can be regressive as their incidence falls primarily on the poor. Presumptive or turnover taxes … can hit women particularly hard, since the burden often falls heavily on sectors where women predominate.”

Going forward, two key ingredients for gender budgeting on the continent need to be strengthened. The first is having sufficient, regularly collected, sex-disaggregated administrative data related to households, the labor force, and other survey data. Investment in the robust technical capacity for ministries and academia to be able to access, analyze, and use it is also necessary. For instance, the World Bank, UN Women, and the Economic Commission for Africa are all working with National Statistical Offices across the continent to strengthen statistical capacity in the areas of asset ownership and control, work and employment, and entrepreneurship which can be used in a gender budget.

The second ingredient is stronger diagnostic tools. One promising new tool, pioneered by Tulane University, is the Commitment to Equity methodology, designed to assess the impact of taxes and transfers on income inequality and poverty within countries. 38 It was recently extended to examine the impact of government transfers and taxes on women and men by income level and other dimensions. The methodology requires standard household-level data but for maximum effect should be supplemented with time use data, which are becoming more common in several African countries. As African countries seek to expand revenue from direct taxes, lessons from higher income economies are instructive. Although there is no one size fits all approach, key principles to keep in mind for designing personal income taxes include building in strong progressivity, taxing individuals as opposed to families, ensuring that the allocation of shared income (e.g., property or non-labor income) does not penalize women, and building in allowances for care of children and dependents. 39 As noted, corporate income taxes need to eliminate the many breaks, loopholes, and exemptions that currently exist, 40 and countries might consider experimenting with wealth taxes.

In terms of indirect taxes, most African countries do not have single-rate VAT systems and already have zero or reduced rates for basic necessities, including foodstuffs and other necessities. While it is important to minimize exempted sectors and products, estimates show that goods essential for women’s and children’s health (e.g., menstrual health products, diapers, cooking fuel) should be considered part of the basket of basic goods that have reduced or zero rates. 41 And while African governments are being advised to bring informal workers and entrepreneurs into the formal tax system, 42 it should be noted that this massive sector earns well below income tax thresholds and already pays multiple informal fees and levies, for instance in fees to market associations. 43 44

Lastly, leveraging data and digital technologies to improve tax administration (i.e., taxpayer registration, e-filing, and e-payment of taxes) may help minimize costs and processing time, and reduce the incidence of corruption and evasion.32 Digitalization can also be important for bringing more female taxpayers into the net, especially if digital systems are interoperable; for instance, digital taxpayer registries linked to national identification or to property registration at the local level. However, digitalization can be a double-edged sword if privacy and security concerns are not built-in from the outset. Women particularly may need targeted digital financial literacy and other measures to ensure their trust in the system. Recent shocks have worsened gender inequality in Africa. It is therefore important now, more than ever, to invest in strengthening fiscal systems to help women and men recover, withstand future shocks, and reduce gender inequalities. While fiscal policy is not the only tool, it is an important part of government action. To be effective and improve both budgeting and revenue collection, more and better data, new diagnostic tools, and digitalization will all be necessary.

• 1. Martin Wolf. 2022.“How to think about policy in a policy crisis”. Financial Times.
• 2. WTO. 2022. “Gender and Health”. World Health Organization.
• 3. Connell RW. 1995. “Masculinities”. Cambridge, UK. Polity Press.
• 4. Aoyagi, Chie.2021.“Africa’s Unequal Pandemic”. Finance and Development. International Monetary Fund.
• 5. WB.2022. “LSMS-Supported High-Frequency Phone Surveys”. World Bank.
• 6. Muzna Alvi, Shweta Gupta, Prapti Barooah, Claudia Ringler, Elizabeth Bryan and Ruth Meinzen-Dick.2022.“Gendered Impacts of COVID-19: Insights from 7 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia”. International Food Policy Research Institute.
• 7. Klugman, Jeni, Zimmerman, Jamie M., Maria A. May, and Elizabeth Kellison. 2020. “Digital Cash Transfers in the Time of COVID 19: Opportunities and Considerations for Women’s Inclusion and Empowerment”. World Bank Group.
• 8. IFPRI.2020. “Why gender-sensitive social protection is critical to the COVID-19 response in low-and middle-income countries”. International Food Policy Research Institute.
• 9. IDFR.2020. “Kenya: Mobile-money as a public-health tool”. International Day of Family Remittances.
• 10. Jaclyn Berfond Franz Gómez S. Juan Navarrete Ryan Newton Ana Pantelic. 2019. “Capacity Building for Government-to-Person Payments A Path to Women’s Economic Empowerment”. Women’s World Banking.
• 11. Peterman, A. et al.2020. “Pandemics and Violence Against Women and Children”.Center for Global Development Working Paper.
• 12. UNDP/ UN Women Tracker.2022. “United Nations Development Programme. COVID-19 Global Gender Response Tracker”. United Nations Development Programme. New York.
• 13. McKinsey Global Institute .2019. “The power of parity: Advancing women’s equality in Africa”.
• 14. Foresight Africa. 2022. “African Women and Girls: Leading a continent.” The Brookings Institution.
• 15. One recent study in West, Central Africa, East and Southern Africa found that women represented a larger share of agricultural employment in areas affected by heat waves and droughts, and a lower share in areas unaffected by extreme weather events. Nico, G. et al. 2022. “How Weather Variability and Extreme Shocks Affect Women’s Participation in African Agriculture.” Gender, Climate Change, and Nutrition Integration Initiative Policy Note 14.
• 16. Carleton, E. 2022. “Climate Change in Africa: What Will It Mean for Agriculture and Food Security?” International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI).
• 17. Nebie, E.K. et al. 2021. “Food Security and Climate Shocks in Senegal: Who and Where Are the Most Vulnerable Households?” Global Food Security, 29.
• 18. Sen, A.K. 2022. “Russia’s War in Ukraine Is Taking a Toll on Africa.” United States Institute of Peace.
• 19. Thomas, A. 2020. “Power Structures over Gender Make Women More Vulnerable to Climate Change.” Climate Change News.
• 21. Kalbarczyk, A. et al. 2022. “COVID-19, Nutrition, and Gender: An Evidence-Informed Approach to Gender Responsive Policies and Programs.” Social Science & Medicine, 312.
• 22. Epstein, A. 2020. “Drought and Intimate Partner Violence Towards Women in 19 Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa During 2011-2018: A Population-Based Study.” PLoS Med, 17(3).
• 23. Stotsky, J. et al. 2016. “Sub-Saharan Africa: A Survey of Gender Budgeting Efforts. IMF Working Paper 2016/512.
• 24. Kadama, C. et al. 2018. Sub-Saharan Africa.” In Kolovich, L. (Ed.), Fiscal Policies and Gender Equality (pp. 9-32). International Monetary Fund (IMF).
• 25. Ortiz, I. and Cummins, M. 2021. “Abandoning Austerity: Fiscal Policies for Inclusive Development.” In Gallagher, K. and Gao, H. (Eds.), Building Back a Better Global Financial Safety Net (pp. 11-22). Global Development Policy Center.
• 26. Roy, R. et al. 2006. “Fiscal Space for Public Investment: Towards a Human Development Approach.”
• 27. ATAF, 2021.
• 28. Moore, M. et al. 2018. “Taxing Africa: Coercion, Reform and Development. Bloomsbury Publishing.
• 29. Rogan, M. 2019. Tax Justice and the Informal Economy: A Review of the Debates.” Women in Informal Employment: Globalizing and Organizing Working Paper 14.
• 30. African Tax Administrative Forum (ATAF). 2021. African Tax Outlook 2021.
• 31. Stotsky, J. et al. 2016. “Sub-Saharan Africa: A Survey of Gender Budgeting Efforts.” IMF Working Paper 2016/512.
• 32. Coelho, M. et al. 2022. “Gendered Taxes: The Interaction of Tax Policy with Gender Equality.” IMF Working Paper 2022/26.
• 33. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2021. Gender and Capital Budgeting.
• 34. Grown, C. and Valodia, I. 2010. Taxation and Gender Equity: A Comparative Analysis of Direct and Indirect Taxes in Developing and Developed Countries. Routledge.
• 35. Joshi, Anuradha et al. 2020. “Gender and Tax Policies in the Global South.” International Centre for Tax and Development.
• 36. Komatsu, H. et al. 2021. “Gender and Tax Incidence of Rural Land Use Fee and Agricultural In¬come Tax in Ethiopia.” Policy Research Working Papers.
• 38. Lustig, N. 2018. “Commitment to Equity Handbook: Estimating the Impact of Fiscal Policy on Inequality and Poverty.” Brookings Institution Press.
• 39. Grown, C. and Valodia, I. 2010. “Taxation and Gender Equity: A Comparative Analysis of Direct and Indirect Taxes in Developing and Developed Countries.” Routledge.
• 40. Cesar, C. et al. 2022. “Africa’s Pulse: An Analysis of Issues Shaping Africa’s Economic Future.” World Bank.
• 41. Woolard, I. 2018. Recommendations on Zero Ratings in the Value-Added Tax System. Independent Panel of Experts for the Review of Zero Rating in South Africa.
• 42. It is important to distinguish between firms and individuals that are large enough to pay taxes but do not (which include icebergs, e.g., which are registered and therefore partially visible to tax authorities but do not pay their full obligations) and ghosts, e.g., those which should register to pay but do not and there invisible to tax authorities) and firms and individuals that are small and potentially but not necessarily taxable such as street vendors and waste pickers. Rogan, M. (2019). “Tax Justice and the Informal Economy: A Review of the Debates.” Women in Informal Employment: Globalizing and Organizing Working Paper 14.
• 44. Ligomeka, W. 2019. “Expensive to be a Female Trader: The Reality of Taxation of Flea Market Trad¬ers in Zimbabwe.” International Center for Tax and Development Working Paper 93.

By Mavis Owusu-Gyamfi

Mavis Owusu-Gyamfi explores the role of gender equality in Africa’s economic development.

By Cina Lawson

Cina Lawson describes Togolese initiatives to expand the reach of social protection.

By Malado Kaba

Malado Kaba identifies four priorities for governments to transform the informal sector and economic prospects for African women.

By J. Jarpa Duwuni

J. Jarpa Dawuni identifies priority areas to expand access to justice for women and girls in Africa.

Next Chapter

06 | Climate Change Adapting to a new normal

Foresight Africa: Top Priorities for the Continent in 2023

On January 30, AGI hosted a Foresight Africa launch featuring a high-level panel of leading Africa experts to offer insights on regional trends along with recommendations for national governments, regional organizations, multilateral institutions, the private sector, and civil society actors as they forge ahead in 2022.

Africa in Focus

What should be the top priority for Africa in 2023?

BY ALOYSIUS UCHE ORDU

Aloysius Uche Ordu introduces Foresight Africa 2023, which outlines top priorities for the year ahead and offers recommendations for supporting Africa at a time of heightened global turbulence.

Foresight Africa Podcast

The Foresight Africa podcast celebrates Africa’s dynamism and explores strategies for broadening the benefits of growth to all people of Africa.

• Media Relations
• Terms and Conditions
• Privacy Policy

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Twenty years of gender equality research: A scoping review based on a new semantic indicator

Contributed equally to this work with: Paola Belingheri, Filippo Chiarello, Andrea Fronzetti Colladon, Paola Rovelli

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Dipartimento di Ingegneria dell’Energia, dei Sistemi, del Territorio e delle Costruzioni, Università degli Studi di Pisa, Largo L. Lazzarino, Pisa, Italy

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Software, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliations Department of Engineering, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy, Department of Management, Kozminski University, Warsaw, Poland

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Faculty of Economics and Management, Centre for Family Business Management, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Bozen-Bolzano, Italy

• Paola Belingheri, 
• Filippo Chiarello, 
• Andrea Fronzetti Colladon, 
• Paola Rovelli

• Published: September 21, 2021
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256474
• Reader Comments

9 Nov 2021: The PLOS ONE Staff (2021) Correction: Twenty years of gender equality research: A scoping review based on a new semantic indicator. PLOS ONE 16(11): e0259930. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259930 View correction

Gender equality is a major problem that places women at a disadvantage thereby stymieing economic growth and societal advancement. In the last two decades, extensive research has been conducted on gender related issues, studying both their antecedents and consequences. However, existing literature reviews fail to provide a comprehensive and clear picture of what has been studied so far, which could guide scholars in their future research. Our paper offers a scoping review of a large portion of the research that has been published over the last 22 years, on gender equality and related issues, with a specific focus on business and economics studies. Combining innovative methods drawn from both network analysis and text mining, we provide a synthesis of 15,465 scientific articles. We identify 27 main research topics, we measure their relevance from a semantic point of view and the relationships among them, highlighting the importance of each topic in the overall gender discourse. We find that prominent research topics mostly relate to women in the workforce–e.g., concerning compensation, role, education, decision-making and career progression. However, some of them are losing momentum, and some other research trends–for example related to female entrepreneurship, leadership and participation in the board of directors–are on the rise. Besides introducing a novel methodology to review broad literature streams, our paper offers a map of the main gender-research trends and presents the most popular and the emerging themes, as well as their intersections, outlining important avenues for future research.

Citation: Belingheri P, Chiarello F, Fronzetti Colladon A, Rovelli P (2021) Twenty years of gender equality research: A scoping review based on a new semantic indicator. PLoS ONE 16(9): e0256474. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256474

Editor: Elisa Ughetto, Politecnico di Torino, ITALY

Received: June 25, 2021; Accepted: August 6, 2021; Published: September 21, 2021

Copyright: © 2021 Belingheri et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its supporting information files. The only exception is the text of the abstracts (over 15,000) that we have downloaded from Scopus. These abstracts can be retrieved from Scopus, but we do not have permission to redistribute them.

Funding: P.B and F.C.: Grant of the Department of Energy, Systems, Territory and Construction of the University of Pisa (DESTEC) for the project “Measuring Gender Bias with Semantic Analysis: The Development of an Assessment Tool and its Application in the European Space Industry. P.B., F.C., A.F.C., P.R.: Grant of the Italian Association of Management Engineering (AiIG), “Misure di sostegno ai soci giovani AiIG” 2020, for the project “Gender Equality Through Data Intelligence (GEDI)”. F.C.: EU project ASSETs+ Project (Alliance for Strategic Skills addressing Emerging Technologies in Defence) EAC/A03/2018 - Erasmus+ programme, Sector Skills Alliances, Lot 3: Sector Skills Alliance for implementing a new strategic approach (Blueprint) to sectoral cooperation on skills G.A. NUMBER: 612678-EPP-1-2019-1-IT-EPPKA2-SSA-B.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

The persistent gender inequalities that currently exist across the developed and developing world are receiving increasing attention from economists, policymakers, and the general public [e.g., 1 – 3 ]. Economic studies have indicated that women’s education and entry into the workforce contributes to social and economic well-being [e.g., 4 , 5 ], while their exclusion from the labor market and from managerial positions has an impact on overall labor productivity and income per capita [ 6 , 7 ]. The United Nations selected gender equality, with an emphasis on female education, as part of the Millennium Development Goals [ 8 ], and gender equality at-large as one of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to be achieved by 2030 [ 9 ]. These latter objectives involve not only developing nations, but rather all countries, to achieve economic, social and environmental well-being.

As is the case with many SDGs, gender equality is still far from being achieved and persists across education, access to opportunities, or presence in decision-making positions [ 7 , 10 , 11 ]. As we enter the last decade for the SDGs’ implementation, and while we are battling a global health pandemic, effective and efficient action becomes paramount to reach this ambitious goal.

Scholars have dedicated a massive effort towards understanding gender equality, its determinants, its consequences for women and society, and the appropriate actions and policies to advance women’s equality. Many topics have been covered, ranging from women’s education and human capital [ 12 , 13 ] and their role in society [e.g., 14 , 15 ], to their appointment in firms’ top ranked positions [e.g., 16 , 17 ] and performance implications [e.g., 18 , 19 ]. Despite some attempts, extant literature reviews provide a narrow view on these issues, restricted to specific topics–e.g., female students’ presence in STEM fields [ 20 ], educational gender inequality [ 5 ], the gender pay gap [ 21 ], the glass ceiling effect [ 22 ], leadership [ 23 ], entrepreneurship [ 24 ], women’s presence on the board of directors [ 25 , 26 ], diversity management [ 27 ], gender stereotypes in advertisement [ 28 ], or specific professions [ 29 ]. A comprehensive view on gender-related research, taking stock of key findings and under-studied topics is thus lacking.

Extant literature has also highlighted that gender issues, and their economic and social ramifications, are complex topics that involve a large number of possible antecedents and outcomes [ 7 ]. Indeed, gender equality actions are most effective when implemented in unison with other SDGs (e.g., with SDG 8, see [ 30 ]) in a synergetic perspective [ 10 ]. Many bodies of literature (e.g., business, economics, development studies, sociology and psychology) approach the problem of achieving gender equality from different perspectives–often addressing specific and narrow aspects. This sometimes leads to a lack of clarity about how different issues, circumstances, and solutions may be related in precipitating or mitigating gender inequality or its effects. As the number of papers grows at an increasing pace, this issue is exacerbated and there is a need to step back and survey the body of gender equality literature as a whole. There is also a need to examine synergies between different topics and approaches, as well as gaps in our understanding of how different problems and solutions work together. Considering the important topic of women’s economic and social empowerment, this paper aims to fill this gap by answering the following research question: what are the most relevant findings in the literature on gender equality and how do they relate to each other ?

To do so, we conduct a scoping review [ 31 ], providing a synthesis of 15,465 articles dealing with gender equity related issues published in the last twenty-two years, covering both the periods of the MDGs and the SDGs (i.e., 2000 to mid 2021) in all the journals indexed in the Academic Journal Guide’s 2018 ranking of business and economics journals. Given the huge amount of research conducted on the topic, we adopt an innovative methodology, which relies on social network analysis and text mining. These techniques are increasingly adopted when surveying large bodies of text. Recently, they were applied to perform analysis of online gender communication differences [ 32 ] and gender behaviors in online technology communities [ 33 ], to identify and classify sexual harassment instances in academia [ 34 ], and to evaluate the gender inclusivity of disaster management policies [ 35 ].

Applied to the title, abstracts and keywords of the articles in our sample, this methodology allows us to identify a set of 27 recurrent topics within which we automatically classify the papers. Introducing additional novelty, by means of the Semantic Brand Score (SBS) indicator [ 36 ] and the SBS BI app [ 37 ], we assess the importance of each topic in the overall gender equality discourse and its relationships with the other topics, as well as trends over time, with a more accurate description than that offered by traditional literature reviews relying solely on the number of papers presented in each topic.

This methodology, applied to gender equality research spanning the past twenty-two years, enables two key contributions. First, we extract the main message that each document is conveying and how this is connected to other themes in literature, providing a rich picture of the topics that are at the center of the discourse, as well as of the emerging topics. Second, by examining the semantic relationship between topics and how tightly their discourses are linked, we can identify the key relationships and connections between different topics. This semi-automatic methodology is also highly reproducible with minimum effort.

This literature review is organized as follows. In the next section, we present how we selected relevant papers and how we analyzed them through text mining and social network analysis. We then illustrate the importance of 27 selected research topics, measured by means of the SBS indicator. In the results section, we present an overview of the literature based on the SBS results–followed by an in-depth narrative analysis of the top 10 topics (i.e., those with the highest SBS) and their connections. Subsequently, we highlight a series of under-studied connections between the topics where there is potential for future research. Through this analysis, we build a map of the main gender-research trends in the last twenty-two years–presenting the most popular themes. We conclude by highlighting key areas on which research should focused in the future.

Our aim is to map a broad topic, gender equality research, that has been approached through a host of different angles and through different disciplines. Scoping reviews are the most appropriate as they provide the freedom to map different themes and identify literature gaps, thereby guiding the recommendation of new research agendas [ 38 ].

Several practical approaches have been proposed to identify and assess the underlying topics of a specific field using big data [ 39 – 41 ], but many of them fail without proper paper retrieval and text preprocessing. This is specifically true for a research field such as the gender-related one, which comprises the work of scholars from different backgrounds. In this section, we illustrate a novel approach for the analysis of scientific (gender-related) papers that relies on methods and tools of social network analysis and text mining. Our procedure has four main steps: (1) data collection, (2) text preprocessing, (3) keywords extraction and classification, and (4) evaluation of semantic importance and image.

Data collection

In this study, we analyze 22 years of literature on gender-related research. Following established practice for scoping reviews [ 42 ], our data collection consisted of two main steps, which we summarize here below.

Firstly, we retrieved from the Scopus database all the articles written in English that contained the term “gender” in their title, abstract or keywords and were published in a journal listed in the Academic Journal Guide 2018 ranking of the Chartered Association of Business Schools (CABS) ( https://charteredabs.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/AJG2018-Methodology.pdf ), considering the time period from Jan 2000 to May 2021. We used this information considering that abstracts, titles and keywords represent the most informative part of a paper, while using the full-text would increase the signal-to-noise ratio for information extraction. Indeed, these textual elements already demonstrated to be reliable sources of information for the task of domain lexicon extraction [ 43 , 44 ]. We chose Scopus as source of literature because of its popularity, its update rate, and because it offers an API to ease the querying process. Indeed, while it does not allow to retrieve the full text of scientific articles, the Scopus API offers access to titles, abstracts, citation information and metadata for all its indexed scholarly journals. Moreover, we decided to focus on the journals listed in the AJG 2018 ranking because we were interested in reviewing business and economics related gender studies only. The AJG is indeed widely used by universities and business schools as a reference point for journal and research rigor and quality. This first step, executed in June 2021, returned more than 55,000 papers.

In the second step–because a look at the papers showed very sparse results, many of which were not in line with the topic of this literature review (e.g., papers dealing with health care or medical issues, where the word gender indicates the gender of the patients)–we applied further inclusion criteria to make the sample more focused on the topic of this literature review (i.e., women’s gender equality issues). Specifically, we only retained those papers mentioning, in their title and/or abstract, both gender-related keywords (e.g., daughter, female, mother) and keywords referring to bias and equality issues (e.g., equality, bias, diversity, inclusion). After text pre-processing (see next section), keywords were first identified from a frequency-weighted list of words found in the titles, abstracts and keywords in the initial list of papers, extracted through text mining (following the same approach as [ 43 ]). They were selected by two of the co-authors independently, following respectively a bottom up and a top-down approach. The bottom-up approach consisted of examining the words found in the frequency-weighted list and classifying those related to gender and equality. The top-down approach consisted in searching in the word list for notable gender and equality-related words. Table 1 reports the sets of keywords we considered, together with some examples of words that were used to search for their presence in the dataset (a full list is provided in the S1 Text ). At end of this second step, we obtained a final sample of 15,465 relevant papers.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256474.t001

Text processing and keyword extraction

Text preprocessing aims at structuring text into a form that can be analyzed by statistical models. In the present section, we describe the preprocessing steps we applied to paper titles and abstracts, which, as explained below, partially follow a standard text preprocessing pipeline [ 45 ]. These activities have been performed using the R package udpipe [ 46 ].

The first step is n-gram extraction (i.e., a sequence of words from a given text sample) to identify which n-grams are important in the analysis, since domain-specific lexicons are often composed by bi-grams and tri-grams [ 47 ]. Multi-word extraction is usually implemented with statistics and linguistic rules, thus using the statistical properties of n-grams or machine learning approaches [ 48 ]. However, for the present paper, we used Scopus metadata in order to have a more effective and efficient n-grams collection approach [ 49 ]. We used the keywords of each paper in order to tag n-grams with their associated keywords automatically. Using this greedy approach, it was possible to collect all the keywords listed by the authors of the papers. From this list, we extracted only keywords composed by two, three and four words, we removed all the acronyms and rare keywords (i.e., appearing in less than 1% of papers), and we clustered keywords showing a high orthographic similarity–measured using a Levenshtein distance [ 50 ] lower than 2, considering these groups of keywords as representing same concepts, but expressed with different spelling. After tagging the n-grams in the abstracts, we followed a common data preparation pipeline that consists of the following steps: (i) tokenization, that splits the text into tokens (i.e., single words and previously tagged multi-words); (ii) removal of stop-words (i.e. those words that add little meaning to the text, usually being very common and short functional words–such as “and”, “or”, or “of”); (iii) parts-of-speech tagging, that is providing information concerning the morphological role of a word and its morphosyntactic context (e.g., if the token is a determiner, the next token is a noun or an adjective with very high confidence, [ 51 ]); and (iv) lemmatization, which consists in substituting each word with its dictionary form (or lemma). The output of the latter step allows grouping together the inflected forms of a word. For example, the verbs “am”, “are”, and “is” have the shared lemma “be”, or the nouns “cat” and “cats” both share the lemma “cat”. We preferred lemmatization over stemming [ 52 ] in order to obtain more interpretable results.

