User:Eraut1/Gender-equality paradox

Article Draft - my work is not bold
Fewer women are noted to major in STEM degrees in university in higher-income countries, with this decrease noted to occur between secondary and tertiary educational standard. In more gender-equal countries, there are greater disparities in degree subject choices, providing support for this paradox.

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

Personality and preference differences by gender

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following section titled "Other usage in academic sources" was deleted from the main article because this section did not fit what has been trained in the wiki trainings. The information from the stated articles were expanded on to provide meaningful information related to the topic.

Other usage in academic sources
'''The gender equality paradox has also been used to describe separate claims within the academic literature. Examples include:'''
 * Usdansky (2011) to describe a claim that "less educated couples with less skilled occupations and less money tend to voice more enthusiasm for specialized gender roles". 
 * A conference paper by Klaus and Kroezen (2017) to describe the rule differences by gender in professional tennis. 
 * Thelwall and Mas-Bleda (2020) to describe a claim that "countries with a higher proportion of female first-authored journal articles have larger first-author gender disparities between fields". This was based on a "first-author gender comparison of 30 million articles from all 27 Scopus broad fields within the 31 countries with the most Scopus-indexed articles 2014–2018".