4. Impact of opposition to gender equality

A significant finding of this report is that across all respondents, nearly half (48%) reported that opposition to gender equality work negatively affects their sense of emotional safety as well as their mental and physical wellbeing. As a result, 26% of participants reported withdrawing from work-related tasks, including public appearances and advocacy activities.

In order to avoid intimidation, respondents described taking precautionary measures or limiting their engagement, particularly on specific issues: 29% in relation to gender equality issues in general, 19% concerning sexual and reproductive health and rights or comprehensive sexuality education, 18% regarding sexual and gender-based violence, and 16% in relation to violence against women and girls.

Self-censorship therefore does not occur only in relation to topics such as LGBTQ+ rights and anti-racism, but also in connection with mainstream gender equality issues more broadly. However, the survey results indicate that there are specific high-risk areas within gender equality advancement work. Precautionary measures and self-censorship were even higher for advocacy related to LGBTIQ+ rights, cited by 46% of respondents, while 16% indicated similar caution regarding migration-related topics.

Across the surveyed Nordic countries, 60% of respondents expressed the belief that violent extremism is likely to increase within the next two years.

All respondents were given the opportunity to report further types of impact in an open-ended question at the end of the survey: “If you wish to add something or describe more specifically the impact of the opposition towards gender equality work, please write it here.”

Open-ended responses provided further reflections on the impacts experienced. To protect the anonymity of respondents, details about institution and country affiliation cannot be provided in this report.

Civil society organisation respondent working on men and masculinities:

“It is clear that the political slide into more racist policy and speaking also makes individuals more prone to express their opposition to gender equality and equity. We think that it is important to analyse these trends as one and explore how the political shift creates a more threatening environment for people and organisations working on social justice issues.”

Academic, philosophy:

“It makes you very unpopular at work. A lot of social sanctions that hit individuals personally, like social exclusion, not being asked to contribute in departmental academic projects, excluded from teaching (because they think I will ‘indoctrinate’ the students).”

Government sector respondent (foreign affairs):

“As a Ministry of [anonymised], we face the opposition daily in multilateral fora and also in certain country contexts.”

Figure 11 illustrates the most common impact of opposition to gender equality work based on the survey. As the figure indicates, out of the total amount of survey respondents (n = 88), a substantial proportion reported self-censoring expression, participation, communication and teaching in one or multiple ways.

Figure 11: How does the opposition to gender equality work impact your everyday work? [Choose all that apply]

Number of respondents: 88

The findings of this report point to multiple personal and professional risks faced by gender equality practitioners across all respondent sectors. In the following sections, a more detailed breakdown and further analysis of impacts is provided. The table below shows various impacts experienced by civil society organisations, academics, and government officials in relation to gender equality advancement work. Notably, the most commonly reported impacts were related to mental and physical health and wellbeing, especially among civil society organisations (50%) and academics (47%), with 13% of academics having taken sick leave.

Additionally, a majority of respondents indicated that they had limited their communication in more than one way, changed how they express issues related to gender equality advocacy work, and withdrawn from public events due to fear of being targeted or even losing their employment. Less common but still significant effects included reduced media engagement, concealing aspects of identity, and taking sick leave. Taken together, these survey findings highlight the broad and multifaceted consequences of harassment and intimidation faced by those working on gender equality advancement across all respondent groups. The percentages in the infographic below represent the share of the total respondent group in question.

Table 1: Impact of opposition

Impact	Civil society organisations (n = 38)	Academics (n = 30)	Government officials (n = 20)	Total out of all 88 respondents
Impacting mental health, sense of security and/or my physical health.	19 (50%)	14 (47%)	3 (15%)	42
Limiting contacts or communication with certain individuals or organisations.	15 (39%)	15 (50%)	5 (25%)	35
Changing the way of expressing matters concerning gender equality out of fear of being targeted by actors opposing gender equality.	11 (29%)	13 (43%)	4 (20%)	28
Withholding participation from public appearances, communication or advocacy out of fear of being targeted by actors opposing gender equality.	9 (24%)	8 (27%)	5 (25%)	23
Impacting motivation to work for gender equality.	6 (16%)	9 (30%)	3 (15%)	18
Receiving fewer requests from media to provide expert comments on issues related to gender equality.	6 (16%)	7 (23%)	0	13
Avoiding asking certain actors to visit/educate/consult my organisation.	3 (8%)	6 (20%)	3 (15%)	12
Concealing parts of my identity in work life out of fear.	5 (13%)	4 (13%)	0	9
Leaving out or avoiding certain topics in my professional presentations, training sessions or teaching.	2 (5%)	5 (17%)	10 (50%)	8
Receiving fewer requests to educate or offer consulting on gender equality issues.	3 (8%)	2 (7%)	2 (10%)	7
Taking sick-leave.	1 (3%)	4 (13%)	0	5
Withholding participation from public appearances, communication or advocacy out of fear of being fired from my position.	2 (5%)	2 (7%)	0	4
None of the above.	7 (18%)	2 (7%)	10 (50%)	19

