Progression of Gender Equality: Social Construction & Reform in the U.S. vs. Scandinavia

When it comes to gender equality, a common misconception floats among Americans – that the United States is a socially progressive places to be a woman. This may be true in a general analysis of the U.S. in comparison to the cultures of other nations whose values lie in traditional views of gender, and whose women are strictly regulated by these traditions. In actuality, however, there are dozens of countries that have surpassed the U.S. in this realm of social enlightenment and the progression of gender equality. 

Scandinavia is known to be the most progressive region of the world when it comes to gender equality, particularly within the workforces and economies of its countries. Although the U.S. has taken great strides in the direction of equality, we, as a nation, still have a mountain to climb. The advanced social climate surrounding gender issues in the Nordic countries of Scandinavia make the seemingly progressive trends of gender equality in the U.S. appear elementary, and the inadequate perception, representation, and treatment of women in corporate America seem obsolete. Social and economic reform is not easily obtainable in the complex machine that is the U.S. political system; however, through an analysis of the social environment that constructs perceptions of gender roles within a culture, in conjunction with the policies that constitute the economic climate of a country, the door to gender progression could potentially be unlocked with a Scandinavian key. 

In order to fully comprehend the matter at hand, the variance between the gendered economies of the U.S. and Scandinavia must first be understood. As previously mentioned, Scandinavia is comprised of the leading nations in terms of global gender progression, with Iceland, Finland, Norway, and Sweden consistently ranking as the four most gender progressive nations respectively (“Rankings”). As of 2016, only five countries throughout the entirety of the world had been successful in closing more than 80% of the gender gap, and these four Nordic countries make up the top four of those ranks. In comparison, the United States falls in the lowly position of #45 on the overall global gender gap index, according to the World Economic Forum, (“Rankings”). More specifically, under the sub-index of gender equality within economic participation and opportunity, Norway and Iceland rank #7 and #9 respectively on a global scale, which remains significantly higher than the United States’ standing of #26, (“Rankings”). This data may only represent a few of the discrepancies between the two regions in question; however, these measurements of the global gender gap can be seen as a broad, statistical representation of gender equality. Furthermore, by using these figures as a quantitative end, they can be used to evaluate the influence of social culture and policy on gender equality in varying nations.  

The issue of gender equality begins with the construction of gender roles and the perception of what it means to be a man or a woman within a culture. As Norine Dresser claims, “Unequal treatment of sexes begins early in life. Parents instill differences in subtle ways, including what they pack in their children’s lunch boxes,” (148). Although this socializing of gender binaries is true of most cultures, the degree to which norms are established on the basis of gender vary between American and Scandinavian societies. Both cultures undoubtedly experience a gendered socialization of sorts; however, the lasting implications of this social training is embedded much deeper in American culture than Scandinavian, as masculinity maintains a stronger domination of the societal hierarchy in the U.S. 

As children grow beyond the questionably trivial division of lunch box organization, they fall into the expectations of women becoming caregivers and housewives, while men are meant to become bread-winners, where they have the opportunity to rise in economic power and status. Whether it is concealed by our subconscious or recognized, Americans are groomed by language, media, and other institutions to fit the expectations associated with each gender. Every influencer of gender perception contributes to the path women are continuously pushed down. With these cultural ideals of gender roles inscribed in the minds of U.S. citizens, it is only plausible that an American entering the workforce will default into those very expectations, and continue the cycle. 

In Judy C. Pearson’s “Gender and Communication: Sex Is More Than a Three-Letter Word,” the consequences of gendered socialization are presented with an emphasis on America’s male-dominant culture and its marriage to the economy. She establishes that, “Men are in charge of [America’s] culture, and masculine values and traits are generally viewed as superior to feminine values and traits,” (8). This is attributed to the patriarchal, social training of American culture that places men in a higher position of respect than women. This power dynamic requires women to adopt qualities that are commonly recognized as masculine in order to strive for the same unobtainable success that men achieve effortlessly in the corporate world: “When women pass as men, they gain momentary success in the workplace at low-level positions, but they may never become CEOs of Fortune 500 companies,” (Pearson 8). 

Through an interview with a young professional from Norway, Eline, a comparison was drawn between Pearson’s claims about gender in corporate America, and Eline’s personal experiences with gender expectations in Scandinavia. After being raised, educated, and seasoned for the workforce in the third most gender progressive country (“Reports”), Eline shared insights into the ways in which her culture has influenced her career path. “I feel that I have the same opportunities as men when it comes to achieving a career,” she said with certainty. She further explained: “I have not noticed any significant differences between the way women and men are perceived…men and women have equal opportunities.” Though her description of Norwegian culture may seem more like a utopia than a reality, it is based largely in truth. By no means is Norway, nor any country for that matter, entirely equal or free of gender division. However, it is crucially noted that Eline’s experiences surrounding career expectations has had little to do with her gender, and she surely does not stand alone. Unlike the gender-obsessed social training of American culture, Norwegian culture has adapted to become more gender inclusive through policies that implement a new way of viewing gender, and lead to new ways of learning gender. 

