Why do women still choose “female professions”?

by Benedikte Løje Nielsen, Chairperson of Kvindeøkonomien

We have never had more highly educated women, yet the labor market remains sharply divided by gender. This is not the result of free choice or ability alone. Educational paths are shaped early by expectations, recognition, and narratives that quietly steer talent in different directions - long before the first job is chosen.

Chairperson of Kvindeøkonomien, Benedikte Løje Nielsen. Photo: Malene Nelting

We have never had as many highly educated women as we do today. Nevertheless, the Danish and European labor markets remain significantly gender-segregated. Women are overrepresented in care, service, and communication professions, while men dominate STEM, technology, finance, and management.

Something is not right.

If talent and ambition were the deciding factors, we would expect a much more mixed labor market, not one that is still so rigidly divided by gender.

Choices are formed earlier than we think

Educational and career choices do not arise in a vacuum. They are shaped over time by expectations, role models, and narratives about what is “natural” to be good at and which paths appear attractive, realistic, and prestigious.

Girls and boys encounter different forms of recognition at an early age. Some skills are highlighted and affirmed, while others become less visible. Over time, this affects how young people see themselves and what opportunities they perceive as relevant to pursue.

It is not about what girls can or cannot do.

It is about how talent is prioritized, interpreted, and translated into choices.

When strengths are interpreted and rewarded differently

An international study from 2019 shows that girls’ educational and career choices are largely shaped by their “relative strengths.” Young people rarely choose based solely on what they are good at in absolute terms. They orient themselves towards what they perceive as their clearest strength compared to their other skills.

In practice, this is often reflected in the relationship between reading and mathematics. And here, research shows a key pattern: many girls who are good at math are even stronger in languages.

This means that they begin to identify themselves more as linguistic or relational profiles and therefore orient themselves towards other educational programmes than STEM. Not because they lack ability, interest or motivation, but because their linguistic strengths become more visible, more recognised and often highlighted as the ‘natural’ next step.

Boys with strong mathematical skills more often have math as the subject in which they perform relatively best. Therefore, these skills become what both they and those around them associate them with when talking about educational choices. The path into technical and math-intensive programs thus appears more obvious.

Research shows that these differences in self-perception and prioritization of strengths can explain a large part of the gender differences in the choice of STEM education and careers, across both developed and many developing countries.

The point is not that girls make the wrong choices. The point is that our system is not neutral in the way it guides young people toward certain choices.

A gendered system for both girls and boys

It is important to state clearly: this is not just about girls.

Boys are much less encouraged to see care, education, and health professions as real and attractive options, even when they have both the ability and interest. These professions continue to be associated with lower status, lower pay, and “wrong” masculine ideals.

The result is a labor market where:

girls with technical and mathematical talent are guided away from STEM
boys with relational and caring skills are guided away from care professions

Gender segregation thus works both ways. But it has a common root: a system of expectations and narratives that shape choices long before educational choices and the first job.

The consequences extend far beyond the individual

A gender-segregated labor market has very concrete consequences. Women more often end up in lower-paid sectors and accumulate less pension and wealth. At the same time, we lack labor and diversity in some of the most technologically and socially crucial industries.

This is not just a question of gender equality. It is a question of how we as a society use (or waste) our collective talent pool.

If we want something different, we must do something different

If we want to change the labor market of the future, we need to take a critical look at the narratives and structures that shape choices long before the first job.

It cannot be right that girls who are good at both mathematics and languages are almost automatically steered in a linguistic direction. Just as it cannot be right that boys with strong relational skills are rarely presented with the idea that care and welfare professions are equally legitimate, ambitious, and socially important choices.

As long as we accept that some paths appear more natural than others based on your gender, the labor market will remain gender-segregated.

Not because young people lack ability, but because we still guide them differently.