In addition, we identified a further set of keywords (with respect to those listed in the “keywords” field) by applying a series of automatic words unification and removal steps, as suggested in past research [ 53 , 54 ]. We removed: sparse terms (i.e., occurring in less than 0.1% of all documents), common terms (i.e., occurring in more than 10% of all documents) and retained only nouns and adjectives. It is relevant to notice that no document was lost due to these steps. We then used the TF-IDF function [ 55 ] to produce a new list of keywords. We additionally tested other approaches for the identification and clustering of keywords–such as TextRank [ 56 ] or Latent Dirichlet Allocation [ 57 ]–without obtaining more informative results.

Classification of research topics

To guide the literature analysis, two experts met regularly to examine the sample of collected papers and to identify the main topics and trends in gender research. Initially, they conducted brainstorming sessions on the topics they expected to find, due to their knowledge of the literature. This led to an initial list of topics. Subsequently, the experts worked independently, also supported by the keywords in paper titles and abstracts extracted with the procedure described above.

Considering all this information, each expert identified and clustered relevant keywords into topics. At the end of the process, the two assignments were compared and exhibited a 92% agreement. Another meeting was held to discuss discordant cases and reach a consensus. This resulted in a list of 27 topics, briefly introduced in Table 2 and subsequently detailed in the following sections.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256474.t002

Evaluation of semantic importance

Working on the lemmatized corpus of the 15,465 papers included in our sample, we proceeded with the evaluation of semantic importance trends for each topic and with the analysis of their connections and prevalent textual associations. To this aim, we used the Semantic Brand Score indicator [ 36 ], calculated through the SBS BI webapp [ 37 ] that also produced a brand image report for each topic. For this study we relied on the computing resources of the ENEA/CRESCO infrastructure [ 58 ].

The Semantic Brand Score (SBS) is a measure of semantic importance that combines methods of social network analysis and text mining. It is usually applied for the analysis of (big) textual data to evaluate the importance of one or more brands, names, words, or sets of keywords [ 36 ]. Indeed, the concept of “brand” is intended in a flexible way and goes beyond products or commercial brands. In this study, we evaluate the SBS time-trends of the keywords defining the research topics discussed in the previous section. Semantic importance comprises the three dimensions of topic prevalence, diversity and connectivity. Prevalence measures how frequently a research topic is used in the discourse. The more a topic is mentioned by scientific articles, the more the research community will be aware of it, with possible increase of future studies; this construct is partly related to that of brand awareness [ 59 ]. This effect is even stronger, considering that we are analyzing the title, abstract and keywords of the papers, i.e. the parts that have the highest visibility. A very important characteristic of the SBS is that it considers the relationships among words in a text. Topic importance is not just a matter of how frequently a topic is mentioned, but also of the associations a topic has in the text. Specifically, texts are transformed into networks of co-occurring words, and relationships are studied through social network analysis [ 60 ]. This step is necessary to calculate the other two dimensions of our semantic importance indicator. Accordingly, a social network of words is generated for each time period considered in the analysis–i.e., a graph made of n nodes (words) and E edges weighted by co-occurrence frequency, with W being the set of edge weights. The keywords representing each topic were clustered into single nodes.

The construct of diversity relates to that of brand image [ 59 ], in the sense that it considers the richness and distinctiveness of textual (topic) associations. Considering the above-mentioned networks, we calculated diversity using the distinctiveness centrality metric–as in the formula presented by Fronzetti Colladon and Naldi [ 61 ].

Lastly, connectivity was measured as the weighted betweenness centrality [ 62 , 63 ] of each research topic node. We used the formula presented by Wasserman and Faust [ 60 ]. The dimension of connectivity represents the “brokerage power” of each research topic–i.e., how much it can serve as a bridge to connect other terms (and ultimately topics) in the discourse [ 36 ].

The SBS is the final composite indicator obtained by summing the standardized scores of prevalence, diversity and connectivity. Standardization was carried out considering all the words in the corpus, for each specific timeframe.

This methodology, applied to a large and heterogeneous body of text, enables to automatically identify two important sets of information that add value to the literature review. Firstly, the relevance of each topic in literature is measured through a composite indicator of semantic importance, rather than simply looking at word frequencies. This provides a much richer picture of the topics that are at the center of the discourse, as well as of the topics that are emerging in the literature. Secondly, it enables to examine the extent of the semantic relationship between topics, looking at how tightly their discourses are linked. In a field such as gender equality, where many topics are closely linked to each other and present overlaps in issues and solutions, this methodology offers a novel perspective with respect to traditional literature reviews. In addition, it ensures reproducibility over time and the possibility to semi-automatically update the analysis, as new papers become available.

Overview of main topics

In terms of descriptive textual statistics, our corpus is made of 15,465 text documents, consisting of a total of 2,685,893 lemmatized tokens (words) and 32,279 types. As a result, the type-token ratio is 1.2%. The number of hapaxes is 12,141, with a hapax-token ratio of 37.61%.

Fig 1 shows the list of 27 topics by decreasing SBS. The most researched topic is compensation , exceeding all others in prevalence, diversity, and connectivity. This means it is not only mentioned more often than other topics, but it is also connected to a greater number of other topics and is central to the discourse on gender equality. The next four topics are, in order of SBS, role , education , decision-making , and career progression . These topics, except for education , all concern women in the workforce. Between these first five topics and the following ones there is a clear drop in SBS scores. In particular, the topics that follow have a lower connectivity than the first five. They are hiring , performance , behavior , organization , and human capital . Again, except for behavior and human capital , the other three topics are purely related to women in the workforce. After another drop-off, the following topics deal prevalently with women in society. This trend highlights that research on gender in business journals has so far mainly paid attention to the conditions that women experience in business contexts, while also devoting some attention to women in society.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256474.g001

Fig 2 shows the SBS time series of the top 10 topics. While there has been a general increase in the number of Scopus-indexed publications in the last decade, we notice that some SBS trends remain steady, or even decrease. In particular, we observe that the main topic of the last twenty-two years, compensation , is losing momentum. Since 2016, it has been surpassed by decision-making , education and role , which may indicate that literature is increasingly attempting to identify root causes of compensation inequalities. Moreover, in the last two years, the topics of hiring , performance , and organization are experiencing the largest importance increase.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256474.g002

Fig 3 shows the SBS time trends of the remaining 17 topics (i.e., those not in the top 10). As we can see from the graph, there are some that maintain a steady trend–such as reputation , management , networks and governance , which also seem to have little importance. More relevant topics with average stationary trends (except for the last two years) are culture , family , and parenting . The feminine topic is among the most important here, and one of those that exhibit the larger variations over time (similarly to leadership ). On the other hand, the are some topics that, even if not among the most important, show increasing SBS trends; therefore, they could be considered as emerging topics and could become popular in the near future. These are entrepreneurship , leadership , board of directors , and sustainability . These emerging topics are also interesting to anticipate future trends in gender equality research that are conducive to overall equality in society.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256474.g003

In addition to the SBS score of the different topics, the network of terms they are associated to enables to gauge the extent to which their images (textual associations) overlap or differ ( Fig 4 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256474.g004

There is a central cluster of topics with high similarity, which are all connected with women in the workforce. The cluster includes topics such as organization , decision-making , performance , hiring , human capital , education and compensation . In addition, the topic of well-being is found within this cluster, suggesting that women’s equality in the workforce is associated to well-being considerations. The emerging topics of entrepreneurship and leadership are also closely connected with each other, possibly implying that leadership is a much-researched quality in female entrepreneurship. Topics that are relatively more distant include personality , politics , feminine , empowerment , management , board of directors , reputation , governance , parenting , masculine and network .

The following sections describe the top 10 topics and their main associations in literature (see Table 3 ), while providing a brief overview of the emerging topics.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256474.t003

Compensation.

The topic of compensation is related to the topics of role , hiring , education and career progression , however, also sees a very high association with the words gap and inequality . Indeed, a well-known debate in degrowth economics centers around whether and how to adequately compensate women for their childbearing, childrearing, caregiver and household work [e.g., 30 ].

Even in paid work, women continue being offered lower compensations than their male counterparts who have the same job or cover the same role [ 64 – 67 ]. This severe inequality has been widely studied by scholars over the last twenty-two years. Dealing with this topic, some specific roles have been addressed. Specifically, research highlighted differences in compensation between female and male CEOs [e.g., 68 ], top executives [e.g., 69 ], and boards’ directors [e.g., 70 ]. Scholars investigated the determinants of these gaps, such as the gender composition of the board [e.g., 71 – 73 ] or women’s individual characteristics [e.g., 71 , 74 ].

Among these individual characteristics, education plays a relevant role [ 75 ]. Education is indeed presented as the solution for women, not only to achieve top executive roles, but also to reduce wage inequality [e.g., 76 , 77 ]. Past research has highlighted education influences on gender wage gaps, specifically referring to gender differences in skills [e.g., 78 ], college majors [e.g., 79 ], and college selectivity [e.g., 80 ].

Finally, the wage gap issue is strictly interrelated with hiring –e.g., looking at whether being a mother affects hiring and compensation [e.g., 65 , 81 ] or relating compensation to unemployment [e.g., 82 ]–and career progression –for instance looking at meritocracy [ 83 , 84 ] or the characteristics of the boss for whom women work [e.g., 85 ].

The roles covered by women have been deeply investigated. Scholars have focused on the role of women in their families and the society as a whole [e.g., 14 , 15 ], and, more widely, in business contexts [e.g., 18 , 81 ]. Indeed, despite still lagging behind their male counterparts [e.g., 86 , 87 ], in the last decade there has been an increase in top ranked positions achieved by women [e.g., 88 , 89 ]. Following this phenomenon, scholars have posed greater attention towards the presence of women in the board of directors [e.g., 16 , 18 , 90 , 91 ], given the increasing pressure to appoint female directors that firms, especially listed ones, have experienced. Other scholars have focused on the presence of women covering the role of CEO [e.g., 17 , 92 ] or being part of the top management team [e.g., 93 ]. Irrespectively of the level of analysis, all these studies tried to uncover the antecedents of women’s presence among top managers [e.g., 92 , 94 ] and the consequences of having a them involved in the firm’s decision-making –e.g., on performance [e.g., 19 , 95 , 96 ], risk [e.g., 97 , 98 ], and corporate social responsibility [e.g., 99 , 100 ].

Besides studying the difficulties and discriminations faced by women in getting a job [ 81 , 101 ], and, more specifically in the hiring , appointment, or career progression to these apical roles [e.g., 70 , 83 ], the majority of research of women’s roles dealt with compensation issues. Specifically, scholars highlight the pay-gap that still exists between women and men, both in general [e.g., 64 , 65 ], as well as referring to boards’ directors [e.g., 70 , 102 ], CEOs and executives [e.g., 69 , 103 , 104 ].

Finally, other scholars focused on the behavior of women when dealing with business. In this sense, particular attention has been paid to leadership and entrepreneurial behaviors. The former quite overlaps with dealing with the roles mentioned above, but also includes aspects such as leaders being stereotyped as masculine [e.g., 105 ], the need for greater exposure to female leaders to reduce biases [e.g., 106 ], or female leaders acting as queen bees [e.g., 107 ]. Regarding entrepreneurship , scholars mainly investigated women’s entrepreneurial entry [e.g., 108 , 109 ], differences between female and male entrepreneurs in the evaluations and funding received from investors [e.g., 110 , 111 ], and their performance gap [e.g., 112 , 113 ].

Education has long been recognized as key to social advancement and economic stability [ 114 ], for job progression and also a barrier to gender equality, especially in STEM-related fields. Research on education and gender equality is mostly linked with the topics of compensation , human capital , career progression , hiring , parenting and decision-making .

Education contributes to a higher human capital [ 115 ] and constitutes an investment on the part of women towards their future. In this context, literature points to the gender gap in educational attainment, and the consequences for women from a social, economic, personal and professional standpoint. Women are found to have less access to formal education and information, especially in emerging countries, which in turn may cause them to lose social and economic opportunities [e.g., 12 , 116 – 119 ]. Education in local and rural communities is also paramount to communicate the benefits of female empowerment , contributing to overall societal well-being [e.g., 120 ].

Once women access education, the image they have of the world and their place in society (i.e., habitus) affects their education performance [ 13 ] and is passed on to their children. These situations reinforce gender stereotypes, which become self-fulfilling prophecies that may negatively affect female students’ performance by lowering their confidence and heightening their anxiety [ 121 , 122 ]. Besides formal education, also the information that women are exposed to on a daily basis contributes to their human capital . Digital inequalities, for instance, stems from men spending more time online and acquiring higher digital skills than women [ 123 ].

Education is also a factor that should boost employability of candidates and thus hiring , career progression and compensation , however the relationship between these factors is not straightforward [ 115 ]. First, educational choices ( decision-making ) are influenced by variables such as self-efficacy and the presence of barriers, irrespectively of the career opportunities they offer, especially in STEM [ 124 ]. This brings additional difficulties to women’s enrollment and persistence in scientific and technical fields of study due to stereotypes and biases [ 125 , 126 ]. Moreover, access to education does not automatically translate into job opportunities for women and minority groups [ 127 , 128 ] or into female access to managerial positions [ 129 ].

Finally, parenting is reported as an antecedent of education [e.g., 130 ], with much of the literature focusing on the role of parents’ education on the opportunities afforded to children to enroll in education [ 131 – 134 ] and the role of parenting in their offspring’s perception of study fields and attitudes towards learning [ 135 – 138 ]. Parental education is also a predictor of the other related topics, namely human capital and compensation [ 139 ].

Decision-making.

This literature mainly points to the fact that women are thought to make decisions differently than men. Women have indeed different priorities, such as they care more about people’s well-being, working with people or helping others, rather than maximizing their personal (or their firm’s) gain [ 140 ]. In other words, women typically present more communal than agentic behaviors, which are instead more frequent among men [ 141 ]. These different attitude, behavior and preferences in turn affect the decisions they make [e.g., 142 ] and the decision-making of the firm in which they work [e.g., 143 ].

At the individual level, gender affects, for instance, career aspirations [e.g., 144 ] and choices [e.g., 142 , 145 ], or the decision of creating a venture [e.g., 108 , 109 , 146 ]. Moreover, in everyday life, women and men make different decisions regarding partners [e.g., 147 ], childcare [e.g., 148 ], education [e.g., 149 ], attention to the environment [e.g., 150 ] and politics [e.g., 151 ].

At the firm level, scholars highlighted, for example, how the presence of women in the board affects corporate decisions [e.g., 152 , 153 ], that female CEOs are more conservative in accounting decisions [e.g., 154 ], or that female CFOs tend to make more conservative decisions regarding the firm’s financial reporting [e.g., 155 ]. Nevertheless, firm level research also investigated decisions that, influenced by gender bias, affect women, such as those pertaining hiring [e.g., 156 , 157 ], compensation [e.g., 73 , 158 ], or the empowerment of women once appointed [ 159 ].

Career progression.

Once women have entered the workforce, the key aspect to achieve gender equality becomes career progression , including efforts toward overcoming the glass ceiling. Indeed, according to the SBS analysis, career progression is highly related to words such as work, social issues and equality. The topic with which it has the highest semantic overlap is role , followed by decision-making , hiring , education , compensation , leadership , human capital , and family .

Career progression implies an advancement in the hierarchical ladder of the firm, assigning managerial roles to women. Coherently, much of the literature has focused on identifying rationales for a greater female participation in the top management team and board of directors [e.g., 95 ] as well as the best criteria to ensure that the decision-makers promote the most valuable employees irrespectively of their individual characteristics, such as gender [e.g., 84 ]. The link between career progression , role and compensation is often provided in practice by performance appraisal exercises, frequently rooted in a culture of meritocracy that guides bonuses, salary increases and promotions. However, performance appraisals can actually mask gender-biased decisions where women are held to higher standards than their male colleagues [e.g., 83 , 84 , 95 , 160 , 161 ]. Women often have less opportunities to gain leadership experience and are less visible than their male colleagues, which constitute barriers to career advancement [e.g., 162 ]. Therefore, transparency and accountability, together with procedures that discourage discretionary choices, are paramount to achieve a fair career progression [e.g., 84 ], together with the relaxation of strict job boundaries in favor of cross-functional and self-directed tasks [e.g., 163 ].

In addition, a series of stereotypes about the type of leadership characteristics that are required for top management positions, which fit better with typical male and agentic attributes, are another key barrier to career advancement for women [e.g., 92 , 160 ].

Hiring is the entrance gateway for women into the workforce. Therefore, it is related to other workforce topics such as compensation , role , career progression , decision-making , human capital , performance , organization and education .

A first stream of literature focuses on the process leading up to candidates’ job applications, demonstrating that bias exists before positions are even opened, and it is perpetuated both by men and women through networking and gatekeeping practices [e.g., 164 , 165 ].

The hiring process itself is also subject to biases [ 166 ], for example gender-congruity bias that leads to men being preferred candidates in male-dominated sectors [e.g., 167 ], women being hired in positions with higher risk of failure [e.g., 168 ] and limited transparency and accountability afforded by written processes and procedures [e.g., 164 ] that all contribute to ascriptive inequality. In addition, providing incentives for evaluators to hire women may actually work to this end; however, this is not the case when supporting female candidates endangers higher-ranking male ones [ 169 ].

Another interesting perspective, instead, looks at top management teams’ composition and the effects on hiring practices, indicating that firms with more women in top management are less likely to lay off staff [e.g., 152 ].

Performance.

Several scholars posed their attention towards women’s performance, its consequences [e.g., 170 , 171 ] and the implications of having women in decision-making positions [e.g., 18 , 19 ].

At the individual level, research focused on differences in educational and academic performance between women and men, especially referring to the gender gap in STEM fields [e.g., 171 ]. The presence of stereotype threats–that is the expectation that the members of a social group (e.g., women) “must deal with the possibility of being judged or treated stereotypically, or of doing something that would confirm the stereotype” [ 172 ]–affects women’s interested in STEM [e.g., 173 ], as well as their cognitive ability tests, penalizing them [e.g., 174 ]. A stronger gender identification enhances this gap [e.g., 175 ], whereas mentoring and role models can be used as solutions to this problem [e.g., 121 ]. Despite the negative effect of stereotype threats on girls’ performance [ 176 ], female and male students perform equally in mathematics and related subjects [e.g., 177 ]. Moreover, while individuals’ performance at school and university generally affects their achievements and the field in which they end up working, evidence reveals that performance in math or other scientific subjects does not explain why fewer women enter STEM working fields; rather this gap depends on other aspects, such as culture, past working experiences, or self-efficacy [e.g., 170 ]. Finally, scholars have highlighted the penalization that women face for their positive performance, for instance when they succeed in traditionally male areas [e.g., 178 ]. This penalization is explained by the violation of gender-stereotypic prescriptions [e.g., 179 , 180 ], that is having women well performing in agentic areas, which are typical associated to men. Performance penalization can thus be overcome by clearly conveying communal characteristics and behaviors [ 178 ].

Evidence has been provided on how the involvement of women in boards of directors and decision-making positions affects firms’ performance. Nevertheless, results are mixed, with some studies showing positive effects on financial [ 19 , 181 , 182 ] and corporate social performance [ 99 , 182 , 183 ]. Other studies maintain a negative association [e.g., 18 ], and other again mixed [e.g., 184 ] or non-significant association [e.g., 185 ]. Also with respect to the presence of a female CEO, mixed results emerged so far, with some researches demonstrating a positive effect on firm’s performance [e.g., 96 , 186 ], while other obtaining only a limited evidence of this relationship [e.g., 103 ] or a negative one [e.g., 187 ].

Finally, some studies have investigated whether and how women’s performance affects their hiring [e.g., 101 ] and career progression [e.g., 83 , 160 ]. For instance, academic performance leads to different returns in hiring for women and men. Specifically, high-achieving men are called back significantly more often than high-achieving women, which are penalized when they have a major in mathematics; this result depends on employers’ gendered standards for applicants [e.g., 101 ]. Once appointed, performance ratings are more strongly related to promotions for women than men, and promoted women typically show higher past performance ratings than those of promoted men. This suggesting that women are subject to stricter standards for promotion [e.g., 160 ].

Behavioral aspects related to gender follow two main streams of literature. The first examines female personality and behavior in the workplace, and their alignment with cultural expectations or stereotypes [e.g., 188 ] as well as their impacts on equality. There is a common bias that depicts women as less agentic than males. Certain characteristics, such as those more congruent with male behaviors–e.g., self-promotion [e.g., 189 ], negotiation skills [e.g., 190 ] and general agentic behavior [e.g., 191 ]–, are less accepted in women. However, characteristics such as individualism in women have been found to promote greater gender equality in society [ 192 ]. In addition, behaviors such as display of emotions [e.g., 193 ], which are stereotypically female, work against women’s acceptance in the workplace, requiring women to carefully moderate their behavior to avoid exclusion. A counter-intuitive result is that women and minorities, which are more marginalized in the workplace, tend to be better problem-solvers in innovation competitions due to their different knowledge bases [ 194 ].

The other side of the coin is examined in a parallel literature stream on behavior towards women in the workplace. As a result of biases, prejudices and stereotypes, women may experience adverse behavior from their colleagues, such as incivility and harassment, which undermine their well-being [e.g., 195 , 196 ]. Biases that go beyond gender, such as for overweight people, are also more strongly applied to women [ 197 ].

Organization.

The role of women and gender bias in organizations has been studied from different perspectives, which mirror those presented in detail in the following sections. Specifically, most research highlighted the stereotypical view of leaders [e.g., 105 ] and the roles played by women within firms, for instance referring to presence in the board of directors [e.g., 18 , 90 , 91 ], appointment as CEOs [e.g., 16 ], or top executives [e.g., 93 ].

Scholars have investigated antecedents and consequences of the presence of women in these apical roles. On the one side they looked at hiring and career progression [e.g., 83 , 92 , 160 , 168 , 198 ], finding women typically disadvantaged with respect to their male counterparts. On the other side, they studied women’s leadership styles and influence on the firm’s decision-making [e.g., 152 , 154 , 155 , 199 ], with implications for performance [e.g., 18 , 19 , 96 ].

Human capital.

Human capital is a transverse topic that touches upon many different aspects of female gender equality. As such, it has the most associations with other topics, starting with education as mentioned above, with career-related topics such as role , decision-making , hiring , career progression , performance , compensation , leadership and organization . Another topic with which there is a close connection is behavior . In general, human capital is approached both from the education standpoint but also from the perspective of social capital.

The behavioral aspect in human capital comprises research related to gender differences for example in cultural and religious beliefs that influence women’s attitudes and perceptions towards STEM subjects [ 142 , 200 – 202 ], towards employment [ 203 ] or towards environmental issues [ 150 , 204 ]. These cultural differences also emerge in the context of globalization which may accelerate gender equality in the workforce [ 205 , 206 ]. Gender differences also appear in behaviors such as motivation [ 207 ], and in negotiation [ 190 ], and have repercussions on women’s decision-making related to their careers. The so-called gender equality paradox sees women in countries with lower gender equality more likely to pursue studies and careers in STEM fields, whereas the gap in STEM enrollment widens as countries achieve greater equality in society [ 171 ].

Career progression is modeled by literature as a choice-process where personal preferences, culture and decision-making affect the chosen path and the outcomes. Some literature highlights how women tend to self-select into different professions than men, often due to stereotypes rather than actual ability to perform in these professions [ 142 , 144 ]. These stereotypes also affect the perceptions of female performance or the amount of human capital required to equal male performance [ 110 , 193 , 208 ], particularly for mothers [ 81 ]. It is therefore often assumed that women are better suited to less visible and less leadership -oriented roles [ 209 ]. Women also express differing preferences towards work-family balance, which affect whether and how they pursue human capital gains [ 210 ], and ultimately their career progression and salary .

On the other hand, men are often unaware of gendered processes and behaviors that they carry forward in their interactions and decision-making [ 211 , 212 ]. Therefore, initiatives aimed at increasing managers’ human capital –by raising awareness of gender disparities in their organizations and engaging them in diversity promotion–are essential steps to counter gender bias and segregation [ 213 ].

Emerging topics: Leadership and entrepreneurship

Among the emerging topics, the most pervasive one is women reaching leadership positions in the workforce and in society. This is still a rare occurrence for two main types of factors, on the one hand, bias and discrimination make it harder for women to access leadership positions [e.g., 214 – 216 ], on the other hand, the competitive nature and high pressure associated with leadership positions, coupled with the lack of women currently represented, reduce women’s desire to achieve them [e.g., 209 , 217 ]. Women are more effective leaders when they have access to education, resources and a diverse environment with representation [e.g., 218 , 219 ].

