The Nordic Paradox — Failure of a Gender-Equal Utopia?
By: Deborah Tan
Tags: Domestic Violence, Scandinavia, World, Gender Equality, Europe

Photo by Melanie Wasser on Unsplash

The Nordic countries are touted as world leaders when it comes to many metrics measuring the development of countries. One of these aspects is gender equality, and the Nordic countries have consistently emerged as the most gender neutral countries in numerous international surveys.

Based on the Gender Equality Index, an index developed by the European Institute for Gender Equality based on six core domains (work, money, knowledge, time, power, and health), the Nordic countries had the highest scores across all the EU Member States.

However, many find this reportedly high level of gender equality incongruent with the fact that the Nordic countries have the highest rates of intimate partner violence (IPV) amongst other countries in the EU. The UN defines IPV as sexually, psychologically, physically or economically coercive acts against women by a current or former intimate partner.

In a 2014 survey conducted by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (EUAFR), the EU average was just 22%, but Denmark’s was 32% (the highest in the EU), Finland’s was 30% and Sweden’s was 28%. This has given rise to what researchers term as the “Nordic paradox”, which describes how despite high levels of gender inequality in the Nordic countries, the rates of domestic violence against women are higher than expected.

Although Denmark had the second highest score in the 2017 Gender Equality Index, it also had the highest rate of IPV, according to the findings of the EUAFR. In a followup report published in November 2017, Denmark had the highest rates of violence against women amongst all other member states.

A possible reason as to why there is such a high number of IPV cases reported may be intrinsically linked to the high levels of gender equality in the Nordic countries. Due to the relatively equal status both genders have in these countries, women may feel that it is more acceptable to report domestic abuse. In gender-equal societies, it is also likely that there are better gender equality education policies, which lead to higher awareness of social services to seek help from, or avenues for reporting IPV.

A social safety net that protects women may also allow them to leave their husbands more easily since they can rely on the state for help. There may also be differences in how women in different countries interpret survey questions, and wider definitions of what constitutes IPV may lead to a higher statistic. Differing cultural attitudes towards violent behaviours may also result in differences in how women recognize them.

However, despite all these reasons as to why rates of IPV may be higher than expected, it seems that in Denmark, there are other contributors that may negate the effect of factors discussed above.

In Denmark, the legal definition of what constitutes rape is still very narrowly defined. Despite recommendations from the Group of Experts on Action against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (GREVIO), the definition of rape in Danish law is still not a consent-based one. This is in contrast with many other developed countries which have adopted a broader definition of rape, that is more favourable towards the victim. Furthermore, the reporting rate for rape in Denmark is much lower than the actual number of crimes committed. It was estimated that in 2017, there were 24,000 attempted rapes and 5,100 rapes committed, but only 890 were reported to the authorities.

When faced with the reality of the situation, instead of trying to justify the Nordic paradox, it may be more helpful to focus on why there might really be higher rates of IPV in the Nordic countries.

One cause may be the “backlash effect”. The “backlash effect” refers to the phenomenon of males residing in countries with high levels of gender equality using violence as a response to women’s empowerment and progress in the public sphere. Men may feel emasculated by their partners having an increasing amount of resources, and thus respond with violence to maintain the illusion of having more power and privileges. However, it should be noted that research findings in this area have been inconsistent and is merely a hypothesis.

Another possible cause may be the high levels of alcohol consumption in the Nordic countries. The similar rates of alcohol consumption within the Nordic region in contrast to the rest of the EU nations have been suggested to be correlated with increased acts of IPV, incited by the absence of other traditional indicators of masculinity such as higher income.

However, there may exist an incongruence in the way we view the correlation between levels of gender and rates of IPV. If we were to take a closer look at other metrics, it can be seen that there may be a gap between the ideal scenario and the reality of the situation. For example, even though women may have equal participation in the workforce, they still tend to do more unpaid labor at home. Pay gaps still persist and men continue to dominate the public sphere. Hence, the ideas that we have formed about the Nordic countries being a gender utopia may turn out to be more fantasy than reality.

Considering all these, a recalibration of how gender equality is measured is needed in this situation.

If high IPV rates are seen as a paradox to high levels of gender equality, it implies that it is a metric by which gender equality of a country is being assessed. Therefore, incorporating rates of IPV into assessing gender equality would take that into account, and may provide a better indication of the overall levels of gender equality in a country.