4.1 Barriers to civil society engagement: a risk of democratic backsliding

Taken together, the survey data analysed in this report implies that the magnitude, frequency and forms of harassment and intimidation encountered discourage a significant proportion of gender equality experts from participating in public debate and advocacy work.

Building further on these findings, it is relevant to ask whether opposition to gender equality work has a restrictive impact on the exercise of freedom of expression in Nordic societies. This question is of particular concern in relation to civil society, as a functioning and active civil society is a cornerstone of Nordic democracies. In all Nordic countries, civil society organisations provide governments with grassroots knowledge that supports improved legislation and policymaking in the fields of equality and diversity.

In the context of opposition to gender equality work, it is important to emphasise that open debate and diverse perspectives on gender equality fall within the scope of constitutionally protected freedom of speech in Nordic democratic systems. As part of Nordic multi-party representative democracies, individuals and groups are free to express disagreement with gender equality policies. However, as the findings of this survey indicate, certain forms of possibly coordinated action – such as misuse of legal processes to generate smear campaigns, doxing, stalking, and hybrid forms of threats or harassment – go beyond the legitimate expression of disagreement. For this reason, Nordic countries, in line with EU legal frameworks, have legal protections for victims of hate crimes and hate speech.

In the instances reported by respondents across all respondent groups and across the Nordic region, actors opposing gender equality work do not only advance alternative viewpoints. They may also seek to systematically reframe the conceptual foundations of gender equality work and thereby limit the ability of others to participate in public debate and advocacy. When coordinated opposition operates in this way, it can generate barriers to civil society engagement. This trend, which is implied in the findings of this survey, aligns with existing research on broader trends in anti-gender politics across Europe.

In the final open-ended response section (“Do you have anything else to add to the topics of this survey?”) one academic respondent criticised the Nordic approach to gender equality for its lack of understanding of intersecting power-structures:

“If you ask me, the romanticised model of gender equality in the Nordics (for decades cast as 'a Swedish ideal', 'everybody wins', 'beneficial for profit', 'making a healthier work environment' and so on) and its depoliticised strategies for implementation have rendered the whole model very open for co-optation and quite useless in many ways. As it is a model that doesn't really question class hierarchy or racism, but rather thinks we have a great society if women and minorities can fight for the armed forces, if there is gender equality across class hierarchies, and that it is sexism in so called immigrant families rather than structural racism in society that causes, for instance, migrant women from being 'locked out of the labour market'. I also think that many gender equality advocates are anti-gender, willing to throw intersectional analyses and critiques under the bus in order to save their own work. So, it's a multifaceted problem and unless you take an intersectional approach in this study, you will end up with some really bizarre results...”

When examining responses from all respondent groups, Figure 12 below indicates that the restrictive impact on freedom of expression and participation in an active civil society is not limited to specific minority groups. The survey results show that nearly 30% of all respondents avoid speaking about gender equality in general, and more than 15% avoid discussing gender-based violence and violence against women.

Figure 12: In order to avoid opposition do you avoid or take extra precautions when advocating for or speaking about issues related to [choose all that apply]

Number of respondents: 80

The response percentages from 80 respondents presented in the figure also show the frequency of extra precautions when gender equality experts speak about specific issues, such as gender equality in the broad sense (28.7%, n = 23). Both the advocacy of women and girls’ rights (13.8%, n = 11) as well as raising awareness of men and boys (13.8%, n = 11) were issues where extra precautions were taken. The highest response rate was to LGBTIQ+ rights (46.3%, n = 37). A quarter (25%, n = 20) responded affirmatively to taking extra precautions when advocating for or speaking about anti-racism, and 16.3% (n = 13) when advocating for or speaking about migration.