One sector where there is potential for women to carve out a leadership role is entrepreneurship . Although at the start of the millennium the discourse on entrepreneurship was found to be “discriminatory, gender-biased, ethnocentrically determined and ideologically controlled” [ 220 ], an increasing body of literature is studying how to stimulate female entrepreneurship as an alternative pathway to wealth, leadership and empowerment [e.g., 221 ]. Many barriers exist for women to access entrepreneurship, including the institutional and legal environment, social and cultural factors, access to knowledge and resources, and individual behavior [e.g., 222 , 223 ]. Education has been found to raise women’s entrepreneurial intentions [e.g., 224 ], although this effect is smaller than for men [e.g., 109 ]. In addition, increasing self-efficacy and risk-taking behavior constitute important success factors [e.g., 225 ].

Finally, the topic of sustainability is worth mentioning, as it is the primary objective of the SDGs and is closely associated with societal well-being. As society grapples with the effects of climate change and increasing depletion of natural resources, a narrative has emerged on women and their greater link to the environment [ 226 ]. Studies in developed countries have found some support for women leaders’ attention to sustainability issues in firms [e.g., 227 – 229 ], and smaller resource consumption by women [ 230 ]. At the same time, women will likely be more affected by the consequences of climate change [e.g., 230 ] but often lack the decision-making power to influence local decision-making on resource management and environmental policies [e.g., 231 ].

Research gaps and conclusions

Research on gender equality has advanced rapidly in the past decades, with a steady increase in publications, both in mainstream topics related to women in education and the workforce, and in emerging topics. Through a novel approach combining methods of text mining and social network analysis, we examined a comprehensive body of literature comprising 15,465 papers published between 2000 and mid 2021 on topics related to gender equality. We identified a set of 27 topics addressed by the literature and examined their connections.

At the highest level of abstraction, it is worth noting that papers abound on the identification of issues related to gender inequalities and imbalances in the workforce and in society. Literature has thoroughly examined the (unconscious) biases, barriers, stereotypes, and discriminatory behaviors that women are facing as a result of their gender. Instead, there are much fewer papers that discuss or demonstrate effective solutions to overcome gender bias [e.g., 121 , 143 , 145 , 163 , 194 , 213 , 232 ]. This is partly due to the relative ease in studying the status quo, as opposed to studying changes in the status quo. However, we observed a shift in the more recent years towards solution seeking in this domain, which we strongly encourage future researchers to focus on. In the future, we may focus on collecting and mapping pro-active contributions to gender studies, using additional Natural Language Processing techniques, able to measure the sentiment of scientific papers [ 43 ].

All of the mainstream topics identified in our literature review are closely related, and there is a wealth of insights looking at the intersection between issues such as education and career progression or human capital and role . However, emerging topics are worthy of being furtherly explored. It would be interesting to see more work on the topic of female entrepreneurship , exploring aspects such as education , personality , governance , management and leadership . For instance, how can education support female entrepreneurship? How can self-efficacy and risk-taking behaviors be taught or enhanced? What are the differences in managerial and governance styles of female entrepreneurs? Which personality traits are associated with successful entrepreneurs? Which traits are preferred by venture capitalists and funding bodies?

The emerging topic of sustainability also deserves further attention, as our society struggles with climate change and its consequences. It would be interesting to see more research on the intersection between sustainability and entrepreneurship , looking at how female entrepreneurs are tackling sustainability issues, examining both their business models and their company governance . In addition, scholars are suggested to dig deeper into the relationship between family values and behaviors.

Moreover, it would be relevant to understand how women’s networks (social capital), or the composition and structure of social networks involving both women and men, enable them to increase their remuneration and reach top corporate positions, participate in key decision-making bodies, and have a voice in communities. Furthermore, the achievement of gender equality might significantly change firm networks and ecosystems, with important implications for their performance and survival.

Similarly, research at the nexus of (corporate) governance , career progression , compensation and female empowerment could yield useful insights–for example discussing how enterprises, institutions and countries are managed and the impact for women and other minorities. Are there specific governance structures that favor diversity and inclusion?

Lastly, we foresee an emerging stream of research pertaining how the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic challenged women, especially in the workforce, by making gender biases more evident.

For our analysis, we considered a set of 15,465 articles downloaded from the Scopus database (which is the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature). As we were interested in reviewing business and economics related gender studies, we only considered those papers published in journals listed in the Academic Journal Guide (AJG) 2018 ranking of the Chartered Association of Business Schools (CABS). All the journals listed in this ranking are also indexed by Scopus. Therefore, looking at a single database (i.e., Scopus) should not be considered a limitation of our study. However, future research could consider different databases and inclusion criteria.

With our literature review, we offer researchers a comprehensive map of major gender-related research trends over the past twenty-two years. This can serve as a lens to look to the future, contributing to the achievement of SDG5. Researchers may use our study as a starting point to identify key themes addressed in the literature. In addition, our methodological approach–based on the use of the Semantic Brand Score and its webapp–could support scholars interested in reviewing other areas of research.

Supporting information

S1 text. keywords used for paper selection..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256474.s001

Acknowledgments

The computing resources and the related technical support used for this work have been provided by CRESCO/ENEAGRID High Performance Computing infrastructure and its staff. CRESCO/ENEAGRID High Performance Computing infrastructure is funded by ENEA, the Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development and by Italian and European research programmes (see http://www.cresco.enea.it/english for information).

• View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar
• 9. UN. Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. General Assembley 70 Session; 2015.
• 11. Nature. Get the Sustainable Development Goals back on track. Nature. 2020;577(January 2):7–8
• 37. Fronzetti Colladon A, Grippa F. Brand intelligence analytics. In: Przegalinska A, Grippa F, Gloor PA, editors. Digital Transformation of Collaboration. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland; 2020. p. 125–41. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233276 pmid:32442196
• 39. Griffiths TL, Steyvers M, editors. Finding scientific topics. National academy of Sciences; 2004.
• 40. Mimno D, Wallach H, Talley E, Leenders M, McCallum A, editors. Optimizing semantic coherence in topic models. 2011 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing; 2011.
• 41. Wang C, Blei DM, editors. Collaborative topic modeling for recommending scientific articles. 17th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining 2011.
• 46. Straka M, Straková J, editors. Tokenizing, pos tagging, lemmatizing and parsing ud 2.0 with udpipe. CoNLL 2017 Shared Task: Multilingual Parsing from Raw Text to Universal Dependencies; 2017.
• 49. Lu Y, Li, R., Wen K, Lu Z, editors. Automatic keyword extraction for scientific literatures using references. 2014 IEEE International Conference on Innovative Design and Manufacturing (ICIDM); 2014.
• 55. Roelleke T, Wang J, editors. TF-IDF uncovered. 31st Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval—SIGIR ‘08; 2008.
• 56. Mihalcea R, Tarau P, editors. TextRank: Bringing order into text. 2004 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing; 2004.
• 58. Iannone F, Ambrosino F, Bracco G, De Rosa M, Funel A, Guarnieri G, et al., editors. CRESCO ENEA HPC clusters: A working example of a multifabric GPFS Spectrum Scale layout. 2019 International Conference on High Performance Computing & Simulation (HPCS); 2019.
• 60. Wasserman S, Faust K. Social network analysis: Methods and applications: Cambridge University Press; 1994.
• 141. Williams JE, Best DL. Measuring sex stereotypes: A multination study, Rev: Sage Publications, Inc; 1990.
• 172. Steele CM, Aronson J. Stereotype threat and the test performance of academically successful African Americans. In: Jencks C, Phillips M, editors. The Black–White test score gap. Washington, DC: Brookings; 1998. p. 401–27

Gender Inequality Essay

500+ words essay on gender inequality.

For many years, the dominant gender has been men while women were the minority. It was mostly because men earned the money and women looked after the house and children. Similarly, they didn’t have any rights as well. However, as time passed by, things started changing slowly. Nonetheless, they are far from perfect. Gender inequality remains a serious issue in today’s time. Thus, this gender inequality essay will highlight its impact and how we can fight against it.

  About Gender Inequality Essay

Gender inequality refers to the unequal and biased treatment of individuals on the basis of their gender. This inequality happens because of socially constructed gender roles. It happens when an individual of a specific gender is given different or disadvantageous treatment in comparison to a person of the other gender in the same circumstance.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Impact of Gender Inequality

The biggest problem we’re facing is that a lot of people still see gender inequality as a women’s issue. However, by gender, we refer to all genders including male, female, transgender and others.

When we empower all genders especially the marginalized ones, they can lead their lives freely. Moreover, gender inequality results in not letting people speak their minds. Ultimately, it hampers their future and compromises it.

History is proof that fighting gender inequality has resulted in stable and safe societies. Due to gender inequality, we have a gender pay gap. Similarly, it also exposes certain genders to violence and discrimination.

In addition, they also get objectified and receive socioeconomic inequality. All of this ultimately results in severe anxiety, depression and even low self-esteem. Therefore, we must all recognize that gender inequality harms genders of all kinds. We must work collectively to stop these long-lasting consequences and this gender inequality essay will tell you how.

How to Fight Gender Inequality

Gender inequality is an old-age issue that won’t resolve within a few days. Similarly, achieving the goal of equality is also not going to be an easy one. We must start by breaking it down and allow it time to go away.

Firstly, we must focus on eradicating this problem through education. In other words, we must teach our young ones to counter gender stereotypes from their childhood.

Similarly, it is essential to ensure that they hold on to the very same beliefs till they turn old. We must show them how sports are not gender-biased.

Further, we must promote equality in the fields of labour. For instance, some people believe that women cannot do certain jobs like men. However, that is not the case. We can also get celebrities on board to promote and implant the idea of equality in people’s brains.

All in all, humanity needs men and women to continue. Thus, inequality will get us nowhere. To conclude the gender inequality essay, we need to get rid of the old-age traditions and mentality. We must teach everyone, especially the boys all about equality and respect. It requires quite a lot of work but it is possible. We can work together and achieve equal respect and opportunities for all genders alike.

FAQ of Gender Inequality Essay

Question 1: What is gender inequality?

Answer 1: Gender inequality refers to the unequal and biased treatment of individuals on the basis of their gender. This inequality happens because of socially constructed gender roles. It happens when an individual of a specific gender is given different or disadvantageous treatment in comparison to a person of the other gender in the same circumstance.

Question 2: How does gender inequality impact us?

Answer 2:  The gender inequality essay tells us that gender inequality impacts us badly. It takes away opportunities from deserving people. Moreover, it results in discriminatory behaviour towards people of a certain gender. Finally, it also puts people of a certain gender in dangerous situations.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

Along with Stanford news and stories, show me:

• Student information
• Faculty/Staff information

We want to provide announcements, events, leadership messages and resources that are relevant to you. Your selection is stored in a browser cookie which you can remove at any time using “Clear all personalization” below.

The overturning of Roe v. Wade has heightened awareness of some of the broader issues the feminist movement and other allies for women’s rights have long championed, particularly advancing gender equality and economic well-being in societies around the globe.

Stanford scholars have studied some of the difficulties of reaching those goals and the many obstacles women face, whether it is at work, in the classroom and education, or as leaders. They have examined how gendered biases are perpetuated, why gender diversity and inclusion are imperative, and what can lead to prejudiced attitudes, assumptions, and adversities ultimately changing.

From the fields of business, social sciences, the humanities, law, education, health, and medicine, here are what Stanford researchers have to say about the evolution of women’s rights and the obstacles to advancing gender equity.

Impacts of overturning Roe v. Wade , and the U.S. Supreme Court

The decision by the U.S Supreme Court to overrule Roe v. Wade in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health case will carry many wide-reaching and serious consequences for women, say Stanford professors. By ending the constitutional right to abortion, a protection women have had for nearly 50 years, it will now be up to states to decide what reproductive choices are available for women – regardless of the circumstance. 

“No matter the reason a woman seeks to terminate a pregnancy – including because her health is jeopardized, because she was raped, because the fetus has a condition making death likely shortly after birth – a majority of state legislators may usurp that deeply personal decision,” said Stanford law Professor Jane S. Schacter in the wake of the decision. 

Here, Stanford professors shed light on the ramifications the reversal will have, as well as research on the divergence between the justices’ positioning versus public opinion, which the Roe v. Wade overruling highlighted.

A constitutional earthquake: Jane Schacter on SCOTUS decision to overturn Roe v. Wade

Stanford law Professor Jane Schacter, an expert on constitutional law and sexuality, discusses the Supreme Court’s decision to end the constitutional right to an abortion.

Using economics to understand the wide-reaching impacts of overturning Roe v. Wade

The greatest burden of abortion restrictions will likely fall onto low-income women and minorities, says Stanford economist Luigi Pistaferri.

Stanford’s Bernadette Meyler on possible SCOTUS decision to overturn Roe v. Wade

Constitutional law scholar Bernadette Meyler discusses the leaked Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization memo and the implications of a possible decision.

The gap between the Supreme Court and most Americans’ views is growing

A new study finds that not only has the court’s majority shifted dramatically rightward in the past two years, its stances are now significantly more conservative than most Americans’.

Protecting reproductive health information after fall of Roe v. Wade

Michelle Mello writes that the overturning of Roe v. Wade – ending federal protection over a woman's right to an abortion – could also expose her personal health data in court.

The pandemic’s effect on women

While the overturning of Roe v. Wade has sent shockwaves across the country, the global pandemic continues to be problematic, particularly among women and people of color. According to Stanford sociologist Shelley Correll , the pandemic alone may set gender equality back a generation as women take on an unfair burden of job losses and child care.

“Feelings of burnout have increased over the last year for both men and women, but more so for women,” Correll said, noting how mental health challenges and the lack of reliable child care continue to be problematic. “My big concern, in terms of gender equality, is that this high level of burnout is going to either drive women out of the paid workforce entirely or cause them to dial back their careers to something that is more manageable.” 

Over the coming months, it will be increasingly clear what the ramifications of both the end of Roe v. Wade and the pandemic will have. But what is already apparent is the urgent need to ensure access to health care, child care, and education, Stanford scholars say. Here is some of that research.

It’s time to prioritize humane, thriving work environments

The global pandemic is an opportunity to make fundamental changes to how society approaches work by creating working environments centered around creativity, problem-solving and equity, says Adina Sterling.

The real benefits of paid family leave

Paid family leave is not a “silver bullet” for advancing gender equity in the workplace, Maya Rossin-Slater says, but it is beneficial for family health and well-being outcomes, particularly infant and maternal health and overall financial stability.

Gender equality could be set back by an entire generation, sociologist warns

Coming out of the pandemic is an opportunity to build more equitable workplaces. Otherwise, burnout is likely going to either drive women out of the paid workforce entirely or cause them to dial back their careers, with long-term consequences for gender equality, says Stanford scholar Shelley Correll.

Equity and inclusion key issues in new work-life balance

With work, school and family life all taking place in our homes, the challenges may be greater for women, according to a focus group consisting of corporate and nonprofit leaders convened by Stanford’s VMware Women’s Leadership Innovation Lab.

Stress during pregnancy doubled during pandemic

As the first shelter-in-place orders took hold in California, pregnant women reported substantially elevated depressive symptoms, potentially adversely affecting their health as well as that of their babies.

Feminism and overcoming gender discrimination across history

For feminists, choice over reproductive health symbolized the human right to self-determination , said Estelle Freedman in her seminal book, No Turning Back: The History of Feminism and the Future of Work (Ballantine Books, 2003). 

As Freedman explains, “Feminists have increasingly insisted that women’s health and children’s welfare must be central to international reproductive policies. In this way, reproductive choice can help alleviate economic injustice as well as extend human rights to women.”

Freedman, along with other Stanford scholars, has studied the evolution of feminist movements and women’s rights across history and the fight for economic justice and human rights in America and across the globe. Some have also examined these movements’ flaws, including historically overlooking people of color and people with a disability. Here are some of their findings.

How World War I strengthened women’s suffrage

Times of crisis can be catalysts for political change, says Stanford legal scholar Pamela S. Karlan. For women activists in the early 20th century, the catalyst was World War I.

The 19th Amendment is a milestone, not endpoint, for women’s rights in America

As the centennial of the 19th Amendment approaches, the milestone in women’s suffrage must also acknowledge the intersection of gender and racial justice in America, says Stanford scholar Estelle Freedman.

Left out of the vote

As the centennial of the 19th Amendment approaches, Stanford scholar Rabia Belt wants to acknowledge a history often overlooked in discourse about the franchise: people living with disabilities.

Why taking gender out of the equation is so difficult

Even as old stereotypes fade, gender remains “a very sticky category,” says Ashley Martin, assistant professor of organizational behavior.

Power forward

Tara VanDerveer, head coach of the Stanford women’s basketball team, talks about the state of women’s sports on the 50th anniversary of Title IX.

Roadblocks in the workplace

In 2020, women earned 83 cents to every dollar men earned, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau. While the wage gap has narrowed over time, it still persists. Is it because of discrimination? Occupational differences? Workforce participation?

Scholars at the Stanford Graduate School of Business have tried to answer questions like these, including Stanford labor economist and Professor Emerita Myra Strober, who has dedicated her career to examining sexism across society, including the workplace.

“The American way, if you will, is to reward people who are valuable by paying them more. What’s not fair is rewarding them because you think they’re going to be more valuable before the game even starts. Managers should take people in entry-level positions and try to groom them all to see who turn out to be best,” Strober said in a 2016 interview . Strober suggests companies ought to examine salary disparities, offer paid parental leave and subsidize or offer childcare, and encourage workplace flexibility as ways to diversify and equalize the workplace.

Here is that interview, along with other research from scholars affiliated with the GSB who have examined gender differences and biases in the workplace and in leadership.

Is workplace equality the economy’s hidden engine?

In 1960, 94% of doctors and lawyers were white men. Today that number has fallen to 60%, and the economy has benefited dramatically because of it.

The language of gender bias in performance reviews

How negative stereotypes about men and women creep into a process intended to be meritocratic.

How race influences, amplifies backlash against outspoken women

When women break gender norms, the most negative reactions may come from people of the same race.

Having more power at the bargaining table helps women – but also sparks backlash

A large-scale study of job negotiations finds that women with stronger options were penalized for being too assertive.

How companies can solve the pay equity problem

A labor economist reveals how to close the pay gap.

Solving Silicon Valley’s gender problem

The authors of a survey on women in high tech answer the question: What now?

Making research, education more inclusive

In academic research, particularly the sciences, a gendered perspective has historically been overlooked, says Stanford historian Londa Schiebinger .

Such an oversight has come at a cost: For example, in clinical drug trials, women have been excluded on the grounds of reproductive safety  – meaning that when drugs hit market, doses may not be suited for female bodies. 

“Integrating sex and gender as variables in research, where relevant, enhances excellence in science and engineering,” said Schiebinger , who is the John L. Hinds Professor in the History of Science in Stanford’s School of Humanities and Sciences. “The operative question is how can we harness the creative power of sex and gender analysis for discovery and innovation? Does considering gender add a valuable dimension to research? Does it take research in new directions?”  

Schiebinger has spent her career finding creative ways to make science more inclusive. Here is some of that work, and work by others – including research showing the barriers women have faced as students in K-12 and at the PhD level.

A hidden obstacle for women in academia

A sweeping new study finds that women are penalized for pursuing research perceived to be “feminized” – an implicit bias surprisingly strong in fields associated with women.

Gender diversity is linked to research diversity

Gender diversity in science comes down to more than just who is on the team. The research approaches and types of questions the field addresses also shift – and lead to better science.

Sex and gender analysis improves science, Stanford scholars say

Including a gender and sex analysis in scientific research can open the door to discovery and innovation, according to a study performed by Stanford historian Londa Schiebinger and a group of scholars.

Female researchers pay more attention to sex and gender in medicine

Sex and gender affect how people react to drugs or other therapies, but are often overlooked in research. Stanford researchers find that medical research teams that include women more often account for sex and gender in their work.

Whose history? AI uncovers who gets attention in high school textbooks

Natural language processing reveals huge differences in how Texas history textbooks treat men, women, and people of color.

High-stakes exams can put female students at a disadvantage, Stanford researcher finds

A new study suggests that women are more heavily influenced than men by test anxiety, and points to ways to help close the gender gap.

Gender Equality

 gender equality .

FOR EVERY CHILD, EQUALITY

All children have the right to be treated equally

Women and girls continue to face political, economic and social inequality. Learn about the root causes of gender inequality from the higher levels of poverty, the lack of access to basic and higher education to their underrepresentation in leadership and decision-making. Find out how gender roles and stereotyping negatively impacts both boys and girls and how you can challenge this in society.

Workshop Activities

Learning Objectives

• Differentiate between sex and gender, and how they affect our lives
• Challenge gender stereotypes and combat gender inequality
• Identify the root causes of gender discrimination and examine the impact it has on the world.

Curriculum Connections

JUNIOR CYCLE

Statements of Learning

• SOL 7: The student values what it means to be an active citizen, with rights and responsibilities in local and wider contexts.    
• SOL 9: The student understands the origin and impacts of social, economic, and environmental aspects of the world around her/him.    
• SOL 11: The student takes action to safeguard and promote her/his wellbeing and that of others    
• SOL 23: Brings an idea from conception to realisation    

JC WELLBEING – This programme works on achieving the following Well-being indicators.   

• Responsible – I take action to protect and promote my wellbeing and that of others   
• Connected – I feel connected to my school, my friends, my community and the wider world. I appreciate that my actions and interactions impact on my own wellbeing and that of others, in local and global contexts.   
• Respected – I feel that I am listened to and valued. I have positive relationships with my friends, my peers and my teachers. I show care and respect for others.  

JC CSPE Rights and Responsibilities, Human Dignity and Homelessness, Democracy and Constitution  

JC SPHE Strand 2 L0 2.3     

S enior Cycle  

SC ECONOMICS :  

• Strand 1 What is economics about?   
• Strand 2 How are economic decisions  made?    
• Strand  3 What can markets  do?  
• Strand  4 What is the relationship between policy and economic performance?  

SC POLITICS & SOCIETY   

• Strand 1 Power and decision-making    
• Strand 2 Active  Citizenship    
• Strand  3 Human rights and responsibilities     

Definitions:

Feminism – the advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes. Many people do not like to define themselves as feminists. They prefer to consider themselves as egalitarian or humanist. Feminists would argue that the terminology highlights the fact that females are generally the group that suffers from inequality. However, words and labels should not get in the way of advocating for the rights of those who suffer from inequality.

Intersectionality – different forms of oppression overlap and cause different types of disadvantage.

Sexism – prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

Misogyny – dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women.

Gender Roles – the role or behaviour learned by a person as appropriate to their gender, determined by the prevailing cultural norms.

Gender Equality presentation

Gender vs Sex Global Goal 5- Gender Equality ​ Gender Equality in Ireland

UNICEF’s Gender Equality Plan 2018-2021

Teaching Notes

This workshop covers a wide variety of gender-related issues. It is recommended that you choose the discussions and activities you feel appropriate for your class, their age group and your level of comfort in discussing the issue. It is always good practice to alert the students ahead of time, to the topics you will be covering, so as to give them the option to opt-out of the discussion. Discuss boundaries and create ground rules ahead of the workshop to ensure a safe and positive atmosphere. Be aware that issues like rape, FGM, sexual abuse and violence against women might touch on issues your participants have experienced. Also, be sensitive to students who might be dealing with gender identity or sexuality issues.

These websites can provide further support, have them on view so that any participant can take note of the website anonymously: rapecrisishelp.ie , cari.ie, reachout.com , womensaid.ie spunout.ie, belongto.org

Here is a helpful guide to follow on how to handle sensitive topics. If you are a young person leading these activities, p lease do so with the support of a teacher or adult. 

In Ireland's 2020 General Election, 1/3 of all candidates were women, however only 

women were elected, that represents just 22% of Dáil seats.