Although the social climate of a culture and its perception of gender is influential in the development of equality, the socially constructed ideals that define gender can, in fact, be reconstructed, allowing for the cycle of gendered socialization to halt. Consider Norway, for example. In 1977, women-specific legislation was passed, including a major gender-inclusive clause in the Equal Status Act that ultimately promoted equal status between the sexes. In addition, the act “opt[ed] for differential treatment in favour of women with job placement and promotion,” (Førde and Hernes 29). With the change of a policy such as this, a new normal for the perception of gender is established within a nation, and a new standard is set for generations to come – generations like Eline’s. 

Policy reform as a bridge to social change and progression in gender equality sounds relatively simple in theory, but policy alone does not have a universal effect on all countries. The success found in policy reform by Norway and the rest of her Nordic neighbors stems from a larger, political factor. Scandinavian countries are widely branded as welfare states – an element of their being that allows for liberal, progressive approaches to social and economic issues to be taken. “Gender equality has been regarded as a hallmark of the Scandinavian welfare states, and it has often been considered part and parcel of the welfare state model that has characterized these countries,” (Melby, Ravn, and Wetterberg 30).  Unlike the capitalist political system of the U.S., the welfare model of Scandinavian countries prioritizes equality, and allows for the growth of the marginalized, and the equality of women. 

In an article entitled, “Can’t We All Be More Like Scandinavians? Asymmetric Growth and Institutions in an Interdependent World,” Daron Acemoglu, James A. Robinson, and Thierry Verdier compare the Scandinavian welfare state to the political state of America: 

The United States does not have the type of welfare state that many European countries, including Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, have developed. Americans also receive much shorter vacations and more limited maternity leave, and do not have access to a variety of other public services that are more broadly provided in many continental European countries. Perhaps more importantly, poverty and inequality are much higher in the United States and have been increasing over the last three decades, while they have been broadly stable in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. (3) 

In this excerpt lies a claim that America’s lack of welfare is a driving factor in the nation’s issues of poverty and inequality. With inequality used as a blanket-issue to encompass all of the marginalized groups in America, a focus on women’s rights can still be drawn from the statement. Without discrediting or undermining other social groups experiencing oppression in the United Statess, it is safe to assert, for the purpose of this essay, that women suffer in more severity from the absence of welfare than do men. Inadequate periods of maternity leave, lack of access to public services, and absence of other health and economic benefits are only a few of the reasons why women are automatic underdogs in a capitalist, corporate world maintaining a strong division of labor. Nancy Fraser, a writer of feminist theory, identifies the struggles that women face during fiscal crisis and poverty: 

On the one hand, increasing numbers of women depend directly for their livelihoods on social-welfare programs; and many others benefit indirectly, since the existence of even a minimal and inadequate "safety net" increases the leverage of women who are economically dependent on individual men. (103)

The previously mentioned socialization of women within American culture often forces women into specific roles in society, in which they typically acquire positions such as the caring for of children, and the prioritization of familial duties over job security. Women who chose a different path – a path of corporate struggle – are unlikely to progress within their careers, as long as American culture upholds its patriarchal tendencies. Either way, women are likely candidates to become welfare-reliant. Conversely, men are more likely to attain and preserve careers, allowing them to reap the benefits of employment and success, without need for the support of welfare. This gender-based divide is far less prevalent in Scandinavia, however. Because of alterations in policy, and the innovative social standards that come as a result, Scandinavian countries have been able to close the gender gap more successfully than the U.S. and other capitalist nations (Blau). 

Though policy in its general theory has been recognized as a catalyst for gender progression, and its application has been made possible by the welfare state of Scandinavia, the true agent of change is the type of reform that is implemented by policy. Policies can be employed to a myriad of social issues, as well as subtopics within each concern. To acknowledge every policy that has influenced the movement of gender equality in Scandinavia would be a tall and impossible task; however, in an excerpt from “Gender Equality In Norway,” Brit Founger Førde and Helga Maria Hernes provide a summary of the possibilities that policy presents in Scandinavia, along with a description of the possible beneficiaries of new reform: 

The Scandinavian policy of equality, in general, is based on the assumption that education and economic independence are the two sources from which all forms of social power derive. In addition it emphasizes the participatory right of citizens. Women's policy has traditionally been social policy, which through a system of transfers and services aims at improving the quality of life of women and children. Today it covers all policy that concerns itself with women in their roles as clients and consumers of policy provisions and as paid employees, and is thus very broad in scope, affecting many ministries. (28) 