The survey results show that opposition to gender equality affects the work of non-governmental organisations, academics and civil servants alike. These effects vary, ranging from individual psychological and physical consequences to disruptions in organisational operations and, ultimately, influence the broader public discourse. Over time, such developments may undermine the functioning of an active civil society and democratic participation.

In the open-ended response section, some of the respondents perceived a connection between weakening of intersectional gender equality at policy level and right-wing governments. According to the responses below, which have been cited before in the context of civil society organisation responses:

“Mainly the opposition is coming from the right-wing government, which is taking steps back in gender equality and not taking action against discrimination of gender minorities. Also, government is cutting the funding of universities, NGO’s and other organisations that promote non-biased information about gender.”

“There is also a growing opposition from state actors. It takes on many different forms such as (but not limited to) funding cuts; policy changes where explicit gender equality goals are taken away; an increased focus on GBV perpetrated by immigrants/children of immigrants hence turning gender equality and GBV into a problem of ‘the others’ which will be resolved by assimilation and/or limited immigration; a growing rhetoric that gender equality is already embedded in the ‘Swedish culture’ which makes it something that does not need further action; less opportunities for dialogue with authorities and politicians; widespread critique of the civil society as either ‘ideologically biased’ and/or fraudulent.”

Taken together, the responses suggest that opposition to gender equality in the Nordic countries may be an early signal of democratic backsliding. This issue warrants further research.

Figure 13: Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements[5 strongly agree, 4 agree, 3 neutral, 2 disagree, 1 strongly disagree, 0 I don’t want to respond]

Number of respondents: 88

4.2 Risks to academic freedom

When asked, nearly half of all 88 respondents across all sectors (government and civil society included) reported having encountered the following types of delegitimising claims about gender equality work:

Researchers and experts in gender equality are biased/not legitimate. 59% (n = 52).
Publicly funded gender equality units/officials/gender studies programmes should be abolished. 43% (n = 38).

In several open-ended responses, self-censorship emerges as both an impact and a coping mechanism, particularly among academics. The open-ended responses also recount experiences of degradation, defamation, and even bomb threats targeting academics. Based on the survey responses, the targeting and intimidation of researchers also discourages academic experts from engaging with the media.

“Smearing campaigns on various platforms: Letters to employer, politicians, funders. Oral attacks on my credibility as a researcher in public meetings where I am not present. Op-eds in major newspapers as well as social media and alt-right platforms.”

“Through false accusations against the organisation through the university’s HR.”

“Physical bomb, turned out to be a fake one afterwards.”

“I have changed the syllabus of my courses to include directly addressing the opposition and understanding its ideological and conservative underpinnings. I have also begun to study this phenomenon.”

Repeated harassment of teachers and researchers, while not necessarily meeting the criteria of incitement to violence or other types of criminal activity, nevertheless imposes a significant burden and may lead to experiences of isolation, as the following respondent describes:

“I am tired. I am tired of pushing for change without departmental backing. I have done a lot of extra mental labour to help female students in my department, and help them in my male dominated field. I am tired of trying to convince people who disagree that there is a gender equality problem at all.”

As described above, harassment of teachers and researchers includes smear campaigns, false allegations of research bias, hate speech, and even physical threats. This type of harassment aims to silence academics. As can be seen from the open-ended responses, these efforts appear to follow a similar logic to the targeting of politicians and journalists who speak about topics framed by opponents as ‘heated’ or ‘controversial’. Academic researchers often become the focus of coordinated attacks, particularly on social media. As a consequence, individuals – politicians, academics, journalists, and civil society actors – may refrain from certain actions – such as speaking, writing, or researching specific topics – due to fear of consequences, such as harassment, legal action, physical violence, or reputational damage. Below is an example of one of the open-ended responses:

“[Opposition to gender equality work is][s]topping me from popular dissemination of my work and research in mainstream media. I used to write several popular articles yearly, disseminating research and ideas. Have not been able to write anything for one year after the last round of attacks in media.”

The open-ended responses above can be interpreted by framing and analysing them in a wider context of anti-gender politics, in which actors question the legitimacy of gender equality advancement and the rights of LGBTQI+ people, for instance.