How the Convention on the Rights of the Child protects against gender inequality

Why gender inequality a child rights issue

• 12 million girls are married before the age of 18, each year.  That is nearly one girl every 2 seconds that loses her childhood. 1 in 5 women was married before their 18th birthday. ( UNICEF )
• Each year, over 4 million girls are at risk of undergoing FGM. Most girls are cut before the age of 15. ( UNICEF )
• Around the world, 132 million girls are out of school, girls’ access to education is the lowest worldwide, especially at the secondary level. ( UNICEF )
• Disproportionately affected by HIV/AIDS, 62% of adolescents 15-19 living with HIV are girls. ( UNICEF )
• Today 126 million baby girls are believed to be missing as a result of gender-biased sex selection.  ( UNFPA )
• Conflicts and natural disasters exacerbate gender inequalities, particularly against women and girls. ( UN )

Video:  #EndChildMarriage

Video: Equality, the Difference Between Life and Death

Activity 1 – Understanding Gender Identity

Duration: 30 Mins

The aim of this activity is to help participants to reflect on their personal identity. Download the presentation to help support the activity

Discussion: It is important to start the conversation on gender inequality with an understanding of gender. Ask participants to consider, are you born a particular gender or do you become a gender? According to the World Health Organisation , ‘Sex’ refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define men and women. ‘Gender’ refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities and attributes that society considers appropriate for men and women. To put it another way: ‘male’ and ‘female’ are sex categories, while ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ are gender categories.

Group Work: Step 1 Divide participants into four groups, masculine male, feminine female, masculine female and feminine man, give them each a large sheet of paper and tell them they will be recording the words they feel society uses to describe their category of person.

Call out the following words and ask the groups to write down the words or traits they feel describes their category of person: hairy, muscles, breasts, brave, rough, risk-taker, independent, emotional, curvy, assertive, friendly, cuddly, affectionate, romantic, gentle, confident, tall, moody, strong, rationale, competitive, shy, cooperative, nurturing, pilot, decisive, daring, dominant, short hair, long hair, violent, aggressive, hysterical, indecisive, leader, fighter, healer, pink, cleaner, doctor, teacher, nurse, graceful, short hair, earrings, soft, flirtatious, hips, messy, artsy, scientist, quiet, bold, powerful, insensitive, physical, athlete, stubble, gay, straight, pretty, charming, beautiful, fit, funny, bad, engineer, gamer, footballer.

Step 2: In our society, how would you rate your person in terms of their perceived power, with 1 being weak and 10 being powerful? Who might you give authority or decision making power to? Which person could you perceive as vulnerable or lacking in power? Why? How might that person be treated?

Step 3:  Ask participants to count the number of perceived negative characteristics you have on the page. Ask them to circle any words that could be seen as a stereotype of your category of person.

Feedback: Discuss with the wider group the implications of stereotypes.

A  stereotype is a mistaken idea or belief many people have about individuals or groups, based upon how they look on the outside, which may be untrue or only partly true. When a person is stereotyped, expectations can be placed on them and decisions can be made about them. Stereotyping quite often underpins discrimination and inequality and can even lead internalised beliefs that limit people’s options and expectations of themselves.

Activity 2 – Gender Roles

The aim of this activity is to explore the impact of gender roles on children. 

Group Work: Divide participant into 4 groups – World * Ireland * School * Family

Ask them to discuss gender roles and how they affect the way boys and girls experience life? Give each group a flipchart divided into two sections male and female. Ask them to reflect on the different gender roles experienced by males and females in the different contexts.

Feedback: Are their distinct roles? Do the roles have different expectations? Is there a gender bias and if so, who does it favour most? What implications does this have for these people?

Gender bias is the tendency to prefer one gender over another. It is a form of unconscious bias, or implicit bias, which occurs when

Activity 3 – Institutional Sexism

The aim of this activity is to explore the various forms of sexism and how it impacts society.

Discussion: Sexism  is the prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex. Institutional sexism is the subordination of one gender (usually women) as part of the everyday workings of economics, law, politics, and other social institutions. This helps to normalise discrimination and abuse. 

Group Work: Ask participants to divide into smaller groups. Watch 1 of the 6 videos and discuss it with the group. Can they think of other examples of sexism? What are the implications of this for society and individuals? Is this an obstacle to the achievement of real gender equality? Feedback to the larger group.

Institutional sexism

Video: V ictim-blaming and rape myths in Ireland

Sexism in the media

Video: Every-day Sexism on Fox News

Harmful stereotypes for boys

Video: The Mask You Live In

Sexism in Media

Video: Baffling Sexism of Kids Media

Sexual Objectification 

Gender-based violence online

Activity 4 – Changing Times

Duration: 20 Mins

The aim of this activity is to explore the generational changes that have occurred. 

Group Work: Has society changed over the years? Divide into smaller groups and discuss what has changed since your grandparent’s generation, your parent’s generation and now? Record both positive and negative changes. Discuss how these changes came about?  What has improved the most and what are the biggest challenges to overcome? Feedback to the larger group.

Activity 5 – Are you a feminist?

The aim of this activity is to discuss what it means to be a feminist.

Emma Watson, U.N. Women Goodwill Ambassador, spoke at the U.N. Headquarters in New York about gender equality and what it means to be a feminist.  At the beginning of her speech, Watson states, “feminism, by definition, is the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. It is the theory of political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.”  Ask participants if they agree or disagree with this statement, “I am a feminist”.

Walking Debate: Divide the room into two, ask participants to stand on either side depending on their views.

After the debate, watch Emma Watson’s famous HeForShe speech at the U.N.

TAKE ACTION

We all have responsibility for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030. Although many Goals contribute to Gender Equality, this issue is the specific focus of G oal 5 .  Use them, along with the Convention on the Rights of the Child to support your call to take action  and address these issues. Below are just a few suggestions of actions you can take.  

Here are actions you can take to promote gender equality 

PRESENTATION ON GENDER INEQUALITY

Download the presentation

CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD

Download the UNCRC booklet

TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGE ON GENDER INEQUALITY

Take the Kahoot! Quiz

DEALING WITH SENSITIVE TOPICS

Download the guide

Global Issues

Lesson plans

Climate Action

Lesson plan

Children Uprooted

Activism training.

Transition Year Work Experience

Youth Activism

Get involved

This activity can help your school achieve a Global Passport Award. Learn more or apply at  WWGS’s Global Passport Award . Funded by Irish Aid’s WorldWise Global Schools – contents are the responsibility of its author and do not necessarily represent or reflect WWGS and or Irish Aid policy.

•   01 878 3000
•   [email protected]
•   33 Lower Ormond Quay, Dublin 1 D01 R283
•   Company Number: 371124 | Revenue Number: CHY 5616 | Charity Regulatory Authority Number: 20008727

Stay informed

Add value to your inbox! Sign up to keep up to date on what's going on around the world.

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• Cookie Policy

Website Developed by FUSIO

The 11 biggest hurdles for women’s equality by 2030

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to LinkedIn
• Share to E-mail

There are only seven years left for the world to fulfil the promises made to girls and women in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and a new report by UN Women and United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs highlights the biggest challenges remaining for global gender equality.

The 2023 edition of “Progress on the Sustainable Development Goals: The gender snapshot 2023” tracks gender equality across the 17 Sustainable Development Goals and highlights 11 key roadblocks:

1. Lack of women in leadership

With just 27 per cent of parliamentary seats, 36 per cent of local government seats, and 28 per cent of management positions held by women, there is a lack of diverse perspectives in decision-making processes, hindering comprehensive policy formulation.

2. Poverty and lack of economic opportunities

More than 340 million women and girls are projected to live in extreme poverty by 2030. This represents a staggering 8 per cent of the global female population surviving on less than USD 2.15 a day. Social protections, access to decent work, and other support systems are urgently needed to provide a path out of poverty.

3. Workplace discrimination and inequalities

Only 61 per cent of prime working-age women participate in the labour force, compared to 91 per cent of prime working-age men. This affects both economic growth and societal progress. In 2019, for each dollar men earned in labour income, women earned only 51 cents.

4. An imbalance in unpaid care work

On the current trajectory, the gap between the time spent by women and men on unpaid care will narrow slightly, but by 2050, women globally will still be spending 9.5 per cent more time (2.3 more hours per day) on unpaid care work than men. This persistent gap limits women’s participation in education, employment, and other opportunities.

5. Social norms and cultural practices

Harmful practices such as child marriage and female genital mutilation persist. Globally, one in five young women is married before age 18. The prevalence of child marriage highlights the need for attitudinal shifts and the promotion of legal frameworks that safeguard women and girls’ rights.

6. Inadequate access to education and health care

An estimated 110 million girls and young women may remain out of school by 2030. Stalled progress in reducing maternal mortality and expanding educational opportunities call for targeted interventions to meet the 2030 goals.

7. Food insecurity

Nearly 24 per cent of women and girls are expected to experience moderate to severe food insecurity by 2030. Empowering women in food and agricultural systems by enhancing access to land and resources is vital for ensuring food security and economic growth.

8. Violence against women and girls

Each year, 245 million women and girls experience physical and/or sexual violence by an intimate partner. Older women also face higher rates of poverty and violence than older men.

9. Inadequate funding for gender equality initiatives

Only 4 per cent of total bilateral aid is allocated to gender equality and women's empowerment. The additional investment needed for achieving gender equality by 2030 is estimated at USD 360 billion per year.

10. Legal barriers and poorly enforced legislation

At least 28 countries do not have laws granting women equal rights to enter marriage and initiate divorce, and 67 countries lack laws prohibiting direct and indirect discrimination against women. Where legislation does exist to promote gender equality, effective implementation remains a challenge.

11. Lack of access to clean energy and sanitation

An estimated 341 million women and girls are projected to lack electricity by 2030. Universal access could significantly reduce poverty and improve women’s health.

With just seven years remaining to achieve the 2030 targets, concerted efforts and funding are more necessary than ever. Each step forward, no matter how incremental, brings us closer to a future where gender equality is not just a goal, but a reality.

• 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
• Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Related content

UN Women advocates for gender equality at 4th International Conference on Small Island Developing States

‘Access to information is the basis of democracy’ – Interview with environmental journalist Miriam Jemio on World Press Freedom Day

Op-ed: Improving women’s access to decent jobs

• Complete My Donation
• Why Save the Children?
• Charity Ratings
• Leadership and Trustees
• Strategic Partners
• Media, Reports & Resources
• Financial Information
• Where We Work
• Hunger and Famine
• Ukraine Conflict
• Climate Crisis
• Poverty in America
• Policy and Advocacy
• Emergency Response
• Ways to Give
• Fundraise for Kids
• Donor-Advised Funds
• Plan Your Legacy
• Advocate for Children
• Popular Gifts
• By Category
• Join Team Tomorrow

Gender Discrimination Causes Inequality

Gender discrimination: inequality starts in childhood.

Every girl and boy deserves an equal chance to survive and thrive. As the leading expert on childhood, Save the Children has been championing equal rights for every child for over 100 years – in fact, we invented the concept. Today, we are the leading champion for the human rights of the world’s 2.2 billion girls and boys.

Yet, gender discrimination, starting in childhood, continues to rob children of their childhoods and limit their chances – disproportionately affecting the world’s girls. A girl is far more likely to be denied her rights, kept from school, forced to marry and subjected to violence – her voice undervalued, if it’s heard at all. This assault on childhood also deprives nations of the energy and talent they need to progress.

At the current rate of change, it will take over 200 years [1]  to achieve gender equality, and that’s just in the U.S. This is unacceptable. Together, we can create a more equal world, right from the start. Make a one-time donation to the Children's Emergency Fund or join Team Tomorrow to connect with the causes you care about - like  inequality - through your monthly donation.

Give Monthly

To stay current and receive more tools and tips from our experts, sign up here. 

Thank you for signing up! 

Now, you’ll be among the first to know how Save the Children is responding to the most urgent needs of children, every day and in times of crisis—and how your support can make a difference. You may opt-out at any time by clicking "unsubscribe" at the bottom of any email.

What is gender discrimination?

Gender discrimination means any exclusion or restriction made on the basis of gender that creates barriers for girls, boys, women and/or men in recognizing, enjoying or exercising their full and equal human rights.

What is gender inequality?

Gender inequality is discrimination on the basis of sex or gender causing one sex or gender to be routinely privileged or prioritized over another.

Gender equality is a fundamental human right and that right is violated by gender-based discrimination. Gender disparity starts in childhood and is right now limiting the lifelong potential of children around the world – disproportionately affecting girls.

Around the world, while contexts and gender roles vary from place to place, we can see that gender inequalities occur everywhere; and at every stage of life, beginning with childhood or even before birth. 

At Save the Children, we put gender equality at the heart of everything we do. Our vision is a world in which all people – girls, boys, women and men – have equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities, regardless of gender norms, identities or expressions. A world where everyone is equally recognized, respected and valued.

Is gender discrimination against the law?

Gender discrimination is prohibited under almost every human rights treaty. This includes international laws providing for equal gender rights between men and women, as well as those specifically dedicated to the realization of women’s rights, such as the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women [2] – considered the international bill of rights for women.

Federal, state and local laws protect individuals from gender discrimination and gender inequality in the United States. Additionally, it is recognized in both law and policy that promoting gender equality is critical to achieving foreign policy objectives for a more prosperous and peaceful world.

What are the causes of gender inequality?

Gender prejudice and resulting gender discrimination begin in childhood. From the moment they’re born, girls and boys face unequal gender norms  as well as social norms regarding expectations and access to resources and opportunities, with lifelong consequences – in their homes, schools and communities.

For example, the world’s boys are often encouraged to go to school and get an education to prepare for work, while girls carry heavy household responsibilities that keep them from school, increasing the odds of child marriage and pregnancy.

Join us in celebrating Womens' history all year long with a gift that truly makes a difference – gift boxes from Save the Children. This gift box talks about inequalities and the ways we’re working to make all children equal. A great gift for an amazing girl or woman in your life.

SEND A GIRL EMPOWERMENT GIFT BOX

What are the effects of gender inequality?

Despite worldwide progress, gender inequality persists. The COVID-19 pandemic has threatened to put years of hard-won progress at risk. Far too many girls, especially those from the poorest families, still face gender discrimination in education, child marriage and pregnancy, sexual violence and unrecognized domestic work. These are some types of gender inequality. 

Gender Inequality Examples:

• Gender inequality in girls education. Even before the pandemic, girls were more likely than boys to never set foot in a classroom and be denied equal opportunities. Conflict, poverty and other forms of social disadvantage also magnify gender inequality in education. Girls living in countries affected by conflict, for example, are 2.5 times more likely to be out of school than boys. Some 9.7 million children were at risk of being forced out of school by the end of 2020, with girls facing an increased risk.
• Child marriage . Child marriage is a form of gender-based violence and a result and driver of gender inequality and gender discrimination. Experts predict that the COVID-19 pandemic is set to reverse 25 years of progress, which saw child marriage rates decline. In fact, Save the Children analysis revealed a further 2.5 million girls at risk of marriage by 2025 because of the  pandemic —the greatest surge in child marriage rates in nearly three decades.
• Gender-based violence . Gender-based violence occurs everywhere around the world across all economic and social groups. While both boys and girls are negatively impacted, girls are particularly at risk. An estimated 1 in 3 women globally have experienced physical or sexual violence in their lifetime, mostly at the hands of their partners. Types of violence may include: prenatal sex selection, female infanticide, neglect, female genital mutilation, rape, child marriage, forced prostitution, honor killing and dowry killing. Many of these gross violations of human rights have been used as weapons of war around the world. Refugee children are particularly vulnerable.
• Child labor. There are currently 152 million children engaged in child labor around the world. [3] Child labor makes it difficult for children to attend school or limits their attendance, putting them at risk of falling behind their peers. Boys and girls are affected differently by child labor and parents’ decisions are often influenced by wider social norms about the different roles that they should play in the home and in society. Girls are much more likely to shoulder the responsibility for household chores while boys are more likely to engage in harmful work such as construction. Girls are usually pulled out of school earlier than boys and are more likely to face sexual exploitation and slavery.

What is the importance of gender equality?

Gender equality is not only a fundamental human right, but a necessary foundation for a peaceful, prosperous and sustainable future. Eradicating gender issues means a world where women and men, girls and boys all enjoy equal rights, resources, opportunities and protections.

Empowering girls from the start is proven to have lasting and compounding benefits over the course of their lives. When girls are supported to be active in civic and political spaces, in particular, they are empowered with the tools and skills they need to be drivers of positive change in their families and communities. Girls are the experts of their own experiences, priorities and needs, and are powerful catalysts for a world where gender equality flourishes.

Promoting gender equality is also central to ensuring child protection and the fulfillment of child rights, as abuse, neglect, violence against women and exploitation both reflect and reinforce gender inequalities

What are the effects of gender equality on society?

When girls are empowered to lead their lives, speak their minds and determine their futures, everyone benefits. History suggests that when we fight gender oppression, societies are more stable, safe and prosperous, with happier, better educated citizens. 

Investing in gender equality can have large-scale benefits:

• Every $1 invested in women’s and children’s health can generate a $20 return – according to the Partnership for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health
• A girl’s eventual income will increase by up to 20% for every year she stays in school – according to UN Women . It also encourages girls to marry later and have fewer children, and leaves them less vulnerable to violence.
• Advancing women’s equality could add up to $28 trillion to global annual growth by 2025 – according to the McKinsey Global Institute .

How does Save the Children challenge gender discrimination and promote gender equality?

Gender equality is a basic right for all people, including both girls and boys. Based on this understanding, Save the Children believes that it is critical to directly address gender discrimination and gender inequality in order to ensure that no harm comes to children, and to advance our vision for a world where every child attains their equal right to grow up healthy, educated and safe.

A focus on gender equality is essential to close inequality gaps and ensure that we reach every last child, including those who are most vulnerable. Gender inequalities intersect with and exacerbate other factors contributing to vulnerability, including age, race, socio-economic class, gender identity, geography, health status and ability.

To build a more equal, inclusive future, free from gender discrimination, we need to start in childhood. Thanks to supporters like you, Save the Children reaches hundreds of millions of children every year, promoting gender equality and empowering girls, right from the start.

Promoting gender equality works! Since 2000, Save the Children helped achieve a 25% decline in child marriage worldwide, empowering 11 million girls to stay in school or transition to work, deciding for themselves when they’re ready for marriage and motherhood.

In addition, Save the Children is proud to be the first nonprofit to be Gender Fair-certified for our commitment to advancing gender equality and empowering the world’s girls.

[1] Equality Can't Wait  |  [2]  U.N Women |  [3] Child Labour Position

**Sources: Unless otherwise noted, gender inequality facts and gender inequality statistics have been sourced from Save the Children’s program and monitoring and evaluation experts, as well as  published reports , including our  gender equality reports .

You can help challenge gender discrimination as a monthly donor!

When you support Save the Children – whether it’s by donating, advocating or participating in an event challenge – you challenge gender discrimination and gender inequality around the world, helping bridge the gap between the challenges girls face and the futures they deserve. You’re helping ensure all children have equal opportunities to grow up healthy, educated and safe.

Join  Team Tomorrow  to connect with the causes you care about — like inequality — through your monthly donation.

GIVE MONTHLY

Learn More About the Challenges Girls Face Around the World

Insights from Women Deliver 2023 for Companies Ready to Act

Having recently returned from the Women Deliver conference in Kigali, Rwanda, I was struck by the similarities between the themes of this fun, technicolor treat of a film and the p...

Save the Children and the Movie Barbie Are Helping Children Achieve Their Dreams​

We’re partnering with the movie Barbie to help girls everywhere achieve their dreams!​ Meet four girls our programs are empowering — then, show your support for millions around the...

LGBTQI Children Around the World Celebrate and Love Who They Are This PRIDE Month

Save the Children is proud to amplify the actions of children and support them in calling for a fairer and more equal world in which the rights of LGBTQ+ children are respected and...

Sign Up & Stay Connected

Thank you for signing up! Now, you’ll be among the first to know how Save the Children is responding to the most urgent needs of children, every day and in times of crisis—and how your support can make a difference. You may opt-out at any time by clicking "unsubscribe" at the bottom of any email.

By providing my mobile phone number, I agree to receive recurring text messages from Save the Children (48188) and phone calls with opportunities to donate and ways to engage in our mission to support children around the world. Text STOP to opt-out, HELP for info. Message & data rates may apply. View our Privacy Policy at  savethechildren.org/privacy.

Gender Inequality as a Global Issue Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Culture, society, and law

Technology and infrastructure, consequences.

Gender inequality is a global issue where men and women enjoy different levels of representation in various spheres of life. Generally predisposed against females, multiple factors conspire to limit their opportunities for education and employment, as well as, in more extreme cases, lead to violence. The causes of such inequality can stem from biology, culture, and technology. This essay will examine some of the causes that affect the gap in the treatment of men and women, and its ramifications, particularly regarding developing countries. One particular metric that will be used is female labor force participation (FLFP).

Humans are sexually dimorphic species; males and females exhibit different physical characteristics. While these differences have led to often oppressive cultural norms, they are impossible to reject. Large parts of developing nations are pre-industrial, where “individuals do not receive any education and primarily work in agricultural jobs as unskilled workers” (Hiller, 2014, p. 457). The labor efficiency in such jobs affects the roles available to men and women. For instance, some regions of India have soil that is more suitable for deep tillage and, therefore, the use of plows — heavy tools that require upper body strength to operate. As a consequence of this, “in parts of India with soil suitable for deep tillage, there is lower FLFP and a more male-skewed sex ratio” (Jayachandran, 2015, p. 72). In these regions, men had a physical advantage, which led to their higher representation in the labor force and positions of power.

For comparison, China’s agricultural areas provide a different example: regions that specialize in tea production. There, women have a “comparative advantage in picking tea leaves” (Jayachandran, 2015, p. 72). After economic reforms in those areas, various improvements have been noted regarding gender equality, as female children became more desirable and women more financially independent. These findings suggest that physiological differences, but also opportunities to make the best use of the advantages posed by these differences, play an important role in creating gender equality or inequality.

While physical differences may have caused an initial degree of gender inequality, cultural norms always form in response to them, strengthening this imbalance for the future, when physical differences are no longer relevant. Usually, this takes the form of a strong patriarchal tradition under which men take on a more proactive role in society. In contrast, women are relegated to more subservient and supportive positions. As a result of such traditions, women can face opposition when they seek education or employment or attempt to act outside of their society-mandated roles.

Girls’ education opportunities are not necessarily enforced explicitly by existing laws or regulations. The choice to educate a child is primarily made by their parents, according to social and cultural norms. Hiller (2014) explains that “if a ‘strong norm’ exists, according to which husbands should be the primary breadwinners of the family, parents grant a low value to the education of their daughters” (p. 457). Therefore, young women are often denied the schooling necessary to find better work.

Tradition and religion still play a significant part in women being underrepresented. While laws may be proposed that seek to create opportunities for women, they are turned down for such reasons. Nigeria is one such country, where “customary and religious arguments were the major justifications put forward by [local] legislators for their rejection of bills to promote women’s rights and gender equality” (Para-Mallam, 2017, p. 28). This legislative issue reinforces the existing inequality, keeping women in a disadvantaged position.

The points listed above concern pre-industrial societies, but as they develop, technology and improvements to infrastructure present new circumstances that can increase gender equality. As women tend to be engaged in various domestic chores in such cultures, making said chores easier and more efficient frees up their time. For instance, work such as fetching firewood and water is generally performed by women — therefore, providing plumbing and electric heating “will disproportionately free up women to work outside the home more or enjoy more leisure” (Jayachandran, 2015, p. 74). This change, in turn, would allow them more opportunities for education or work.

Advances in medicine are another change that improves women’s opportunities, mainly when it concerns obstetrics. Jayachandran (2015) notes that “childbearing is not only more common in developing countries; it is also more dangerous” (p. 74). It has been observed that improvements in this area in several countries reduced maternal mortality and complications at childbirth that might have had long-term effects. This change led to an increase in women’s ability to return to work after giving birth (Jayachandran, 2015). Similarly, access to contraception has been observed to free up women’s time available for education and work, consequently allowing them to gain more equal positions with men and creating a quantitative increase in FLFP.

Improvements in infrastructure can serve to increase gender equality in rural areas. Parents in these regions tend to be protective of their daughters. However, Jayachandran (2015) notes that “it is difficult to say how much of the limited mobility is out of genuine concern for women’s welfare … and how much is simply a way to stifle female autonomy” (pp. 77-78). This protectiveness makes parents less likely to choose to educate their daughters, especially if a school is not available nearby. Studies have observed that “a village school essentially closes the otherwise-large gender gap in enrollment” (Jayachandran, 2015, p. 78). Therefore, a single school can serve to educate boys from a significantly larger area than girls.

A significant difference in the treatment of men and women has significant consequences, most of which are negative. Since the causes persist in families, discrimination starts there, as parents consider investing in sons seems to be the better option than daughters. In day-to-day life, Para-Mallam (2017) found that Nigerian “rural men spend approximately two hours less than women doing work … and have one hour per day more for rest and recreation” (p. 28). In the distribution of a community’s shared resources, Agarwal (2018) points out that often, “female-headed households with few family members to help them are the most disadvantaged” (p. 282). Finally, common property in countries with a high level of gender inequality is “a high level of violence against women and girls perpetuated by individuals, groups and the state” (Para-Mallam, 2018, p. 29). All of these effects not only harm women’s lives and limit their opportunities, but also perpetuate the inequality already present, making it more difficult to create more equal conditions.

