"Nordic countries are the most gender equal countries in the world, but at the same time they have disproportionally high prevalence rates of intimate partner violence"

Abstract: Nordic countries are the most gender equal countries in the world, but at the same time they have disproportionally high prevalence rates of intimate partner violence (IPV) against women. High prevalence of IPV against women, and high levels of gender equality would appear contradictory, but these apparently opposite statements appear to be true in Nordic countries, producing what could be called the 'Nordic paradox'. Despite this paradox being one of the most puzzling issues in the field, this is a research question rarely asked, and one that remains unanswered. This paper explores a number of theoretical and methodological issues that may help to understand this paradox. Efforts to understand the Nordic paradox may provide an avenue to guide new research on IPV and to respond to this major public health problem in a more effective way.

My thoughts: The expectation that gender/sex equality will spare women from IPV by allowing them to choose non-violent partners or remain single because they aren't dependent on men for financial support makes sense but is probably wrong. Contrary to that assumption, when given the choice, women select for more dominate and masculine males and the traits they select for are correlated/associated with violence or at least a greater possibility of it. It's actually enforced monogamy that steers some women to "softer" men whose inhibitions make them worse at initiating romantic ventures, less attractive overall, and less prone to violence against anyone (male or female). For normal women this might mean more of them picking the "jerk" over the "nice guy". At the very extreme end you get the women who try to marry convicted serial killers.

As a quick aside, the paper largely dismisses the idea that the higher reported rates are an artifact of living in a freer and more egalitarian country where women are less afraid to report IPV, investigations are more thorough, or criteria for what constitutes IPV are more broadly defined.

Overall an interesting piece.