Over the past decade, serious legal and funding restrictions affecting academic freedom have emerged globally, particularly in authoritarian and populist political contexts in Europe, Latin America, and more recently also in the United States and France. Because the Nordic countries rank highly on gender equality indexes, the region has long been regarded as relatively immune to such developments. With extensive compulsory education systems, a highly educated population, and high levels of public trust in research, the Nordic region has historically provided favourable conditions that support and institutionally safeguard free academic inquiry.

However, with the rise of anti-intellectual populist movements globally, the Nordic region also shows signs of similar developments. Attacks on researchers and academic institutions have increased across the Nordic countries, accompanied by growing instances of harassment in both research and teaching environments. A comprehensive study from Sweden (Akademisk frihet i Sverige: Regeringsuppdrag om läroämnets arbete med främja och värna akademisk frihet) from 2024 found that restriction of academic freedom in the context of free speech was a high concern. A recent report from Finland (Akateemisen vapauden tila Suomessa: tutkijoiden ja opettajien näkemyksiä, 2026) and a Nordic report (Akademisk frihet så in i Norden, 2025) showed similar patterns.

Public targeting and ridicule of funding decisions and funding organisations has also become common. The survey respondents representing academics and research, are predominantly professors and associate professors with extensive experience in their academic fields. As indicated in the respondent background section of this survey, the main fields of study are gender studies, political science, cultural studies, history, educational sciences and anthropology.

The delegitimisation of the objectivity and scientific credibility of gender studies is a common trope in anti-gender politics. Efforts to undermine gender studies research directly threaten academic debate on gender inequality and may hinder progress in the field. Critics often dismiss its findings as purely normative rather than valid, objective knowledge, a perception that persists partly due to longstanding stereotypes that feminist theory, philosophy and gender studies are purely normative academic fields.

Research from the past decade also shows that although gender studies is often at the forefront of opposition, coordinated attacks are not limited to this field. Academic disciplines such as migration studies, climate change research, and medical research with an emphasis on the benefits of trans healthcare have also faced opposition.

4.3 Restrictive impact on international government collaboration

As mentioned earlier in this report, a vast majority (70%) of government officials reported not having experienced opposition in the form of threats or harassment directed at themselves, their colleagues, or their organisations. The high proportion may indicate that the Nordic countries’ long-standing institutionalisation of gender equality provides robust structural support, which continues to protect government officials working in this area. Nordic countries have strong institutional frameworks for gender equality, including gender mainstreaming, comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation, and dedicated bodies such as equality units and ombudsmen. Policy tools such as gender budgeting and individualised parental leave institutionalise equality across governance structures. Their effectiveness depends on coordinated implementation, legal safeguards, and monitoring systems that ensure equal participation in both paid work and caregiving.

At the same time, while this respondent group may be relatively well-protected against coordinated attacks, it is possible that this group frames gender equality in ways that make certain discursive and covert forms of pushback to gender equality work go unnoticed.

As the following open-ended response describes, there are forms of opposition that occur in the context of international collaboration:

“The opposition we face in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is mainly in multilateral fora and in embassies abroad. The answers above are drawn from these experiences; however, there are examples internationally on most of the issues listed. Again, this does not apply to our internal policy/work, but we face it with many of our partners so all boxes could be ticked. Opposition from [country redacted due to anonymity] actors is more limited, and in general not directed at Ministry of Foreign Affairs but at other Ministries and in the [country redacted due to anonymity] public debate. […] We primarily receive negative feedback and opposition to our work in non-threatening manner.”

The question of international cooperation is beyond the scope of this study and requires further research, particularly regarding security concerns related to foreign influence in Nordic societies and foreign funding streams of anti-gender politics in the Nordic region.

4.4 Barriers to engaging men and boys

As shown in the chapter on discursive opposition, the survey sought to examine whether, and in what ways, such opposition manifests. All respondents were asked if they had encountered specific allegations that prior research has identified as typical examples of pushback rhetoric. For clarity, the question is repeated here:

“Have you or has your organisation experienced any of the following allegations?”

Among the responses, one prominent form of delegitimisation stands out: the claim that gender equality efforts dismiss men and boys. Of the 88 survey respondents, more than half reported encountering allegations that a focus on women and girls comes at the expense of men and boys. Open-ended responses indicate a discursive shift in which gender equality is not rejected outright but reframed as failing men and boys. The most frequently reported form of opposition was:

Gender equality work dismisses key issues faced by boys and men.
(61.4%, n = 54).
Gender equality work is unjust for privileging women and girls.
(55.7%, n = 49).