Gender inequality is still an issue even in First World nations. Current research in developing countries allows examining its causes and ways to reduce the gap in treatment. While simple biological reasons can initially explain inequality, culture and religion can perpetuate it into modernity. However, it has been noted that advances in technology, medicine, and infrastructure act as a countermeasure, gradually shortening this gap. Effects of gender inequality can range more work and less leisure time for the disadvantaged gender to limited education and employment opportunities, to violence.

Agarwal, B. (2018). Gender inequality, cooperation, and environmental sustainability. In J-M. Baland, P. Bradhan, & S. Bowles (eds.), inequality, cooperation, and environmental sustainability (pp. 274-313). New York, NY: Princeton University Press.

Hiller, V. (2014). Gender inequality, endogenous cultural norms, and economic development. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 116 (2), 451-481.

Jayachandran, S. (2015). The roots of gender inequality in developing countries. Annual Review of Economics, 7 (1), 63-88.

Para-Mallam, F. J. (2018). Gender equality in Nigeria. In A. Örtenblad, R. Marling, & S. Vasilijević (eds.), Gender Equality in a Global Perspective (pp. 23-53). New York, NY: Routledge.

• The Five Sexes & Biology and Ideology
• Evolutionary Biology: Sleep Patterns in Mammals
• Biology of Memory: Origins and Structures
• Causes and Effects of Child Labor
• The Main Causes of Youth Violence
• The Problem of Overpopulation
• Procrastination Essay
• Cultural Identity: Problems, Coping, and Outcomes
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, December 3). Gender Inequality as a Global Issue. https://ivypanda.com/essays/gender-inequality-as-a-global-issue/

"Gender Inequality as a Global Issue." IvyPanda , 3 Dec. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/gender-inequality-as-a-global-issue/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Gender Inequality as a Global Issue'. 3 December.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Gender Inequality as a Global Issue." December 3, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/gender-inequality-as-a-global-issue/.

1. IvyPanda . "Gender Inequality as a Global Issue." December 3, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/gender-inequality-as-a-global-issue/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Gender Inequality as a Global Issue." December 3, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/gender-inequality-as-a-global-issue/.

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Gender Inequality — Gender Inequality: Causes And Solutions

Gender Inequality: Causes and Solutions

• Categories: Gender Discrimination Gender Inequality Women's Rights

About this sample

Words: 1213 |

Published: Feb 8, 2022

Words: 1213 | Pages: 3 | 7 min read

Table of contents

Consequences, perspectives, solution/course of action, works cited.

• EU. (2018). Gender Equality. https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/gender-equality_en
• Jahan, S. (2018). Human Development Indices and Indicators 2018. United Nations Development Programme.
• Naschold, F. (2000). Poverty and income inequality in developing countries: An overview. Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency.
• Pakistan Bureau of Statistics. (2016). Poverty reduction strategy paper.
• The Express Tribune. (2015). Multidimensional poverty drops to 38.8% in 2014-15. https://tribune.com.pk/story/926258/multidimensional-poverty-drops-to-38-8-in-2014-15/
• The News. (2019). Aurat March: Women demand rights, equality across Pakistan. https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/447416-aurat-march-women-demand-rights-equality-across-pakistan
• UN Women. (n.d.). Gender equality.
• UN. (n.d.). Gender equality: UN Women.
• UN. (2017). Passport gender gaps.
• UN. (2019). Gender inequality remains deeply entrenched in all regions of the world, UN report finds.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof Ernest (PhD)

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 305 words

4 pages / 1984 words

3 pages / 1174 words

1 pages / 944 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Gender Inequality

Scott, J. (1986). Gender and the Politics of History. Columbia University Press.Freeman, J. (2018). Women: A Cultural Review. Routledge.Davis, A. Y. (1983). Women, Race & Class. Vintage Books.Smith, D. E. (1974). Women's History [...]

The Great Gatsby, is often celebrated for its vivid portrayal of the 1920s Jazz Age and its critique of the American Dream. However, the novel also provides a glimpse into the gender inequality that was prevalent during the time [...]

While women have made major strides in fighting traditional social standards, gender hierarchies continue to suppress women socially and economically to this day. Gender relations are hierarchical in as much as men and women are [...]

It is highly important nowadays to discuss the issue of gender discrimination in workplace. This essay would focus on the ethical concern of gender inequality, what causes it, the inequalities it perpetuates, and what steps can [...]

Every man and woman should have equal rights. This statement is the topic of my essay. A woman is a life giver. Every single person was carried in the womb for nine months, birthed by a woman, most of the times breastfed, [...]

The patriarchal society and gender inequality have played a big part in the world’s culture since dating back to the 1800s. Men and women both played different roles. The roles of men most likely included earning for the [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Vision & Mission
• 70 years in India
• Where We Work
• Global Presence
• Gender Equality
• Knowledge Management and Learning
• Disaster Relief
• Innovations
• Touching Lives
• Our Partners
• Testimonials
• Awards & Recognitions
• Individuals
• Institutional Partners

Gender Inequality In The Indian Society

Gender inequality is a pressing issue in Indian society. Despite a constitution that guarantees equal rights for men and women and decades of legislation, some deep-rooted gender discrimination in India takes a brutal toll on women’s lives. Even after rapid economic growth, gender disparities remain all too familiar: 1,000 girls die each day before reaching the age of five due to neglect.

India has been ranked low on various indices that measure gender equality — including economic participation and opportunity; educational attainment; health and survival; political empowerment; and legal protection — due to multiple factors such as high levels of women discrimination in India as well as various discriminatory social norms, laws and cultural practices. Some of the key areas or examples of gender inequality in India where women face discrimination include less access to education and employment, under-representation in political positions, poorer health and nutrition than men, and the most obvious violence against women.

While deeper analysis of the problem may cause disagreement with respect to the relative importance of various causes and therefore approach to the solution, it is necessary to bring together the major issues that contribute to making gender inequality in India as deep and widespread.

Causes of Gender Inequality in India

Gender inequality is a pervasive issue in India, impacting Indian women and girls in a variety of ways. While there are many causes of gender inequality, some of the most common include:

Given all the development and recent rise to prominence, we often forget that India is still one of the poorest countries in the world, and it is one of the biggest reasons that lead to gender inequality in India. Despite the availability of education in rural areas, families prefer sending their boys to school rather than the girls of the family, which is one of the biggest disadvantages.

Patriarchal Setup in our Indian Society

Since time immemorial, India has been an extremely patriarchal society. The patriarchal setup in Indian society contributed to the fundamental inequality between men and women. As women were considered a part of the household belonging to their father or husband, they were unable to get a say in any matters concerning their own development or that of the community at large.

Lack of Education or Illiteracy

The disparity between the literacy rates of men and women in India is a known issue. Some regional states have higher disparity, while some other states have better disparity. The problem is not that there are few literate women in India, but rather the problem is the lack of awareness among women to use their rights.

Lack of Awareness Among Women

One of the major causes of gender inequality is the lack of awareness among women about their rights and their ability to achieve equality. This lack of awareness is often due to the prevailing cultural and social norms, which dictate that women should be subservient to men. It is important to break down these barriers and help women become more aware of their rights so that they can demand equality.

Social Customs, Beliefs and Practices

The views of society, customs and cultural practices play a big role in keeping women at lower places in the society – refusing them opportunities, which are generally provided to men, who are considered the dominant ones in India.

Addressing these causes is critical to achieving gender equality in India.

The Need For Awareness

Women are treated as second-class citizens in India, and the situation is getting worse. The country’s record on gender equality is dismal. According to a report by the World Economic Forum (WEF), India ranked 134th out of 145 countries for gender parity in 2018, down from 130th in 2017.

Without a doubt, this is a wake-up call for all of us. We all have to join hands and help women overcome these discrimination crises. We need to create awareness among Indian women about their legal rights. There are various organisations that work towards creating awareness about women’s rights and equality, like Care India. We need to support such organisations vigorously working to provide women with equal opportunities and rights. Additionally, we need to bring about a change in the mindset of people, especially men, who still believe that women are inferior to them. We need to inject the concept of women’s empowerment into everybody’s minds. We have built a result-oriented process of enhancing and promoting the social, political and economic status of women. Majorly, we have to work on five main concerns-

• Give women access to education just like men
• Give women opportunities to be in power and achieve economic success.
• Stop the violence and sexual assault against women.
• End child marriages
• Aware women about women’s rights in India

By focusing on these five major points, we can hope to achieve equality between men and women in our society. It is neither difficult nor impossible; we all can do it, together.

Right To Education Act (RTE) 2009 – What You Need To Know

Facts About Literacy Rate In India

Connect with Us

Corporate and registered office.

Support us through your Contribution

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

Linking gender differences with gender equality: A systematic-narrative literature review of basic skills and personality

Associated data.

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

There is controversy regarding whether gender differences are smaller or larger in societies that promote gender equality highlighting the need for an integrated analysis. This review examines literature correlating, on a national level, gender differences in basic skills—mathematics, science (including attitudes and anxiety), and reading—as well as personality, to gender equality indicators. The aim is to assess the cross-national pattern of these differences when linked to measures of gender equality and explore new explanatory variables that can shed light on this linkage. The review was based on quantitative research relating country-level measures of gender differences to gender equality composite indices and specific indicators. The findings show that the mathematics gender gap from the PISA and TIMMS assessments, is not linked to composite indices and specific indicators, but gender differences are larger in gender-equal countries for reading, mathematics attitudes, and personality (Big Five, HEXACO, Basic Human Values, and Vocational Interests). Research on science and overall scores (mathematics, science, and reading considered together) is inconclusive. It is proposed that the paradox in reading results from the interrelation between basic skills and the attempt to increase girls’ mathematics abilities both acting simultaneously while the paradox in mathematics attitudes might be explained by girls being less exposed to mathematics than boys. On the other hand, a more nuanced understanding of the gender equality paradox in personality is advanced, in which a gene–environment-cultural interplay accounts for the phenomenon. Challenges for future cross-national research are discussed.

1. Introduction

Despite Western countries having considerably advanced in gender equality, gender horizontal segregation remains among the main drivers of economic gender inequality ( Cech, 2013 ). Women have entered the labor market at increasingly high rates since the 70s, nevertheless, they often still work in specific sectors with substantial effects on their income ( Cortes and Pan, 2018 ). Gender segregation is already visible at the educational level where girls are overrepresented in disciplines such as Social Sciences and Humanities; these subjects are characterized by lower labor market prospects and income ( van de Werfhorst, 2017 ). On the other hand, boys prefer STEM fields which offer high-salaried and more status-related careers ( Barone and Assirelli, 2020 ). To explain the phenomenon, scholars in sociology and psychology have been particularly interested in basic skills and personality gender variances due to their influence on gendered career choices and outcomes ( Rosenbloom et al., 2008 ; Dekhtyar et al., 2018 ; Stoet and Geary, 2018 ).

Regardless of doubts about their magnitude ( Hyde, 2005 ; Archer, 2019 ; Hirnstein et al., 2022 ), gender differences in basic skills and personality are well-established in the literature ( Halpern, 2000 ; Halpern et al., 2007 ; Geary, 2010 ; Weisberg et al., 2011 ). The gender gaps favoring boys in mathematics and science are close to zero on average but observable at the upper and lower tails of the distribution ( Halpern et al., 2007 ; Wai et al., 2018 ). Conversely, differences in reading skills (women > men) are more pronounced and already noticeable when comparing men’s and women’s statistical means ( Halpern, 2000 ; Moè et al., 2021 ). Regarding personality (Big Five, HEXACO, Basic Human Values, and Vocational Interests), gender variances, although small to medium, occur across models and share a similar pattern. On the one hand, women score higher in negative emotions and reciprocity as well as prefer to “work with people.” On the other hand, men have more realistic preferences and regard status-related values more ( Schwartz and Rubel, 2005 ; Schmitt et al., 2008 ; Su et al., 2009 ; Lee and Ashton, 2018 ). On a national level, however, the link between these gender differences and gender equality, measured using conventional indicators such as the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Index (GGI), remains unclear with scholars making contrasting predictions.

Numerous social-role theories of gender differences expect that the gaps between men and women will decrease as equality between them is achieved ( Eagly and Mitchell, 2004 ; Else-Quest et al., 2010 ). These theories argue that cognitive and personality gender differences are derived from socially constructed gender identities based on erroneous essential beliefs (stereotypes) that men and women are intrinsically different ( Wood and Eagly, 2013 ). Gender stereotypes originate from the division of labor in ancient hunter-gatherer societies, in which greater strength allowed men to engage in more power-related activities, while women were tasked with nurturing duties because of their ability to breastfeed ( Eagly and Wood, 1999 ). Stereotypes would emerge early in life, with elementary school children already consistently engaging in gender essentialism, gender stereotyping, and implicit gender associations ( Meyer and Gelman, 2016 ). Parents, teachers, and friends are responsible for reinforcing them, rewarding children for behaving according to gendered expectations ( Gunderson et al., 2012 ), thereby making gender a “primary framing device for social relations” ( Ridgeway, 2006 ). As a result, boys and girls grow up into adults who have gender-specific roles in society and experience gender-conforming environments that shape their distinct skills and personalities ( Diekman and Schneider, 2010 ). The common assumption underlying these theories predicts that essentialist beliefs decrease in countries with higher gender equality. If this is true, empirical research will find smaller gender differences in more gender-equal nations.

Other studies have theorized an opposite trend, with men and women becoming increasingly dissimilar in gender-equal countries ( Charles and Bradley, 2009 ; Kaiser, 2019 ). Recently, Stoet and Geary (2018) labeled this phenomenon “the gender equality paradox.” Some have proposed that this paradox results from an emphasis on individualism and a societal system designed to accommodate women in what is perceived to be their gendered role ( Charles and Grusky, 2018 ). Others have applied an evolutionary approach and argued that in less unequal environments, men and women freely express their intrinsic differences as the privileged access to resources in “more prosperous and more egalitarian” societies favors the emergence of specific gender-evolved behaviors ( Schmitt et al., 2008 ).

Although the topic of gender difference has been widely discussed, whether men and women become progressively similar or different when greater equality between them has been achieved remains uncertain. This paper reviews several theories hypothesizing contrasting patterns, and then turns to the recent scientific debate on gender differences in basic skills from the PISA and TIMMS assessments, as well as personality (Big Five, HEXACO, Basic Human Values, and Vocational Interests) to consider how they relate to measures of gender equality on a national level. Several challenges for future cross-national research are also highlighted. Specifically, the present review indicates that the correlation between gender differences in mathematics and gender equality may derive from the lack of country-level effects in the models, while ecological stress (food consumption and historical levels of pathogen prevalence) may confound the results for personality. In addition, the paper examines explanations of the paradox in different domains and proposes a novel theory to explain the gender equality paradox in personality, where a “feedback-loop” effect (gene–environment-culture interplay) might account for the phenomenon.

The narrative approach was assessed to be the most suitable method for this study. Compared to more analytical methods, it allows for deeper insights into the ongoing debate ( Graham, 1995 ). However, issues may arise with this method due to bias in paper selection and interpretation ( Dijkers, 2009 ). To avoid these issues, the author implemented a systematic approach based on PRISMA guidelines together with the narrative method.

2.1. Eligibility criteria

To be eligible for inclusion, papers had to have been published between 2009 and 2022, and they had to describe quantitative cross-national research analyzing gender differences associated with measures of gender equality (composite indices or specific indicators) utilizing international data. The selected studies were divided into two groups—basic skills and personality—then further divided into multiple subgroups: mathematics, science (including attitudes and anxiety), reading, and overall scores for basic skills, as well as the Big Five, the HEXACO model, basic human values and vocational interests for personality factors. Since they had fewer available papers, the Big Five and HEXACO, as well as basic human values and vocational interests categories were combined.

2.2. Information sources

Published studies were selected from Scopus, Web of Science, Social Science Database, and Google Scholar. The final search was conducted on all databases in November 2022.

2.3. Search strategy

The research focused on gender differences in basic skills and personality due to their strong relationships with horizontal gender segregation. Thus, the main search words were “gender/sex differences in mathematics/reading/science,” “gender/sex differences in personality,” “gender/sex differences in basic human values” and “gender/sex differences in vocational interests.” The search was then refined using “gender equality/egalitarianism/inequality” as parameters.

2.4. Selection process

Only papers published in English were considered, and they were selected based on their titles, abstracts, and keywords. This study’s author was primarily responsible for the selection, although two other scholars supervised the process and ensured systematic application of the selection criteria.

Ninety-one papers were preselected; 35 were excluded after deeper screening because they did not match the selection criteria. An additional 25 studies were excluded because they studied gender differences outside the domains of interest. Consequently, 31 papers were included in the study.

3. Overview of gender differences in basic skills and personality and their possible relation to gender equality

3.1. gender differences.

On a national level, gender differences in basic skills and personality have been repeatedly described. Research has shown that boys slightly outperform girls in complex mathematical riddles ( Reilly et al., 2019 ); this difference has been associated with men’s overrepresentation in STEM fields ( Dekhtyar et al., 2018 ). Although the difference approaches zero, gaps are especially visible among the top and lower performers because of the higher variability in boys ( Lindberg et al., 2010 ; Wai et al., 2018 ). Stated otherwise, while there are barely any differences on average, the men’s distribution has a flatter curve, yielding higher values at both the lowest and highest ends. Similarly, men appear to have a small advantage over women in science, with differences particularly visible at the top end of the distribution; however, men are also overrepresented among the lowest performers ( Halpern, 2000 ).

Mathematics and science achievement is influenced not only by skills, but also by mathematics and science attitudes, test anxiety, and self-efficacy ( Ashcraft and Moore, 2009 ; Geary et al., 2019 ). These dimensions are believed to be strong determinants of STEM careers and contribute to the underrepresentation of women in these fields ( Moakler and Kim, 2014 ; Sax et al., 2015 ). Research has shown that men generally report more enjoyment and positive attitudes than women when engaging in mathematical activities ( Ganley and Vasilyeva, 2011 ; Devine et al., 2012 ).

By contrast, women perform substantially better than men on verbal tasks ( Moè et al., 2021 ), with girls using a broader vocabulary than boys on average by age two ( Halpern, 2000 ; van der Slik et al., 2015 ). Verbal abilities comprise various skills, and gender differences are most prominent in the reading dimension, where the girls’ advantage is three times wider than the boys’ advantage in mathematics ( Stoet and Geary, 2013 ). Nevertheless, Hirnstein et al. (2022) have cast some doubts on the magnitude of gender differences in verbal abilities claiming that publication bias might have influenced the results.

Cognitive abilities are largely interrelated. For example, high math skills predict higher reading scores and vice versa ( Bos et al., 2012 ; Reilly, 2012 ). Women’s mean overall scores considerably outperform men’s, even though the latter appears to be better positioned at the top and lower tails of the distribution, a finding that supports the higher men variability hypothesis ( Halpern et al., 2007 ; Bergold et al., 2017 ).

Turning to personality, gender differences are reported across the Big Five traits (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism) and the HEXACO model (honesty–humility, emotionality, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness), suggesting small to moderate gaps depending on the test and dimension analyzed. Specifically, women score higher in both neuroticism and agreeableness ( Costa et al., 2001 ; Schmitt et al., 2008 ; Murphy et al., 2021 ), although findings have been inconclusive for openness, extraversion, and conscientiousness, with some studies showing women and others showing a men’s advantage ( Goodwin and Gotlib, 2004 ; Shokri et al., 2007 ). The HEXACO model displays a similar pattern, with emotionality and honesty–humility both substantially higher in women than men ( Lee and Ashton, 2004 , 2018 ).

Men and women also differ in value priority and vocational interests. According to Schwartz’s theory ( Schwartz, 1999 ), values define the motivations behind behaviors that regulate attraction in diverse fields. Although the variations are small to medium, research has consistently shown gender gaps, with men scoring higher in power, stimulation, hedonism, achievement, and self-direction and women scoring higher in universalism and benevolence ( Schwartz and Rubel, 2005 ). On the other hand, vocational interests ( Holland, 1997 ) describe how personality interacts with career environments and are important determinants of gender-typed career trajectories ( Kuhn and Wolter, 2022 ). Previous studies have shown that men prefer to be employed in realistic fields, while women favor working with people ( Lippa, 2010a ), suggesting that men have more realistic and investigative interests, preferring careers in engineering, science, and mathematics. By contrast, women prefer “working with people” as they have more artistic, social, and conventional tendencies, which facilitate social science careers ( Su et al., 2009 ).

3.2. Theories predicting that gender equality is linked with smaller gender differences

The social role theory ( Eagly and Wood, 1999 ) posits that variations between men and women derive from the interaction, reinforced by socio-psychological processes, between evolved gender differences in physicality and the socio-cultural context in which these differences are expressed. Eagly and Wood (2012) have argued that, historically, men’s greater strength, endurance, and speed allowed them to conduct physically challenging duties. Conversely, women developed the ability to breastfeed, making them better suited for nurturing tasks. These evolved physical predispositions for specific activities shaped the domestic division of labor between men and women in ancient hunter-gatherer societies ( Eagly and Wood, 2012 ).

As societies developed, the division of labor began to be influenced by physical gender differences in interaction with the social environment ( Eagly and Wood, 1999 ). In modern countries, the socioeconomic setting dictates the relevance of those activities for which men and women have evolved peculiar physical predispositions. In this context, division of labor no longer relates solely to the domestic sphere but also encompasses paid labor, with men and women being segregated into different occupations. This gender segregation “derives in part from male and female biology—that is, mainly their evolved physical attributes, especially women’s reproductive activities and men’s size and strength, which can allow some activities to be more efficiently performed by one sex or the other depending on the socioeconomic and ecological context” ( Wood and Eagly, 2013 ). Thus, the interaction of evolved physical gender differences with the social environment in which they are expressed is likely to be the main process shaping gender segregation.

Within societies, social-psychological processes reinforce gender segregation and make it appear “natural and sensible” ( Wood and Eagly, 2013 ). Most people, when observing differential behaviors, assume that men and women are intrinsically dissimilar and construct specific “multifaceted” gender roles that include either essentially masculine or essentially feminine features ( Beckwith, 2005 ; Wood and Eagly, 2012 ). Individuals then internalize these roles through societal mechanisms that reward people who comply and penalize those who deviate, leading both men and women to develop specific skills and personality ( Friedman and Downey, 2002 ; Eagly and Wood, 2012 ). Consequently, gender differences in basic skills and personality are derived from the great effort that societies have undertaken to perpetuate gender segregation and comply with constructed gender roles ( Wood and Eagly, 2013 ). It follows that in countries where gender roles are relaxed, gender segregation and, as a result, gender differences in basic skills and personality will be smaller ( Eagly and Mitchell, 2004 ).

The gender stratification hypothesis ( Baker and Jones, 1993 ) is consistent with the theory presented above. Although originally formulated to explain gender gaps in mathematics, it has also been applied in other spheres. The theory suggests that essentialist gender beliefs interact with individual goals, thereby generating gender differences. These differences emerge because men in patriarchal societies can connect their skills with career outcomes, whereas women cannot do so due to unequal opportunities ( Else-Quest et al., 2010 ). In sum, societies that exhibit more gender stratification offer fewer opportunities for women to experience and develop the same skills and personalities as men.

Drawing from expectancy-value theory ( Wigfield, 1994 ) and cognitive social learning theory ( Bussey and Bandura, 1999 ), the gender stratification hypothesis argues that people undertake a task only if they value it and expect success. Perceptions of a task’s value are shaped by socio-cultural stereotypes about characteristics assumed to be gender-essential. Thus, women, due to gender stereotypes, would not find it valuable to invest in domains perceived as “masculine” because they would not expect to succeed in them. Instead, they would prefer to develop more “feminine” skills, and this predilection generates gender variances ( Frome and Eccles, 1998 ).

The above process is ostensibly reinforced by environmental processes that highlight those behaviors that are generally linked to gender in a given cultural setting. In this context, environment relates to the social influences that could be imposed, selected, or contracted according to “levels of personal agency,” that is, the extent to which people feel they are in charge of their decisions ( Bandura and Walters, 1977 ). According to this perspective, the immediate environment provides gender-essentialist information through parents, friends, and the media. Individuals regulate their behaviors according to the social expectations conveyed by this information and, through “direct tuition,” inform others about how different behaviors are linked to gender ( Bussey and Bandura, 1999 ).

