The Gender Equality Agency – an unequal agency

It is time to question JM's right to exist. It serves no meaningful purpose and should be phased out. Instead, resources can be used for practical, goal-oriented initiatives in schools, higher education and the labour market.

The agency has grown rapidly and currently employs approximately 112 women and 24 men. The explanation for the imbalance, the agency says, is that the field of knowledge ”attracts more women.” This implicitly acknowledges that men's and women's interests differ; an assumption that is otherwise often denied in the agency's own ideology.

Sweden is ranked as the most gender-equal country in the EU according to EIGE (European Institute for Gender Equality). The psychologist Jordan B. Peterson often uses Sweden as an example, arguing that the freer choices people can make, the greater the gender differences in occupational choices become. This points to biological differences in interests at a group level: men are more often drawn to technical fields, while women tend to pursue care and social professions.

Swedish gender equality policy starts from the assumption that gender differences are solely social constructs. If the sexes are assumed to be biologically equal, it also follows that unequal outcomes must be corrected through steering or special treatment. The result is that gender equality is reduced to equal outcomes, rather than equal opportunities.

University entrance exams favour men, relative to grades, because school generally suits girls better. Without the university entrance exam, several courses – law, psychology, social work, medicine and dentistry programmes – would have had significantly fewer male students. Stockholm School of Economics recently introduced a requirement of at least a 1.25 on the university entrance exam, to counteract grade inflation, which sharply reduced the proportion of admitted women. The requirement was quickly abolished. When policy instruments favour women, they are accepted; when they favour men, they are perceived as problematic.

The gender balance is even clearer in certain professions. Animal welfare officers are 100 percent women in certain counties, and veterinary training today has 80–90 percent women, which has had practical consequences for agriculture due to a shortage of large animal veterinarians. When women dominate, demands for equality measures are rarely heard.

In ”The Soft State,” Erik J. Olsson and Catharina Grönqvist Olsson describe how the feminisation of central societal functions results in a state with lower demands, weaker authority, and less compliance with regulations. The concept of a "soft state" was originally coined by Gunnar Myrdal. Examples include the police's defensive strategy during riots, schools' lowered achievement requirements, and increased tolerance for errors in public service. Female-dominated work environments are also often described as conflict-ridden, something highlighted in reviews of the County Administrative Board's animal welfare unit in Skåne, which has experienced mass resignations in recent years.

Within academia, the Swedish Gender Equality Agency's gender-based explanatory models face increasing criticism. This is often dismissed as ignorant or backward-looking, undermining academic freedom and the agency's own legitimacy.

The results need to be reviewed. Despite large budgets and extensive administration, concrete improvements are difficult to identify. A lot of work is put into processes and policy documents, while the actual gender differences persist, sometimes being reinforced in line with the so-called equality paradox.

So goodbye to the Gender Equality Agency!

Astrid Lofs, biologist, PhD, Ambition Sverige