As stated, social policy was once the sole form of policy-driven change for women. The emphasis was placed on bettering the general perception and treatment of women in society from a social standpoint. Though this effort towards policy reform was progressive in itself, modern determination to bring universal equality through policy is the reason why Scandinavia is the current leader in social progression and gender equality. It is in the establishment of equity that jobs and economics become gender-inclusive, and that the success of policy closes the gender gap, particularly in terms of wages. With women in the U.S. making a mere 18.1% of the median male wage, in comparison to 7.1% of the median male wage that women in Norway made in 2016 (“Earnings and wages – Gender wage gap – OECD Data”), an 11% difference in gender-based pay gaps shows the progress that specific policies can generate.   

Norway is not the only Scandinavian country to make strides in policy change surrounding the issue of the wage gap. Sweden has implemented policies in order to transform their level of gender equality and its modes of production: “By reducing the wage penalty to employment in traditionally female jobs, it might be expected to reduce the gender pay gap. Sweden has adopted a number of policies related to family leave and child care that are designed to equalize gender roles in the family and men’s and women’s outcomes in the labour market,” (Blau 3). Not only does this attempt at reform aim to guarantee equal pay for work of ‘equal value’ between genders – it also takes into consideration the social aspects of employment. When social and familial gender roles become equal, and are accepted that way by society, a new socialization of gender will train people to have gender-neutral ambitions. With this shift, an enlightened perception of gender will no longer be clouded by masculine dominance (Jonasdottir). The social aspect of the gender divide that seems so inexplicably innate will dissipate as policy introduces and enforces new ways of observing gender roles. 

The key to achieving gender equality is to understand the cycle of inequality as a system. As gender roles were socially constructed by male-dominated societies, the perception of female capability was undermined. Because women were trapped within the confinement of gender perceptions, opportunities for female achievement were limited by the structures and policies made by society. With each of these factors feeding into one another, a seemingly endless cycle of female oppression became widely accepted as a way of life. However, Scandinavian countries have proven that this cycle can be penetrated. Just as a chain of cause and effect created inequality, a modification within the chain has the ability to reverse the sequence. Still, the solution is hidden within the technicalities of how and what to change. 

Anna G. Jonasdottir illustrates the state of gender issues in American culture with a series of words that capture the true equality of men and women, and the masculine fear of allowing gender equality to flourish: “Two different cultures seem to exist side by side and most men are conscious of this. It is when some women use their power positions to introduce values from the women’s culture that the pattern in the male-dominated culture may change.” (101) According to Jonasdottir, men are fully aware of their similarity to women. With the recognition of this fact, she encourages women to use the power that a male-dominated world has oppressed to make gender equality widely accepted, and Scandinavian countries are on their way to achieving this goal already. With changes in policy, the structures for female involvement in the Scandinavian workforce have opened their arms to equality. With Nordic women contributing to the economy and advancing in positions of equality, the perception of female capability within their culture is expanding, and the equality of the genders is becoming accepted. 

Although women and men in Scandinavia are still not entirely equal, the advancements made by each Nordic country in the direction of gender equality can, and should, be looked to as a model to achieve justice for women as we fight in a war for equality. The United States has much to learn about the achievement of gender equality, and even more to accomplish; and although the roles of gender in Scandinavian countries are far from perfect equality, the perfection of Scandinavia lies within its progress. 

Works Cited

Acemoglu, Daron, et al. “"Can't We All Be More Like Scandinavians? Asymmetric Growth and Institutions in an Interdependent World".”

Blau, Francine D. “The Gender Pay Gap In International Perspective.” 1996, doi:10.3386/w5664.

Dresser, Norine. Multicultural manners: essential rules of etiquette for the 21st century. John Wiley & Sons, 2005.

“Earnings and wages - Gender wage gap - OECD Data.” TheOECD, data.oecd.org/earnwage/gender-wage-gap.htm.

Førde, Brit Founger, and Helga Maria Hernes. “Gender Equality In Norway .” doi:10.3897/bdj.4.e7720.figure2f.

Fraser, Nancy. “Women, Welfare and the Politics of Need Interpretation.” Hypatia.

Melby, Kari, et al. Gender equality and welfare politics in Scandinavia: the limits of political ambition?Policy Press, 2011.

Pearson, Judy C. “Gender and Communication: Sex Is More Than a Three-Letter Word.” Intercultural Communication: A Reader, vol. 14th, pp. 174–181.

“Rankings.” Global Gender Gap Report 2016, reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-report-2016/rankings/?doing_wp_cron=1521689551.2620089054107666015625.