According to the above theories, gender differences derive from false essentialist beliefs that diminish opportunities for subjective growth, making differences the result of unequal social treatment ( Figure 1 ). Gender essentialism is conceived as a “powerful ideological” force that legitimates gendered choices and limits personal development ( West and Zimmerman, 1987 ). Stated otherwise, gender not only represents the lens through which people see the world, but it also constitutes the basis for categorizing individuals ( Bussey and Bandura, 1999 ). However, as the above theories emphasize, any visible variation between men and women results not from innate biological differences but from social impositions. If men and women were treated alike, gender stereotypes would fade, exposing them to similar stimuli and, consequently, eliminating gender differences in both basic skills and personality ( Baker and Jones, 1993 ; Eagly and Wood, 1999 ). Thus, gender equality is likely to be associated with reduced gender variation. As Else-Quest et al. (2010) claimed, “where there is greater gender equity, gender similarities … will be evident.” Eagly et al. (2004) argued in the same vein, maintaining that “the demise of many sex differences with increasing gender equality is a prediction of social role theory.”

Overview of social-role theories of gender differences. Gender differences are generated by essentialist beliefs that men and women are intrinsically different which are in turn influenced by social norms in tandem with the division of labor derived from gender physical specialization.

3.3. Theories predicting that gender equality is linked with wider gender differences

Drawing on gender essentialism, Charles and Bradley (2009) theorized an opposite effect—that gaps might increase with greater gender equality. They posited that, even if societies are gender equal, gender stereotypes endure because of the emphasis on individualism and self-expression in these societies. Specifically, gender equality stresses the expression of subjective preferences; however, it does not question how that preference emerges—an emergence that, Charles and Bradley (2009) ascribe to societal mechanisms influencing individuals based on their gender. These mechanisms strengthen essentialist beliefs about differences between men and women, in turn reinforcing gender-related roles ( Levanon and Grusky, 2018 ).

According to the foregoing analysis, societal systems are characterized by internal structural diversification that is conceptualized to accommodate individual “expressive choices” but functions, instead, to increase stereotypes as people act out their internalized gender identities rather than their subjective preferences ( Rawlings, 2007 ; Charles et al., 2014 ). In addition, long periods of care leave and advanced family policies, which are generally found in gender-equal countries, tend to influence horizontal gender segregation and compel women to enter into roles typically considered more gender-appropriate ( Freiberg, 2019 ), widening even further the prevailing gender gaps. Thus, even when a society becomes more gender equal, “a preponderance of gender-typical choices” and an increase in gender variances can be expected ( Charles and Bradley, 2009 ). Supporting this statement, some scholars have argued that gender stereotypes increase in more gender-equal nations ( Breda et al., 2020 ; Napp and Breda, 2022 ). Others have stated that “cultural individualism” is often the strongest predictor of gender gaps in equal societies ( Bleidorn et al., 2016 ; Kaiser, 2019 ).

Evolutionary theorists claim that differences between men and women are magnified in more gender-equal environments because privileged access to resources allows them to freely express specific gender “ambitions and desires” ( Schmitt et al., 2008 ; Stoet and Geary, 2018 ). These theorists argue that from an evolutionary perspective, the possibility that men and women evolved with identical characteristics is a “theoretical impossibility” and maintain that gender differences are derived, in part, from innate predispositions ( Vandermassen, 2011 ). Specifically, variations are expected to be visible in those domains in which the evolutionary pressure, mainly sexual selection, has influenced men and women differently ( Schmitt, 2015 ). According to this view, the interplay between “sex-linked” genes and environmental stressors is responsible for the more pronounced gender dimorphism in modern nations ( Schmitt et al., 2008 ).

In ancient hunter-gatherer societies, men and women evolved specific, intrinsic differences as a result of evolutionary adaptation ( Mealey, 2000 ). Nevertheless, environmental conditions suppressed these innate differences that have subsequently re-emerged in developed societies characterized by reduced ecological pressure stemming from favorable economic circumstances. Gender differences in sensitivity to environmental change have played a key role in explaining this re-emergence. Generally, in the animal kingdom, the larger animal between the two sexes shows sharper fluctuations in behavior when ecological settings vary. The same appears to be true among humans, where men are more influenced by environmental changes ( Teder and Tammaru, 2005 ). It follows that both men and women, but especially men, are less affected by environmental components in resource-rich countries, where they are free to follow their intrinsic characteristics ( Schmitt et al., 2017 ). Conversely, in countries that offer fewer economic opportunities, choices are constrained, and reduced gender differences might be evident ( Stoet and Geary, 2018 ).

Thus, according to the evolutionary hypothesis, increased gender variations in more gender-equal societies are mainly a product of the sexual selection that men and women have undergone during evolution together with gender differences in sensitivity to environmental changes ( Schmitt et al., 2008 ). This interplay of gender-linked genes and environmental influences is relevant for some gender variances, such as height, since men in more developed societies are reported to be more sensitive to environmental changes ( Sohn, 2015 ).

4. Basic skills and gender equality

Most studies on gender differences in basic skills have focused on the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS) and the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). TIMMS targets fourth- and eighth-grade students worldwide and reports their academic achievements every 4 years. Similarly, PISA is a triennial test of mathematics and science administered to 15-year-old adolescents in several countries. The PISA and TIMMS tests have been related to only a few gender equality indices; the most commonly used are the World Economic Forum’s Gender Gap Index (GGI) and the United Nations’ Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM). Both indicators are based on sub-indices that assess gender equality in numerous domains, such as educational attainment, political empowerment, and health.

4.1. Mathematics

As Table 1 shows, the math gender gap does not usually relate to gender equality when analyzing TIMMS data; in the PISA data, however, the findings appear to be more divergent.

Correlations between mathematics gender differences (men > women) and both composite indices and specific indicators of gender equality.

GEM, Gender Empowerment Measure; GEI, Gender Equality Index; GGI, Gender Gap Index; GEQ, Gender Equality and Quality of Life; SIGE, Standardized Index of Gender Equality; RSW, relative status of women; RE, ratio of men to women in education; WR, women in research; WPEA, women’s participation in economic activities; FPS, female parliamentary seats; HMP, female’s higher labor market positions; WE, women’s parity in education; WL, women’s labor market participation.

Else-Quest et al. (2010) found that higher gender equality leads to slightly smaller differences between men and women in mathematics, although with variation across indices ( r  = 0.09–0.14). Similarly, Hyde and Mertz (2009) showed that more equitable index scores result in more women being among the top performers; however, their analysis used a small country sample and excluded Scandinavian nations (more on this below). Moreover, Gevrek et al. (2018) argued that moving toward gender equality predicts a reduced gender gap in mathematics in the part that cannot be explained by “observable characteristics,” that is, explained by elements that can be controlled for in statistical analyses.

However, the results appear to depend on the years that were considered in the analysis. For example, Stoet and Geary (2013 , 2015) found that only the 2003 PISA assessment was consistent with theories hypothesizing that gender equality is linked with smaller gender differences. For other years, gender-equal practices were unrelated to a mathematics gap. Additionally, the results are sensitive to the inclusion of Scandinavian and gender-segregated, Muslim countries as well as gender-equal nations in which boys considerably underperform girls ( Fryer and Levitt, 2010 ; Kane and Mertz, 2012 ; Stoet and Geary, 2015 ). However, some have raised doubts about including Muslim countries in the sample ( Kane and Mertz, 2012 ). Other scholars have proposed that the positive findings derive from a spurious correlation between the GGI and country-specific unobserved variances ( Anghel et al., 2019 ). Finally, as reported in Table 1 , Gevrek et al. (2020) recently reversed their findings, strengthening the evidence that gender equality, measured by composite indicators, is not linked to gender differences in mathematics achievement.

However, composite indices may fail to account for explicit factors influencing the mathematics gender gap while specific indicators may be more suitable for measuring how gender differences vary in relation to gender equality. As Table 1 shows, having more women in research, higher levels of female participation in economic activities, a higher ratio of women to men holding parliamentary seats, and greater educational equality seem to predict reduced gender variation ( Else-Quest et al., 2010 ; Penner and Cadwallader Olsker, 2012 ). More recently, Gevrek et al. (2020) extended their research by decomposing the mathematics gender gap into that which could be explained by “observable characteristics” and that which could not. Their finding suggests that the men-to-women ratio in tertiary education and the lower gender wage gap are not related to the explainable part of the gender gap, although they predicted a reduction in the unexplained part.

As mentioned earlier, also the findings for specific indicators depend on the year and countries considered. For instance, the results for the “women in research” indicator are unreliable because they sharply fluctuate across PISA assessments ( r  = −0.16, r  = −0.68; Reilly, 2012 ; Stoet and Geary, 2015 ). The relation is mainly driven by countries that are, on average, less gender-equal but display lower gender discrepancies, such as Latvia, Serbia, Tunisia, and Thailand, as well as non-OECD nations ( Reilly, 2012 ; Stoet and Geary, 2015 ).

Regarding “women’s economic activity,” Stoet and Geary (2015) analyzed four PISA assessments (2000, 2003, 2006, and 2009) and concluded that only the 2000 and 2003 results were consistent with theories predicting that gender equality is linked to smaller gender differences. In addition, “females in parliamentary seats” never reached statistical significance; only in the 2003 assessment did a link appear by excluding either non-OECD or Nordic countries from the sample ( Stoet and Geary, 2015 ). Further, while Penner and Cadwallader Olsker (2012) showed that countries with more women participation in the labor force tended to have higher mathematics gender differences, the gender gap was not linked to gender equality in their analysis, contrary to the predictions. In sum, only “women in research” demonstrated a significant negative relationship with the gender gap in mathematics, although the magnitude of this relationship is in doubt. Additionally, the gender equality paradox had no empirical support when analyzing mathematics abilities. Girls outperformed boys in diverse socio-cultural environments, such as Finland and Qatar, demonstrating that egalitarian attitudes do not explain gender discrepancies in this dimension ( Stoet and Geary, 2015 ). However, more gender equality had a positive effect on individuals, with both men and women increasing their mathematics scores in this context, without any specific advantages for either group ( Kane and Mertz, 2012 ).

4.2. Mathematics attitudes and anxiety

In line with the gender equality paradox, mathematics attitudes and anxiety gender gaps are higher in gender-equal countries ( Else-Quest et al., 2010 ; Stoet et al., 2016 ). Else-Quest et al. (2010) explained this phenomenon by arguing that mathematics anxiety is “a luxury, most often experienced by individuals who are not preoccupied with meeting more basic needs.” However, at the national level, both men and women tend to be less anxious about mathematics in equal societies, even though men benefit more from this lack of anxiety, enhancing gender differences as a consequence ( Stoet et al., 2016 ). Only Goldman and Penner (2016) showed contrary results to that of the above research, arguing that gender differences in mathematics attitudes remain stable, even in gender-equal countries. Recently, Marsh et al. (2021) proposed that the gender equality paradox in these dimensions is “illusory” as it vanishes when accounting for country-level academic achievements and socioeconomic status; however, further studies are needed to support their argument. According to the women’s political representation index, gender-equal nations also have wider self-efficacy and motivation gaps. By contrast, other specific indicators, such as “equality in wages” and “parity in secondary and tertiary education,” predict smaller gaps ( Else-Quest et al., 2010 ; Gevrek et al., 2020 ). Similarly, anxiety differences decline when there is equal political representation between men and women because women gain more than men in politically equal environments ( Else-Quest et al., 2010 ; Gevrek et al., 2020 ).

In conclusion, gender equality is negatively related to gender differences in mathematics attitudes when analyzing composite indices; however, specific indicators are either inversely or directly related. It appears that pursuing equal political representation counteracts the results achieved by parity in wages and education, putting the overall advantage into question. Moreover, although self-efficacy and motivational gender gaps increase as equality is achieved in political representation, parity in tertiary education and wages shows an opposite trend.

4.3. Science, reading, and overall scores

Table 2 shows the science gender gap’s mixed results for composite indicators. Analyzing the GGI, Reilly (2012) concluded that the gender gap in science achievement decreases as gender equality increases ( r  = 0.29); nevertheless, men are better represented among the top scorers. By contrast, Ireson (2017) failed to replicate any meaningful relationships. However, a recent meta-analysis reported that gender-equal societies are characterized by “a pattern of higher male achievement, while for nations with lower gender equality, we see a pattern of higher female achievement” ( Reilly et al., 2019 ).

Correlations between gender differences in science, reading, and overall scores (men–women) and both composite indices and specific indicators of gender equality.

GEI, Gender Equality Index; GGI, Gender Gap Index; GEQ, Gender Equality and Quality of Life; RSW, relative status of women; WAE, women’s access to education; TSER, tertiary school enrollment rate, boys/girls; WPLM, women’s participation in the labor market; WR, women in research; RE, ratio of men to women in education; WPEA, women’s participation in economic activities; FPS, female parliamentary seats; HMP, women’s higher labor market positions.

As reported in Table 2 , also the specific indicators provide mixed results. No connection with the science gender gap is established for the “relative status of women,” whereas “women in research” is linked with increased gender differences ( r  = −0.39; Reilly, 2012 ).

These studies were based on inter-group comparisons, which may not have been appropriate for analyzing the relationship in question given the small mean gender gap in science. However, analyzing intra-individual strengths could move the debate forward because these are strongly related to career choices ( Wang and Degol, 2017 ). Studies have shown that men are more likely to have higher abilities in mathematics or science than in reading, generating a “math tilt,” whereas women generate a “verbal tilt,” with differences more visible at the distribution’s right tail ( Wai et al., 2018 ). In other words, although the mean gender variation in science approaches zero, an increasing number of men as compared to women have their top skill in science as opposed to reading, whereas the opposite trend holds true for women (see below). Analyzing 67 nations, Stoet and Geary (2018) pointed out that gender variances in science (and mathematics) intra-individual strength are higher in favor of boys in gender-equal nations. This trend among men could facilitate their preference for scientific careers because they would have the highest likelihood of success and especially so in gender-equal environments ( Dekhtyar et al., 2018 ).

Regarding attitudes, “almost everywhere” girls display a lower science self-concept than boys, even when their academic skills are equal to those of their male peers ( Sikora and Pokropek, 2012 ). Supporting the gender equality paradox, research has noted that gender differences in science self-efficacy, science enjoyment, and interest tend to be larger in gender-equal nations ( Stoet and Geary, 2018 ; Liou et al., 2022 ).

Table 2 shows that studies on reading differences, although few, have substantially converged, demonstrating an increased gender gap in favor of women when there is more equality between genders. Although no correlation is found for the GGI, gender equality results in higher women representation among top-performing students ( Reilly, 2012 ). Notably, the GGI has recently been linked to an increased reading gender gap in advanced societies ( Gevrek et al., 2020 ). Analyzing specific indicators, Reilly (2012) showed that “women in research” directly relates to gender differences in reading achievement, thus predicting progressively higher variations. Gevrek et al. (2020) reached similar conclusions, arguing that the reading gender gap is wider in favor of girls in countries where there is more gender equality in the labor market. Furthermore, studies on intra-individual strengths have also been consistent, showing that girls’ tilt in reading skills is larger than that of boys in gender-equal societies ( Stoet and Geary, 2018 ).

Few studies have focused on gender differences at the aggregate skills level, and those that exist have shown mixed results (see Table 2 ). Similar to the results for mathematics ability, Stoet and Geary (2015) found a significant increase in aggregate skill differences between boys and girls in nations with higher gender equality (GGI), although only in the 2003 PISA assessment. However, excluding either Iceland or Finland from the sample significantly weakened the link, and it disappeared when considering other years ( Stoet and Geary, 2015 ; Ireson, 2017 ). Recently, inspired by research on gender differences in gray and white matter, Stoet and Geary (2020) argued that the basic skills pattern should be considered as a whole to understand the full magnitude of gender variation. Assessing the overall pattern in mathematics, science, and reading performance, it appears that the gap is greater than previously measured, corresponding to a large statistical difference, and it widens in more gender-equal environments.

Some researchers have proposed that egalitarian values, have a “more pervasive influence” and might offer a better understanding of the topic ( Eriksson et al., 2020 ). An examination of these values suggests that “one standard deviation higher in gender equal values is on average 5.2 points more beneficial for boys” ( Eriksson et al., 2020 ). This observation holds true for the GGI.

Contrary to theories predicting that gender equality is linked with smaller gender differences, “male/female enrollment in tertiary education” is inversely related to gender differences in overall achievement in countries with gender-neutral enrollment rates that also have more men among the top performers ( r  = 0.19; Bergold et al., 2017 ). Conversely, “women’s labor market participation,” “women’s share of research positions,” and “the ratio of women to men with at least a secondary education” have medium-size negative correlations (from r  = 0.33–0.42), which may account for 28.7% of the gender variation ( Bergold et al., 2017 ).

In sum, few studies have examined the link between gender equality and gender differences in science, reading, and overall scores, making it difficult to draw any firm conclusions. The findings for science and overall scores are contradictory, while for reading, there is substantial agreement about there being a gender equality paradox favoring women. Furthermore, due to their interrelatedness, a communal pattern between these skills emerges when examining intra-individual strengths. This pattern is characterized by increasingly wider science/mathematics and reading tilts for boys and girls, respectively. The tilt for girls shows that when girls have a science or mathematics score similar to boys, they tend to have better grades in reading, a trend that is especially observed in gender-equal nations ( Stoet and Geary, 2018 ). However, scholars have only recently begun to consider intra-individual strengths, which represent a great opportunity for future studies on gender segregation.

5. Personality and gender equality

5.1. the big five and the hexaco model.

Evidence supporting a paradox emerged as early as 2001 when Costa et al. (2001) concluded that men’s and women’s personalities differ more in gender-equal countries. Schmitt et al. (2008) replicated these findings across 55 nations, again suggesting a positive correlation between gender differences and gender equality. More recently, larger gender differences in agreeableness favoring women have been found in gender-equal nations (see Table 3 ), mainly because of lower agreeableness in men in these nations with gender being the strongest predictor of individual levels ( Lippa, 2010b ). Conversely, the gender gap in neuroticism (women > men) has not been found to be affected by gender equality, even though the UN’s gender development and empowerment index predicts a decrease in negative emotions in both men and women ( Lippa, 2010b ).

Correlations between gender differences in personality (men–women) and composite indices of gender equality.

GGI, Gender Gap Index; UN, UN’s Gender-Related Development Index; PCC, Population Crisis Committee Index of Gender Equality; PA, Prescott-Allen’s (2001) index of gender equity.

While these findings are illuminating, looking only at single dimensions may lead to counterintuitive results because personality is multifaceted ( Vianello et al., 2013 ). Although the average gender gap for a given personality trait is small, the overall variance is conventionally regarded as large, implying a significant difference between men and women ( Del Giudice, 2009 ). Based on the latter premise, Mac Giolla and Kajonius (2019) noted a strong relationship between gender personality differences and gender equality, with overall differences being broader in “gender-friendly” countries ( r  = 0.69). Other studies have supported these results, observing the same widening pattern ( Kaiser, 2019 ). Similarly, the emotionality gap from the HEXACO model displays a direct relationship with the GGI ( r  = 0.56), with women having an increasingly higher level than men in more gender-equal countries. However, honesty–humility fails to display any association with gender equality ( Lee and Ashton, 2020 ).

Further evidence for a gender equality paradox in personality emerges from the study by Falk and Hermle (2018) that, building upon the above personality models, related gender differences in economic preferences – positive reciprocity, patience, altruism, trust, risk-taking (higher in women), and negative reciprocity (higher in men) – to gender equality measures. They concluded that the differences are characterized by sharp increases in more gender-equal countries ( r  = 0.67).

5.2. Basic human values and vocational interests

Basic human values (see Table 3 ) of power, achievement and stimulation are generally considered more important for men, whereas benevolence and universalism are valued among women. Past research has found that these gender differences are broader when men and women are treated equally, even though both genders regard masculine values to be less significant ( Schwartz and Rubel-Lifschitz, 2009 ). More recently, Fors Connolly et al. (2020) extended the research on human values by adding a temporal dimension. Their analysis replicated the results cross-nationally, although temporal examination displayed a convergence between men and women in benevolence (over time, Cohen’s d −15%), with universalism and stimulation gaps remaining constant ( Fors Connolly et al., 2020 ). However, as the authors noted, this convergence resulted from factors not linked to gender equality, indicating that the correlation might be spurious and caused by confounding factors related to both gender equality and personality. This additional finding suggests that gender equality could not cause gender differences in values and that the gender equality paradox needs further exploration.

For vocational interests, few studies have examined how gender differences change with gender equality. Using the Brinkman Model of Interests, one study found that ‘gender differences in musical and persuasive interests decreased in countries with high gender egalitarianism; nevertheless, clerical and scientific interests were higher when gender egalitarianism was high’ ( Ott-Holland et al., 2013 ). However, most differences did not show any variance. More recently Tao et al. (2022) offered a more comprehensive overview highlighting that across all dimensions of vocational interest analyzed, increased gender equality was associated with wider gender differences. As Table 3 shows, gender personality differences generally increase in gender-equal countries. This finding is consistent across models and it appears to be valid also for dimensions not analyzed in this review (see Discussion for a more in-depth analysis).

6. Discussion

The systematic narrative literature review investigated recent studies on gender differences in basic skills and personality to determine whether cross-national relationships can be found with gender equality. The goal was to assess whether theories predicting that gender equality is linked with smaller gender differences have empirical support or whether a gender equality paradox has emerged in recent years. The general trend considers gender equality as either being connected to an increase in gender variations or having no relation with them, with a gender equality paradox occurring for gender gaps in some cognitive domains (attitudes toward mathematics, mathematics self-efficacy, mathematics anxiety, and reading) and personality.

6.1. Summary of the review

Based on the foregoing literature review, it can be seen that research supporting reduced gender differences in more gender-equal countries is scarce and inconsistent. A negative correlation is generally detected when analyzing gender differences in mathematics skills utilizing PISA data, although the correlation is influenced by either the year considered in the study or the sample country (see below). Moreover, “women in research” is the only specific indicator consistently negatively linked to the mathematics gender gap, albeit with disagreement about the strength of the association. Lastly, no connection between gender differences in mathematics and gender equality indicators is found when analyzing the TIMMS assessment. However, many studies have focused solely on mean differences in mathematics abilities, which are small or non-existent. Only Bergold et al. (2017) and Hyde and Mertz (2009) assessed the right tail of the distribution, where gender differences are more pronounced. This lack of studies on top performers highlights a gap in the research that needs to be filled. Also important is analyzing intra-individual strengths when studying the mathematics gender gap, as Stoet and Geary (2018) have emphasized.

Research supporting a positive link between gender variances and gender equality measures appears to be more robust and consistent. The literature on mathematics attitudes and anxiety shows that composite indicators predict a widening gender gap as equality between men and women advances. In addition, scholars agree that gender equality is connected with a larger advantage for women in reading and evidence further shows that gender personality differences are larger in more gender-equal nations. Men and women are less alike, especially in personality traits and basic human values, in countries that have invested the most in gender equality. Further support for a gender equality paradox in personality also emerges when examining other personality domains not included in this review. For example, wider gender gaps in self-esteem and narcissism (higher in men) exist in more gender-equal nations where women have more reproductive control, more executive positions, and their education is either similar to or higher than that of men ( Bleidorn et al., 2016 ; Jonason et al., 2020 ).

Specific indicators are either directly or inversely related to the mathematics gender gap, raising doubt about them being related to a general advantage ( Table 4 ). In addition, findings on science and overall scores are uncertain, even though both science anxiety and science intra-individual strengths follow a trend opposite to that anticipated by theories predicting a link between gender equality and smaller gender differences. Interestingly, other skills, such as episodic memory and visuospatial ability, show the same widening tendency, strengthening the case for a possible paradox in this area ( Lippa et al., 2010 ; Asperholm et al., 2019 ).

Summary of the papers included in the review.

GEM, Gender Empowerment Measure; GEI, Gender Equality Index; GGI, Gender Gap Index; GEQ, Gender Equality and Quality of Life; SIGE, Standardized Index of Gender Equality; RSW, relative status of women; RE, ratio of men to women in education; WR, women in research; WPEA, women’s participation in economic activities; FPS, female parliamentary seats; HMP, female’s higher labor market positions; WE, women’s parity in education; WL, women’s labor market participation; WAE, women’s access to education; TSER, tertiary school enrollment rate, boys/girls; WPLM, women’s participation in the labor market; HMP, women’s higher labor market positions; UN, UN’s Gender-Related Development Index; PCC, Population Crisis Committee Index of Gender Equality; PA, Prescott-Allen’s (2001) index of gender equity.

6.2. Implications of the gender equality paradox

Understanding the possible reasons for the increase in gender differences in countries that promote gender equality is important and relevant since these countries may be leading men and women toward gendered trajectories, a path that is already observable in higher education. Charles and Bradley (2009) noted that the most advanced societies demonstrate more pronounced gender segregation in education. Stoet and Geary (2018) also observed that more gender-equal nations (measured by the GGI) have the widest gender gap among STEM graduates. Supporting these results, research has shown that gender differences using “interest in math careers” as a predictor of future major subjects are greater in countries with higher gender equality, with both men and women being, on average, less interested in mathematics than those in other countries ( Goldman and Penner, 2016 ; Charles, 2017 ; Breda et al., 2020 ). The same pattern is observed in the job market, where horizontal segregation is more pronounced in more gender-equal environments ( Blackburn and Jarman, 2006 ; Wong and Charles, 2020 ). Several investigations have documented this phenomenon and concluded that “Scandinavian countries are notable for their exceptionally high degrees of segregation” despite their advancement in gender equality ( Jarman et al., 2012 ). However, more recent findings have also detected desegregation patterns in more gender-equal nations ( Hustad et al., 2020 ).

6.3. The gender equality paradox: Possible explanations

The question of why gender differences are sometimes higher in more gender-equal countries remains. Some have proposed that the paradox in mathematics anxiety and attitudes might originate from the better economic conditions needed for these emotions to emerge. In countries where women are highly oppressed, these are more concerned about meeting more basic needs. Conversely, where economic, political, and educational circumstances are more favorable for women, anxiety toward mathematics activities is more likely to emerge ( Else-Quest et al., 2010 ). However, at the national level, both men and women are less anxious about mathematics in developed, gender-equal countries, indicating that alternative explanations are needed ( Stoet et al., 2016 ). In fact, others have suggested that, in gender-equal nations, men and women set aside financial drives and follow more intrinsic career interests because of easier access to economic resources. Hence, women are less exposed than men to STEM activities, “giving them less opportunity to reduce their negative feelings about mathematics” ( Stoet et al., 2016 ).

With respect to reading abilities, the paradox might result from the interaction of two factors: the interrelation between basic skills and Western societies’ strong efforts to equalize boys’ and girls’ mathematics performance that has instead, paradoxically, increased reading skills in girls. Notably, where mathematics gender differences are reduced, the reduction is mainly due to an improvement in women’s reading ( Guiso et al., 2008 ). It follows that countries with smaller mathematics gender differences have the largest reading gaps ( Stoet and Geary, 2013 ). As mathematics is promoted in girls, their reading skills appear to benefit. However, because boys’ disadvantage in reading is, on average, less of a concern among policymakers, gender variations in this dimension have widened.

Some researchers have explained the gender equality paradox in personality by arguing that only differences in self-reported domains are increased ( Eagly and Wood, 2012 ). Here, the reference-group effect ( Heine et al., 2002 ) might conceal variances in less gender-equal countries, where men and women compare themselves with others of their own gender ( Guimond et al., 2007 ). If this explanation holds true, the gap in gender-equal nations would be a better estimate of personality differences between the genders because in these nations both women and men have a more accurate comparative term that includes the whole population rather than just a subset ( Schmitt et al., 2017 ).

Another explanation may be that personality is strongly culturally influenced. According to this view, individualism and self-expressive values act in tandem with gender stereotypes, promoting gender variance as individuals act out their “gendered self” ( Charles and Bradley, 2009 ; Breda et al., 2020 ). This explanation of the gender equality paradox corresponds to the findings in gender-equal nations that cultural mechanisms are at play accommodating women-typical roles, such as job flexibility and high parental care—roles that encourage women to embark on gendered paths and experience more communal traits ( Levanon and Grusky, 2018 ). Thus, it should not be surprising that, in gender-equal countries, men and women appear to differ more than in non-gender-equal countries and that this difference is expanding as women-typical roles are becoming more prevalent. Rather than expressing intrinsic gender differences, in these nations, there is a reinforcement of gender essentialist beliefs, which constitute an artifact of social expectations about how men and women should comply with gender stereotypes ( England, 2010 ).

While this argument is somewhat persuasive, research aiming at linking gender stereotypes with gender equality suffers from several theoretical and methodological limitations. Often scholars apply broad assumptions and rely on a limited, as well as unreliable, set of items to capture latent dimensions of implicit stereotypes hidden in survey data. For instance, in their recent article Napp and Breda (2022) used solely one item to grasp an alleged stereotype that girls lack talent by arguing that systematic gender difference in answering the question would highlight “the magnitude of the (internalized) stereotype associating talent with boys rather than girls.” In addition, several studies have argued that stereotypes about group features, when measured reliably, appear to be accurate ( Jussim et al., 2015 ; Moè et al., 2021 ). Löckenhoff et al. (2014) observed that perceived gender differences in personality substantially match those found in self- and observer-rated personality tests. The authors concluded that gender stereotypes constitute “valid social judgments about the size and direction of sex differences” that are more relevant than socialization processes and ascribed cultural gender roles ( Löckenhoff et al., 2014 ). This is not to say that culture plays no role in the emergence of gender differences, but that the social mechanisms amplifying gender variances—mechanisms that social-role theorists have identified—also capture intrinsic gender differences.

Evolutionary theorists propose a different explanation for the gender equality paradox. As they argue, some gender variations are sensitive to context-related fluctuations, demonstrating a gene–environment interplay. In societies in which conditions are favorable, gender-specific genes flourish due to a lower prevalence of diseases, lower ecological stressors, and lower starvation rates. Per this view, wider gender gaps in gender-equal nations most likely “reflect a more general biological trend toward greater dimorphism in resource-rich environments” ( Schmitt et al., 2008 ). If this explanation holds true, then heritability estimates will be higher in developed societies than in less-advanced cultures. Some evidence in this direction has recently emerged ( Selita and Kovas, 2019 ); however, the “WEIRD” gene problem—that nearly all twin studies have been conducted among Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic societies—represents an obstacle for generalizing results and making inferences about cross-cultural heritability differences ( Henrich et al., 2010 ).

6.4. A novel socio-cultural evolutionary account of the gender equality paradox in personality

The present review proposes that the evolutionary explanation for the gender equality paradox might be more complex than it appears due to the presence of socio-cultural elements in the evolutionary process. As previously noted, genetic effects depend on the environmental conditions (diseases and ecological stress) under which they occur, yet the environment is embedded into society. Thus, the gene–environment interplay is enclosed within a cultural context with specific social norms and, by itself, cannot encompass all involved elements ( Figure 2 ). Stated otherwise, the gene–environment interplay is a function of culture ( Uchiyama et al., 2022 ). Therefore, gender-specific genes can be expected to be emphasized in societies embracing cultural values that would favor the expression of these genes. Consider, for example, individualism and self-expression. It is unsurprising that these values are related to the gender equality paradox, as Charles and Bradley (2009) have highlighted. In resource-rich environments that also value individualism and self-expression, intrinsic gender differences are more likely to emerge. This thesis points toward interpretation of Kaiser (2019) , which states that both cultural individualism and pathogen levels confound the gender equality paradox in personality (see below). Also, Murphy et al. (2021) reached similar conclusions. A coherent, yet opposite, prediction might see gender differences as remaining stable or even decreasing in those resource-rich environments that culturally constrain self-expression. Accordingly, favorable cultural values would trump social mechanisms that amplify gender-based genes to emerge via a feedback-loop effect or “reciprocal causation” ( Dickens and Flynn, 2001 ) according to which social structures adjust to distinct gender traits and vice versa, thus increasing gender differences.

Socio-cultural evolutionary explanation of the gender equality paradox. The gears show the interrelations between gender-specific genes, social structures, and environmental components mediated by cultural values.

6.5. Challenges for future cross-national research

While searching and analyzing the literature, this review also highlighted some challenges that researchers might face when conducting cross-national studies relating gender differences to gender equality measures. For mathematics ability, results could depend on outlier countries such as Scandinavian and gender-segregated, Muslim countries. In addition, the restricted country samples in international student assessments might be problematic. Despite the strong effort of PISA and TIMMS to be more inclusive, wealthy countries have traditionally been overrepresented, although the latest rounds have had very high coverage, including over 75 participating nations worldwide. Nevertheless, researchers, when assessing gender differences in mathematics abilities, should pay close attention to the countries included in their study because either the inclusion of outliers or a lack of heterogeneity might lead to biased estimations.

Another possible source of bias in research linking gender differences to gender equality on a cultural level is participant sample sizes, with some nations being overrepresented in comparison to others. How countries are clustered may also be problematic since countries are not independent data points and, “as such, they are like members of the same family or pupils of the same classroom” ( Kuppens and Pollet, 2015 ). Therefore, appropriate statistical methods, multilevel modeling, for example, should be utilized to account for both unbalanced sample sizes and data structure.

Correlations between mathematics gender differences and gender equality might originate from a lack of country-level effects in the models. Anghel et al. (2019) argued that when time-invariant country unobserved heterogeneity is controlled for, no association between the two variables is found. Moreover, the link between gender equality and the gender gap in mathematics attitudes might be confounded by country-level academic achievements and socioeconomic status ( Marsh et al., 2021 ).

Further, the gender equality paradox could be due to measurement error. Given that many international assessments and personality models have been developed in WEIRD countries, it is plausible that measurement error could be higher in non-WEIRD nations generating an illusory gender equality paradox. However, international assessments have been constructed to prevent such bias. For instance, PISA computes each student’s score based on a set of 5/10 plausible values designed to prevent measurement error and simplify secondary data analysis ( Marsh et al., 2021 ). Also, the gender equality paradox in personality appears to hold even after correcting for measurement error ( Kaiser, 2019 ; Fors Connolly et al., 2020 ; Tao et al., 2022 ). Nevertheless, when analyzing the link between gender differences in personality and gender equality, statistical procedures that control for measurement error should be applied (see for example Schmidt and Hunter, 2015 ).

Fors Connolly et al. (2020) highlighted the need for more temporal analyses of personality because an observed cross-national pattern may result from “a spurious relationship between gender equality and differences in personality” due to different country-level elements. Kaiser (2019) identified these elements as cultural individualism, food consumption, and historical pathogen prevalence levels. Other research has also agreed that cultural individualism could be a possible confounding factor as gender differences in personality are more pronounced in nations that highly regard individual self-expression ( Costa et al., 2001 ; Schmitt et al., 2008 ; Tao et al., 2022 ).

Some scholars have called attention to the misuse of composite indicators of gender equality, raising several concerns thereof and arguing that they might not be suitable for empirical research ( Else-Quest et al., 2010 ; Hyde, 2012 ). One concern is that these indicators, which encompass various domains from politics to economics, do not measure opportunities ( Richardson et al., 2020 ). Another concern is that they are not interchangeable since they are differentially constructed. Thus, comparisons between research relying on different measures of gender equality might not be suitable. Some of the disparate findings concerning math ability might be driven by computational differences in the indices included in the analysis. Nevertheless, the gender equality composite indicators most commonly utilized (GGI, GEI, and GEM) show very high correlation coefficients ( r  ≥ 0.84), while other indicators substantially relate to one another, suggesting that, although some differences occur, these indices are similar in their ability to capture the general dimension of gender equality ( Else-Quest et al., 2010 ; van Staveren, 2013 ; Stoet and Geary, 2015 ). Lastly, composite indicators may present a biased view of society due to the way gender equality is understood in the models. Often, disadvantages pertaining mostly to men are not taken into account when computing the indicators ( Benatar, 2012 ). As an example of this bias, the GGI from the World Economic Forum assumes perfect gender equality in areas where women have an advantage over men. Specifically, values higher than 1, which would assume a men’s disadvantage, in each sub-index are capped. Thus, a more simplified approach to measuring national gender inequality is preferred ( Stoet and Geary, 2019 ).

In addition, methodological issues also arise when using these indices. Some scholars have pointed out that correlations between gender gaps and the indices of gender equality could be driven by the strong economic component in these indices ( Fors Connolly et al., 2020 ). Therefore, it is important to control for appropriate economic indicators, such as GDP per capita and the Human Development Index, when linking gender differences with gender equality ( Kuppens and Pollet, 2015 ). Another difficulty may arise when contrasting results between composite indices and specific indicators occur. For mathematics attitudes, for instance, although composite indices suggest a gender equality paradox, specific indicators are either positively or negatively related to the gender gap. This may suggest that composite indices either capture an overall influence of gender equality or are unsuitable for evaluating gender differences. However, evaluation may lie outside the scope of models using these indices. Research linking gender differences with gender equality indicators has not tried to explain the paradox emerging from the analysis on the basis of gender equality per se ; instead, it has just highlighted a paradoxical pattern that would otherwise have remained concealed. Since no theory has been put forward that fully unravels the paradox, further studies are needed.

Theories considered in this review that predict that gender equality is linked with smaller gender differences do not offer a valid explanation of gender differences in basic skills and personality. In addition, for some dimensions, the gender equality paradox raises further questions about how gender variation emerges, which calls for a new approach. Based on these premises, this review explored both social-role and evolutionary hypotheses and suggested new insights that combine these views, while also highlighting explanatory variables that might cause bias in the results. Thus, specific research that more closely examines the explanations proposed is needed, especially studies with an interdisciplinary focus. Notably, Fors Connolly et al. (2020) highlighted the importance of cross-temporal analyses of the gender equality paradox because these may reveal a different path. Since country comparisons may be insufficient for fully grasping the evolution of the paradox, future research should include a thorough cross-temporal examination for a more comprehensive understanding.

Lastly, the gender equality paradox is an emerging phenomenon that has gained substantial scientific support across subjects ( Falk and Hermle, 2018 ; Campbell et al., 2021 ; Block et al., 2022 ; Vishkin, 2022 ). It requires attention from both the scientific community and the public because attempting to close gender gaps following traditional social-role theories and applying conventional methods, might end up exacerbating gender variations. In addition, the general pattern of increased gender differences in more gender-equal countries might inform that achieving equal opportunities does not go hand in hand with a reduction of gender gaps. Thus, policymakers should consider this trend when justifying interventions attempting to achieve equality of outcome between men and women.

Data availability statement

Author contributions.

The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.

The work was supported by the Finnish National Board for Education through a working grant.

Conflict of interest

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• Anghel B., Rodríguez-Planas N., Sanz-de-Galdeano A. (2019). Culture, Gender, and Math: A Revisitation.
• Archer J. (2019). The reality and evolutionary significance of human psychological sex differences . Biol. Rev. 94 , 1381–1415. doi: 10.1111/brv.12507, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ashcraft M. H., Moore A. M. (2009). Mathematics anxiety and the affective drop in performance . J. Psychoeduc. Assess. 27 , 197–205. doi: 10.1177/0734282908330580 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Asperholm M., Nagar S., Dekhtyar S., Herlitz A. (2019). The magnitude of sex differences in verbal episodic memory increases with social progress: data from 54 countries across 40 years . PLoS One 14 :e0214945. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214945, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baker D. P., Jones D. P. (1993). Creating gender equality: cross-national gender stratification and mathematical performance . Sociol. Educ. 66 , 91–103. doi: 10.2307/2112795 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura A., Walters R. H. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barone C., Assirelli G. (2020). Gender segregation in higher education: an empirical test of seven explanations . High. Educ. 79 , 55–78. doi: 10.1007/s10734-019-00396-2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beckwith K. (2005). A common language of gender? Pol Gender 1 , 128–137. doi: 10.1017/S1743923X05211017 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Benatar D. (2012). The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bergold S., Wendt H., Kasper D., Steinmayr R. (2017). Academic competencies: their interrelatedness and gender differences at their high end . J. Educ. Psychol. 109 , 439–449. doi: 10.1037/edu0000140 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blackburn R. M., Jarman J. (2006). Gendered occupations: exploring the relationship between gender segregation and inequality . Int. Sociol. 21 , 289–315. doi: 10.1177/0268580906061380 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bleidorn W., Arslan R. C., Denissen J. J., Rentfrow P. J., Gebauer J. E., Potter J., et al.. (2016). Age and gender differences in self-esteem—a cross-cultural window . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 111 , 396–410. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000078, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Block K., Olsson M. I. T., Schmader T., Van Laar C., Martiny S. E., Schuster C., et al.. (2022). The gender gap in the care economy is larger in highly developed countries: socio-cultural explanations for paradoxical findings. PsyArXiv . Preprint. doi: 10.31234/osf.io/k6g5d. [ CrossRef ]
• Bos W., Wendt H., Ünlü A., Valtin R., Euen B., Kasper D., et al.. (2012). “ Leistungsprofile von Viertklässlerinnen und Viertklässlern in Deutschland [Proficiency profiles of fourth grade students in Germany] ” in IGLU 2011. Lesekompetenzen von Grundschulkindern in Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich [IGLU 2011. International Comparison of Reading Competencies of Primary School Children in Germany]. eds. W. Bos, I. Tarelli, A. Bremerich-Vos and K. Schwippert (Münster: Waxmann; ), 227–259. [ Google Scholar ]
• Breda T., Jouini E., Napp C., Thebault G. (2020). Gender stereotypes can explain the gender-equality paradox . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 117 , 31063–31069. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2008704117, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bussey K., Bandura A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation . Psychol. Rev. 106 , 676–713. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.676 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Campbell O. L. K., Bann D., Patalay P. (2021). The gender gap in adolescent mental health: a cross-national investigation of 566, 829 adolescents across 73 countries . SSM Popul. Health 13 :100742. doi: 10.1016/j.ssmph.2021.100742, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cech E. A. (2013). The self-expressive edge of occupational sex segregation . Am. J. Sociol. 119 , 747–789. doi: 10.1086/673969 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Charles M. (2017). Venus, mars, and math: gender, societal affluence, and eighth graders’ aspirations for STEM . Socius 3 :237802311769717. doi: 10.1177/2378023117697179 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Charles M., Bradley K. (2009). Indulging our gendered selves? Sex segregation by field of study in 44 countries . Am. J. Sociol. 114 , 924–976. doi: 10.1086/595942, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Charles M., Grusky D. B. (2018). “ Egalitarianism and gender inequality ” in The Inequality Reader: Contemporary and Foundational Readings in Race, Class, and Gender (New York: Routledge; ), 389–404. [ Google Scholar ]
• Charles M., Harr B., Cech E., Hendley A. (2014). Who likes math where? Gender differences in eighth-graders’ attitudes around the world . Int. Stud. Sociol. Educ. 24 , 85–112. doi: 10.1080/09620214.2014.895140 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cortes P., Pan J. (2018). “ Occupation and gender ” in The Oxford Handbook of Women and the Economy . eds. S. L. Averett, L. M. Argys and S. D. Hoffman. (Oxford Oxford: University Press), 425–452.
• Costa P. T., Terracciano A., McCrae R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: robust and surprising findings . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 81 , 322–331. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.322, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dekhtyar S., Weber D., Helgertz J., Herlitz A. (2018). Sex differences in academic strengths contribute to gender segregation in education and occupation: a longitudinal examination of 167,776 individuals . Intelligence 67 , 84–92. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2017.11.007 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Del Giudice M. (2009). On the real magnitude of psychological sex differences . Evol. Psychol. 7 :147470490900700. doi: 10.1177/147470490900700209 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Devine A., Fawcett K., Szűcs D., Dowker A. (2012). Gender differences in mathematics anxiety and the relation to mathematics performance while controlling for test anxiety . Behav. Brain Funct. 8 :33. doi: 10.1186/1744-9081-8-33, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dickens W. T., Flynn J. R. (2001). Heritability estimates versus large environmental effects: the IQ paradox resolved . Psychol. Rev. 108 , 346–369. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.108.2.346, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Diekman A. B., Schneider M. C. (2010). A social role theory perspective on gender gaps in political attitudes . Psychol. Women Q. 34 , 486–497. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2010.01598.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dijkers M. P. J. M. (2009). The value of “traditional” reviews in the era of systematic reviewing . Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 88 , 423–430. doi: 10.1097/PHM.0b013e31819c59c6, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eagly A. H., Mitchell A. A. (2004). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: implications for the sociopolitical attitudes of women and men.
• Eagly A. H., Wood W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: evolved dispositions versus social roles . Am. Psychol. 54 , 408–423. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.54.6.408 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eagly A. H., Wood W. (2012). “ Social role theory ” in Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology (London: SAGE Publications Ltd; ), 458–476. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eagly A. H., Wood W., Johannesen-Schmidt M. C. (2004). “ Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: implications for the partner preferences of women and men ” in The Psychology of Gender . 2nd ed (New York, NY: The Guilford Press; ), 269–295. [ Google Scholar ]
• Else-Quest N. M., Hyde J. S., Linn M. C. (2010). Cross-national patterns of gender differences in mathematics: a meta-analysis . Psychol. Bull. 136 , 103–127. doi: 10.1037/a0018053, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• England P. (2010). The gender revolution: uneven and stalled . Gend. Soc. 24 , 149–166. doi: 10.1177/0891243210361475 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eriksson K., Björnstjerna M., Vartanova I. (2020). The relation between gender egalitarian values and gender differences in academic achievement . Front. Psychol. 11 :236. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00236, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Falk A., Hermle J. (2018). Relationship of gender differences in preferences to economic development and gender equality . Science 362 :eaas9899. doi: 10.1126/science.aas9899, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fors Connolly F., Goossen M., Hjerm M. (2020). Does gender equality cause gender differences in values? Reassessing the gender-equality-personality paradox . Sex Roles 83 , 101–113. doi: 10.1007/s11199-019-01097-x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Freiberg T. (2019). Effects of care leave and family social policy: spotlight on the United States . Am. J. Econ. Sociol. 78 , 1009–1037. doi: 10.1111/ajes.12293 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Friedman R. C., Downey J. I. (2002). Sexual orientation and psychoanalysis (pp. 225–263).
• Frome P. M., Eccles J. S. (1998). Parents’ influence on children’s achievement-related perceptions . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74 , 435–452. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.2.435, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fryer R. G., Levitt S. D. (2010). An empirical analysis of the gender gap in mathematics . Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. 2 , 210–240. doi: 10.1257/app.2.2.210 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ganley C. M., Vasilyeva M. (2011). Sex differences in the relation between math performance, spatial skills, and attitudes . J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 32 , 235–242. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2011.04.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Geary D. C. (2010). Male, Female: The Evolution of Human Sex Differences . 2nd Edn. Washington: American Psychological Association. [ Google Scholar ]
• Geary D. C., Hoard M. K., Nugent L., Chu F., Scofield J. E., Ferguson Hibbard D. (2019). Sex differences in mathematics anxiety and attitudes: concurrent and longitudinal relations to mathematical competence . J. Educ. Psychol. 111 , 1447–1461. doi: 10.1037/edu0000355, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gevrek Z. E., Gevrek D., Neumeier C. (2020). Explaining the gender gaps in mathematics achievement and attitudes: the role of societal gender equality . Econ. Educ. Rev. 76 :101978. doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2020.101978 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gevrek Z. E., Neumeier C., Gevrek D. (2018). Explaining the gender test score gap in mathematics: the role of gender inequality. Available at SSRN 3111114.
• Ghasemi E., Burley H., Safadel P. (2019). Gender differences in general achievement in mathematics: an international study . New Waves Educ. Res. Dev. J. 22 , 27–54. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldman A. D., Penner A. M. (2016). Exploring international gender differences in mathematics self-concept . Int. J. Adolesc. Youth 21 , 403–418. doi: 10.1080/02673843.2013.847850, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodwin R. D., Gotlib I. H. (2004). Gender differences in depression: the role of personality factors . Psychiatry Res. 126 , 135–142. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2003.12.024 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Graham S. (1995). Narrative versus meta-analytic reviews of race differences in motivation: a comment on Cooper and Dorr . Rev. Educ. Res. 65 , 509–514. doi: 10.3102/00346543065004509 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guimond S., Branscombe N. R., Brunot S., Buunk A. P., Chatard A., Désert M., et al.. (2007). Culture, gender, and the self: variations and impact of social comparison processes . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 92 , 1118–1134. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1118, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guiso L., Monte F., Sapienza P., Zingales L. (2008). Culture, gender, and math . Science 320 , 1164–1165. doi: 10.1126/science.1154094 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gunderson E. A., Ramirez G., Levine S. C., Beilock S. L. (2012). The role of parents and teachers in the development of gender-related math attitudes . Sex Roles 66 , 153–166. doi: 10.1007/s11199-011-9996-2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Halpern D. F. (2000). Sex Differences in Cognitive Abilities . New York: Psychology Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Halpern D. F., Benbow C. P., Geary D. C., Gur R. C., Hyde J. S., Gernsbacher M. A. (2007). The science of sex differences in science and mathematics . Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 8 , 1–51. doi: 10.1111/j.1529-1006.2007.00032.x, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heine S. J., Lehman D. R., Peng K., Greenholtz J. (2002). What’s wrong with cross-cultural comparisons of subjective Likert scales?: the reference-group effect . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 82 , 903–918. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.903, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Henrich J., Heine S. J., Norenzayan A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behav. Brain Sci. 33 , 61–83. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X0999152X, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hirnstein M., Stuebs J., Moè A., Hausmann M. (2022). Sex/gender differences in verbal fluency and verbal-episodic memory: a meta-analysis . Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 18 , 67–90. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Holland J. L. (1997). Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of Vocational Personalities and Work Environments. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hustad I. B., Bandholtz J., Herlitz A., Dekhtyar S. (2020). Occupational attributes and occupational gender segregation in Sweden: does it change over time? Front. Psychol. 11 :554. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00554, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hyde J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis . Am. Psychol. 60 , 581–592. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hyde J. S. (2012). Nation-level indicators of gender equity in psychological research: theoretical and methodological issues . Psychol. Women Q. 36 , 145–148. doi: 10.1177/0361684312441448 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hyde J. S., Mertz J. E. (2009). Gender, culture, and mathematics performance . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 106 , 8801–8807. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0901265106, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ireson G. (2017). Gender achievement and social, political and economic equality: a European perspective . Educ. Stud. 43 , 40–50. doi: 10.1080/03055698.2016.1237868 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jarman J., Blackburn R. M., Racko G. (2012). The dimensions of occupational gender segregation in industrial countries . Sociology 46 , 1003–1019. doi: 10.1177/0038038511435063 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jonason P. K., Żemojtel-Piotrowska M., Piotrowski J., Sedikides C., Campbell W. K., Gebauer J. E., et al.. (2020). Country-level correlates of the dark triad traits in 49 countries . J. Pers. 88 , 1252–1267. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12569, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jussim L., Crawford J. T., Rubinstein R. S. (2015). Stereotype (in) accuracy in perceptions of groups and individuals . Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 24 , 490–497. doi: 10.1177/0963721415605257 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaiser T. (2019). Nature and evoked culture: sex differences in personality are uniquely correlated with ecological stress . Personal. Individ. Differ. 148 , 67–72. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2019.05.011 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kane J. M., Mertz J. E. (2012). Debunking myths about gender and mathematics performance . N. Am. Math. Soc. 59 :10. doi: 10.1090/noti790 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuhn A., Wolter S. C. (2022). Things versus people: gender differences in vocational interests and in occupational preferences . J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 203 , 210–234. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2022.09.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuppens T., Pollet T. V. (2015). Gender equality probably does not affect performance at the Olympic games: a comment on Berdahl, Uhlmann, and Bai (2015) . J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 61 , 144–147. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2015.06.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee K., Ashton M. C. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO personality inventory . Multivar. Behav. Res. 39 , 329–358. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr3902_8, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee K., Ashton M. C. (2018). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO-100 . Assessment 25 , 543–556. doi: 10.1177/1073191116659134, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee K., Ashton M. C. (2020). Sex differences in HEXACO personality characteristics across countries and ethnicities . J. Pers. 88 , 1075–1090. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12551, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Levanon A., Grusky D. B. (2018). “ Why is there still so much gender segregation? ” in Inequality in the 21st Century (New York: Routledge; ), 371–379. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lindberg S. M., Hyde J. S., Petersen J. L., Linn M. C. (2010). New trends in gender and mathematics performance: a meta-analysis . Psychol. Bull. 136 , 1123–1135. doi: 10.1037/a0021276, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liou P.-Y., Lin Y.-M., Huang S.-C., Chen S. (2022). Gender differences in science motivational beliefs and their relations with achievement over grades 4 and 8: a multinational perspective . Int. J. Sci. Math Educ. 21 , 233–249. doi: 10.1007/s10763-021-10243-5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lippa R. A. (2010a). Gender differences in personality and interests: when, where, and why? Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 4 , 1098–1110. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lippa R. A. (2010b). Sex differences in personality traits and gender-related occupational preferences across 53 nations: testing evolutionary and social-environmental theories . Arch. Sex. Behav. 39 , 619–636. doi: 10.1007/s10508-008-9380-7, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lippa R. A., Collaer M. L., Peters M. (2010). Sex differences in mental rotation and line angle judgments are positively associated with gender equality and economic development across 53 nations . Arch. Sex. Behav. 39 , 990–997. doi: 10.1007/s10508-008-9460-8, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Löckenhoff C. E., Chan W., McCrae R. R., De Fruyt F., Jussim L., De Bolle M., et al.. (2014). Gender stereotypes of personality: universal and accurate? J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 45 , 675–694. doi: 10.1177/0022022113520075 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mac Giolla E., Kajonius P. J. (2019). Sex differences in personality are larger in gender equal countries: replicating and extending a surprising finding . Int. J. Psychol. 54 , 705–711. doi: 10.1002/ijop.12529, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marsh H. W., Parker P. D., Guo J., Basarkod G., Niepel C., Van Zanden B. (2021). Illusory gender-equality paradox, math self-concept, and frame-of-reference effects: new integrative explanations for multiple paradoxes . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 121 , 168–183. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000306, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mealey L. (2000). Sex Differences: Developmental and Evolutionary Strategies . San Diego: Academic Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Meyer M., Gelman S. A. (2016). Gender essentialism in children and parents: implications for the development of gender stereotyping and gender-typed preferences . Sex Roles 75 , 409–421. doi: 10.1007/s11199-016-0646-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moakler M. W., Kim M. M. (2014). College major choice in STEM: revisiting confidence and demographic factors . Career Dev. Q. 62 , 128–142. doi: 10.1002/j.2161-0045.2014.00075.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moè A., Hausmann M., Hirnstein M. (2021). Gender stereotypes and incremental beliefs in STEM and non-STEM students in three countries: relationships with performance in cognitive tasks . Psychol. Res. 85 , 554–567. doi: 10.1007/s00426-019-01285-0, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Murphy S. A., Fisher P. A., Robie C. (2021). International comparison of gender differences in the five-factor model of personality: an investigation across 105 countries . J. Res. Pers. 90 :104047. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2020.104047 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Napp C., Breda T. (2022). The stereotype that girls lack talent: a worldwide investigation . Sci. Adv. 8 :eabm3689. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abm3689, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ott-Holland C. J., Huang J. L., Ryan A. M., Elizondo F., Wadlington P. L. (2013). Culture and vocational interests: the moderating role of collectivism and gender egalitarianism . J. Couns. Psychol. 60 , 569–581. doi: 10.1037/a0033587, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Penner A. M., Cadwallader Olsker T. (2012). “ Gender differences in mathematics and science achievement across the distribution: what international variation can tell us about the role of biology and society ” in Towards Equity in Mathematics Education (New York: Springer; ), 441–468. [ Google Scholar ]
• Prescott-Allen R. (2001). The Wellbeing of Nations: A Country-by-Country Index of Quality of Life and the Environment. Washington: Island press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rawlings C. M. (2007). Higher Education as a Prism: The Role of Organizational Structures in the Gender Segregation and Stratification of American Undergraduates, 1970–1995. Working paper. University of California, Santa Barbara, Department of Sociology.
• Reilly D. (2012). Gender, culture, and sex-typed cognitive abilities . PLoS One 7 :e39904. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0039904, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reilly D., Neumann D. L., Andrews G. (2019). Investigating gender differences in mathematics and science: results from the 2011 trends in mathematics and science survey . Res. Sci. Educ. 49 , 25–50. doi: 10.1007/s11165-017-9630-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Richardson S. S., Reiches M. W., Bruch J., Boulicault M., Noll N. E., Shattuck-Heidorn H. (2020). Is there a gender-equality paradox in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM)? Commentary on the study by Stoet and Geary (2018) . Psychol. Sci. 31 , 338–341. doi: 10.1177/0956797619872762, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ridgeway C. L. (2006). “ Gender as an organizing force in social relations: implications for the future of inequality ” in The Declining Significance of Gender (New York: Russell Sage; ), 265–287. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosenbloom J. L., Ash R. A., Dupont B., Coder L. (2008). Why are there so few women in information technology? Assessing the role of personality in career choices . J. Econ. Psychol. 29 , 543–554. doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2007.09.005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sax L. J., Kanny M. A., Riggers-Piehl T. A., Whang H., Paulson L. N. (2015). “But I’m not good at math”: the changing salience of mathematical self-concept in shaping Women’s and Men’s STEM aspirations . Res. High. Educ. 56 , 813–842. doi: 10.1007/s11162-015-9375-x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schmidt F. L., Hunter J. E. (2015). Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings London: SAGE Publications, Ltd. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schmitt D. P. (2015). “ The evolution of culturally-variable sex differences: men and women are not always different, but when they are …it appears not to result from patriarchy or sex role socialization ” in The Evolution of Sexuality Evolutionary Psychology . eds. Shackelford T. K., Hansen R. D. (Cham: Springer International Publishing; ), 221–256. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schmitt D. P., Long A. E., McPhearson A., O’Brien K., Remmert B., Shah S. H. (2017). Personality and gender differences in global perspective . Int. J. Psychol. 52 , 45–56. doi: 10.1002/ijop.12265 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schmitt D. P., Realo A., Voracek M., Allik J. (2008). Why can’t a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in big five personality traits across 55 cultures . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 94 , 168–182. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.168, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwartz S. H. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work . Appl. Psychol. 48 , 23–47. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.1999.tb00047.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwartz S. H., Rubel T. (2005). Sex differences in value priorities: cross-cultural and multimethod studies . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 89 , 1010–1028. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.1010, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwartz S. H., Rubel-Lifschitz T. (2009). Cross-national variation in the size of sex differences in values: effects of gender equality . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 97 , 171–185. doi: 10.1037/a0015546, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Selita F., Kovas Y. (2019). Genes and gini: what inequality means for heritability . J. Biosoc. Sci. 51 , 18–47. doi: 10.1017/S0021932017000645, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shokri O., Kadivar P., Daneshvar Pour Z. (2007). Gender differences in subjective well-being: role of personality traits . Iran. J. Psychiatry Clin. Psychol. 13 , 280–289. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sikora J., Pokropek A. (2012). Gender segregation of adolescent science career plans in 50 countries . Sci. Ed. 96 , 234–264. doi: 10.1002/sce.20479 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sohn K. (2015). The influence of birth season on height: evidence from Indonesia: the influence of birth season on height . Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 157 , 659–665. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.22763, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stoet G., Bailey D. H., Moore A. M., Geary D. C. (2016). Countries with higher levels of gender equality show larger national sex differences in mathematics anxiety and relatively lower parental mathematics valuation for girls . PLoS One 11 :e0153857. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0153857, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stoet G., Geary D. C. (2013). Sex differences in mathematics and reading achievement are inversely related: within- and across-nation assessment of 10 years of PISA data . PLoS One 8 :e57988. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0057988, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stoet G., Geary D. C. (2015). Sex differences in academic achievement are not related to political, economic, or social equality . Intelligence 48 , 137–151. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2014.11.006 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stoet G., Geary D. C. (2018). The gender-equality paradox in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education . Psychol. Sci. 29 , 581–593. doi: 10.1177/0956797617741719, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stoet G., Geary D. C. (2019). A simplified approach to measuring national gender inequality . PLoS One 14 :e0205349. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0205349, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stoet G., Geary D. C. (2020). Sex-specific academic ability and attitude patterns in students across developed countries . Intelligence 81 :101453. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2020.101453 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Su R., Rounds J., Armstrong P. I. (2009). Men and things, women and people: a meta-analysis of sex differences in interests . Psychol. Bull. 135 , 859–884. doi: 10.1037/a0017364, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tao C., Glosenberg A., Tracey T. J. G., Blustein D. L., Foster L. L. (2022). Are gender differences in vocational interests universal?: moderating effects of cultural dimensions . Sex Roles 87 , 327–349. doi: 10.1007/s11199-022-01318-w [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Teder T., Tammaru T. (2005). Sexual size dimorphism within species increases with body size in insects . Oikos 108 , 321–334. doi: 10.1111/j.0030-1299.2005.13609.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Uchiyama R., Spicer R., Muthukrishna M. (2022). Cultural evolution of genetic heritability . Behav. Brain Sci. 45 :e152. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X21000893, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van de Werfhorst H. G. (2017). Gender segregation across fields of study in post-secondary education: trends and social differentials . Eur. Sociol. Rev. 33 , 449–464. doi: 10.1093/esr/jcx040 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van der Slik F. W. P., van Hout R. W. N. M., Schepens J. J. (2015). The gender gap in second language acquisition: gender differences in the Acquisition of Dutch among immigrants from 88 countries with 49 mother tongues . PLoS One 10 :e0142056. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0142056, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van Staveren I. (2013). To measure is to know? A comparative analysis of gender indices . Rev. Soc. Econ. 71 , 339–372. doi: 10.1080/00346764.2012.707398 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vandermassen G. (2011). Evolution and rape: a feminist Darwinian perspective . Sex Roles 64 , 732–747. doi: 10.1007/s11199-010-9895-y [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vianello M., Schnabel K., Sriram N., Nosek B. (2013). Gender differences in implicit and explicit personality traits . Personal. Individ. Differ. 55 , 994–999. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2013.08.008 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vishkin A. (2022). Queen’s gambit declined: the gender-equality paradox in chess participation across 160 countries . Psychol. Sci. 33 , 276–284. doi: 10.1177/09567976211034806, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wai J., Hodges J., Makel M. C. (2018). Sex differences in ability tilt in the right tail of cognitive abilities: a 35-year examination . Intelligence 67 , 76–83. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2018.02.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang M.-T., Degol J. L. (2017). Gender gap in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): current knowledge, implications for practice, policy, and future directions . Educ. Psychol. Rev. 29 , 119–140. doi: 10.1007/s10648-015-9355-x, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weisberg Y. J., DeYoung C. G., Hirsh J. B. (2011). Gender differences in personality across the ten aspects of the big five . Front. Psychol. 2 :178. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00178, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• West C., Zimmerman D. H. (1987). Doing gender . Gend. Soc. 1 , 125–151. doi: 10.1177/0891243287001002002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wigfield A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: a developmental perspective . Educ. Psychol. Rev. 6 , 49–78. doi: 10.1007/BF02209024 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wong Y. L. A., Charles M. (2020). “ Gender and occupational segregation ” in Companion to Women’s and Gender Studies . ed. Naples N. A. (Oxford: Wiley; ), 303–325. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wood W., Eagly A. H. (2012). “ Biosocial construction of sex differences and similarities in behavior ” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 46. eds. J. M. Olson and M. P. Zanna (Burlington: Academic Press; ), 55–123. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wood W., Eagly A. H. (2013). Biology or culture alone cannot account for human sex differences and similarities . Psychol. Inq. 24 , 241–247. doi: 10.1080/1047840X.2013.815034 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

Melinda French Gates: The Enemies of Progress Play Offense. I Want to Help Even the Match.

By Melinda French Gates

Ms. French Gates is a philanthropist and the founder of the charitable organization Pivotal.

Many years ago, I received this piece of advice: “Set your own agenda, or someone else will set it for you.” I’ve carried those words with me ever since.

That’s why, next week, I will leave the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation , of which I was a co-founder almost 25 years ago, to open a new chapter in my philanthropy. To begin, I am announcing $1 billion in new spending over the next two years for people and organizations working on behalf of women and families around the world, including on reproductive rights in the United States.

In nearly 20 years as an advocate for women and girls, I have learned that there will always be people who say it’s not the right time to talk about gender equality. Not if you want to be relevant. Not if you want to be effective with world leaders (most of them men). The second the global agenda gets crowded, women and girls fall off.

It’s frustrating and shortsighted. Decades of research on economics , well-being and governance make it clear that investing in women and girls benefits everyone. We know that economies with women’s full participation have more room to grow. That women’s political participation is associated with decreased corruption. That peace agreements are more durable when women are involved in writing them. That reducing the time women spend in poor health could add as much as $1 trillion to the global economy by 2040.

And yet, around the world, women are seeing a tremendous upsurge in political violence and other threats to their safety, in conflict zones where rape is used as a tool of war, in Afghanistan where the Taliban takeover has erased 20 years of progress for women and girls, in many low-income countries where the number of acutely malnourished pregnant and breastfeeding women is soaring.

In the United States, maternal mortality rates continue to be unconscionable , with Black and Native American mothers at highest risk. Women in 14 states have lost the right to terminate a pregnancy under almost any circumstances. We remain the only advanced economy without any form of national paid family leave. And the number of teenage girls experiencing suicidal thoughts and persistent feelings of sadness and hopelessness is at a decade high.

Despite the pressing need, only about 2 percent of charitable giving in the United States goes to organizations focused on women and girls, and only about half a percentage point goes to organizations focused on women of color specifically.

When we allow this cause to go so chronically underfunded, we all pay the cost. As shocking as it is to contemplate, my 1-year-old granddaughter may grow up with fewer rights than I had.

Over the past few weeks, as part of the $1 billion in new funding I’m committing to these efforts, I have begun directing new grants through my organization, Pivotal, to groups working in the United States to protect the rights of women and advance their power and influence. These include the National Women’s Law Center, the National Domestic Workers Alliance and the Center for Reproductive Rights.

While I have long focused on improving contraceptive access overseas, in the post-Dobbs era, I now feel compelled to support reproductive rights here at home. For too long, a lack of money has forced organizations fighting for women's rights into a defensive posture while the enemies of progress play offense. I want to help even the match.

I’m also experimenting with novel tactics to bring a wider range of perspectives into philanthropy. Recently, I offered 12 people whose work I admire their own $20 million grant-making fund to distribute as he or she sees fit. That group — which includes the former prime minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern, the athlete and maternal-health advocate Allyson Felix, and an Afghan champion of girls’ education, Shabana Basij-Rasikh — represents a wide range of expertise and experience. I’m eager to see the landscape of funding opportunities through their eyes, and the results their approaches unlock.

In the fall, I will introduce a $250 million initiative focused on improving the mental and physical health of women and girls globally. By issuing an open call to grass-roots organizations beyond the reach of major funders, I hope to lift up groups with personal connections to the issues they work on. People on the front lines should get the attention and investment they deserve, including from me.

As a young woman, I could never have imagined that one day I would be part of an effort like this. Because I have been given this extraordinary opportunity, I am determined to do everything I can to seize it and to set an agenda that helps other women and girls set theirs, too.

Melinda French Gates is a philanthropist and the founder of Pivotal, a charitable, investment and advocacy organization.

Source photographs by Bryan Bedder, filipfoto, and Westend61, via Getty Images.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

Melinda French Gates blasts ‘frustrating’ lack of funding for women’s rights in veiled shot at ex-husband Bill Gates

M elinda French Gates took a thinly veiled shot at former husband Bill Gates — lamenting a “frustrating and shortsighted” lack of charitable support for women’s rights in an incendiary essay Tuesday.

French Gates — who received $12.5 billon after her shock exit last month from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation — said her new charity will donate $1 billion over the next two years to causes benefiting women, family and reproductive rights.

She suggested that it was a cause she was discouraged from pursuing earlier — when she was partnered with the Microsoft founder and world’s fifth richest man, whom she divorced in 2021.

“In nearly 20 years as an advocate for women and girls, I have learned that there will always be people who say it’s not the right time to talk about gender equality,” French Gates said in an op-ed published by the New York Times .

“Not if you want to be relevant. Not if you want to be effective with world leaders (most of them men),” French Gates wrote. “The second the global agenda gets crowded, women and girls fall off. It’s frustrating and shortsighted.”

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has donated $77 billion since it was founded in 2000.

In 2021, the organization committed $2.1 billion “to advance gender equality globally,” according to a release at the time.

But she hammered away at the overall lack of funds targeting women.

“Only about 2 percent of charitable giving in the United States goes to organizations focused on women and girls, and only about half a percentage point goes to organizations focused on women of color specifically,” she wrote.

“When we allow this cause to go so chronically underfunded, we all pay the cost. As shocking as it is to contemplate, my 1-year-old granddaughter may grow up with fewer rights than I had,” she added.

French Gates — who split with the tech mogul shortly after reports tied him to convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein — also revealed specifics about how her newly formed charitable group Pivotal Venture plans to fill the funding void.

The $1 billion in funding through 2026 includes $200 million in grants for groups “working in the United States to protect the rights of women and advance their power and influence,” according to her essay and a release from her organization.

French Gates cited various concerns that spurred her to take action, including “unconscionable” maternal mortality rates, a lack of national paid family leave and a rise of mental health issues, including suicidal thoughts, among teen girls.

“While I have long focused on improving contraceptive access overseas, in the post-Dobbs era, I now feel compelled to support reproductive rights here at home,” Gates wrote, referring to the Supreme Court case that overturned Roe v. Wade.

“For too long, a lack of money has forced organizations fighting for women’s rights into a defensive posture while the enemies of progress play offense. I want to help even the match,” Gates added.

The National Women’s Law Center, the National Domestic Workers Alliance and the Center for Reproductive Rights have all received grants.

French Gates said she has also offered 12 individuals “whose work I admire their own $20 million grant-making fund” and will allow them to decide how to use the funds.

Recipients include former New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Ardern, US Olympian Allyson Felix and filmmaker Ava DuVernay.

Additionally, French Gates will launch a $250 million initiative this fall to support efforts at “improving the mental and physical health of women and girls globally.”

“By issuing an open call to grass-roots organizations beyond the reach of major funders, I hope to lift up groups with personal connections to the issues they work on,” French Gates said. “People on the front lines should get the attention and investment they deserve, including from me.”

Bill Gates will serve as the sole chairperson of his charitable organization following his ex-wife’s exit. The organization will change its name to the Gates Foundation.

“I am sorry to see Melinda leave, but I am sure she will have a huge impact in her future philanthropic work,” Gates said in a post on X.

When word of their separation first surfaced in 2021, French Gates wrote that the marriage had become “irretrievably broken.”

The divorce played out even as Gates faced scrutiny over his past association with Epstein, who died in prison in 2019.

Gates has admitted to having “several dinners” with the sex offender in the early 2010 while he was attempting to raise funds for the Gates Foundation.

“At the time, I didn’t realize that by having those meetings it would be seen as giving him credibility. You’re almost saying, ‘I forgive that type of behavior,’ or something,” Gates said in a 2022 interview with UK outlet  The Times . “So clearly the way it’s seen, I made a huge mistake not understanding that.”

Elsewhere, French Gates told CBS in March 2022 that her former spouse’s association with Epstein had played a role in their eventual separation and divorce.

“It was many things. But I did not like that he’d had meetings with Jeffrey Epstein,” French Gates said. “I made that clear to him.”

Taylor Swift Calls For Security in French to Help Fan at Concert

Hollywood Shines For Graduation Season ... Con-grads!

Rick Ross' Car Show Blasted Online, People Demand Refunds

Celebrity Scramble Guess Who!

Angel Reese Fined By WNBA After Caitlin Clark Cheap Shot Game

Bill maher says college protesters should fight for gender equality, not hamas, bill maher hey college kids ... how 'bout fighting for gender equality.

Bill Maher did a pivot Friday night ... actually complimenting the pro-Hamas college protesters for believing in something that was bigger than themselves ... but then he lowered the boom, saying they missed the cause they should be embracing by a f***ing mile!

The 'Real Time' host made his pitch to the youngins ... the biggest social justice cause in decades has been apartheid. Nelson Mandela is a beacon of light for equality and dignity.

And that brings Bill to students supporting Hamas ... which denigrates women in ways much worse than second-class citizens. Bill ticks off a laundry list of indignities, starting with the mandatory hijab, which is prevalent in dozens of countries ... where women can't see, hear or speak out in the open air. It suppresses women from humanity ... and makes their souls shrivel.

But that's just for starters ... Bill notes how Iran and other countries subject women to beatings, sexual violence and detention, adding "what Diddy calls a hotel stay."

There are 15 countries in the Middle East that require women to obey their husbands. They can't leave the house without permission. BTW, that does not include Israel. 20 countries have "marrying your rapist" laws.

As BM says, there's got to be a happy medium between husbands who make wives wear what you see above on the left and what you see above on the right.

In short ... to those looking for a cause -- try Gender Apartheid.

• Share on Facebook

related articles

Bill Maher Says Abortion is Kinda Like Murder, But He's OK with It

Bill Maher Says History Will Show GOP, Dems Equally 'Stupid About S***'

Old news is old news be first.