In light of the survey responses, a common claim made against gender equality experts is that their work dismisses key issues faced by boys and men. Therefore, it is important to repeat the survey’s background statistic according to which one third of all respondents worked directly with men and masculinities.

Against this background, it is surprising that over 60% of the respondents reported having encountered this kind of rhetoric in the context of opposing and delegitimising gender equality work (see Figure 10).

This is significant particularly as Nordic societies have a long history of a shared understanding that gender equality is a mutually beneficial state of affairs. The gender-based division of roles and labour in Nordic societies has been developed with the practical aim that individuals can live the lives they choose – regardless of gender. Introducing paternity leave and encouraging fathers to use parental leave has also been a progressive step in advancing gender equality. Overall, parental leave aims to achieve a more equal division of responsibilities between caregivers. The system has been developed to promote fathers’ involvement in family life and to support more gender-equal parenting, and it has been widely adopted across the Nordic countries.

The two-provider model, prevalent in the Nordic countries, in which women typically participate in paid employment, has advanced gender equality in a way that contrasts with the stay-at-home-mom model rooted in more conservative gender roles. This gender contract has been a cornerstone of the Nordic welfare state. In this context, anti-gender mobilisation – often framed as ‘pro-family’, and promoting rigid gender roles – is largely incompatible with established Nordic societal values.

Contemporary anti-gender opposition has gained momentum through the transnational social media ecosystem. For example, a niche of influential male figures with large followings promotes a patriarchal and often nationalist worldview. Their audiovisual content frequently centres on fitness, money-making and dating ‘hacks’ that position the heterosexual man as the head of the household and portray woman as sexually submissive caregivers, responsible for domestic work and childcare. This reactionary ideology has also found supporters in the Nordic countries, which have traditionally been recognised for their progressive stance on gender equality.

The phenomenon is visible in the open-ended responses as follows:

“As an educator I mostly feel the opposition from young students (I see kids aged 11–18). Their opposition is not threatening to me but sure is disheartening (this morning 12-year-old boys clapped when I told them being queer is illegal in many countries). These children will be adults soon, and we have a great responsibility to fight back and educate this age group while we still can.”

“Not directly felt in the organisation but surveys continue to show that younger generations in Iceland hold more negative views towards feminism and trans people, especially among young boys/men. Therefore, the sense is an undercurrent of negative attitudes but that has not explicitly surfaced in relation to my work.”

“The brutal backlash in young men´s attitudes is the only thing calling for extra precautions since all education, discussion and correction can be like pouring oil on the fire. Which is the last thing we need, but we cannot give up on educating them. We need to find ways to get through to them. Education on equality, discrimination, abuse, sex, porn, toxic masculinities and such must start much earlier. We need more of a focus on emotional education, kids need training in empathy. There has to be a better cooperation (NGO´s, government, schools, youth and sport centres, parents, social media moguls...) in fighting this opposition.”

“The situation in Norway is that manospheric ideas of men as the true victims (of gender equality that has gone too far) has been mainstreamed and informs politics and media discourse.”

The most recent Gender Equality Barometer (2024) from Finland identified a similar trend: some young Finnish men are becoming increasingly critical of gender equality initiatives and advocacy for LGBTQI+ rights. Although the group is relatively small, it represents a demographic that had not previously appeared in the Finnish Barometer. The open-ended responses above indicate concern that young men may be vulnerable to online radicalisation pipelines.

Whilst many respondents expressed worry about the potential consequences of young men’s radicalisation, a few respondents took an entirely different view with regard to men’s role in gender equality work. They argued that male-specific issues as such are not treated as legitimate gender equality issues:

“Some extreme feminists are quite hostile to men’s participation in the work for gender equality as so often stating that men’s issues are less important, or in direct opposition to women’s. This also sometimes takes a personal and intimidating form, which makes it unpleasant for our staff to stand up in debates and official foras.”

“We don´t think there is opposition to gender equality work, as such, or gender equality. We think there is opposition to the way the work is defined and implemented. Men and their experiences of equality have been given significantly less attention than women. When talking about equality between women and men, both should be given equal attention. This would lead to the weakening of the ‘resistance’ to the margins.”

One civil society organisation representative expressed receiving the following critique towards their work:

“Working for boys’ and men’s gender equality issues is not legitimate, and should not be prioritised. Boys’ and men’s gender equality issues are of less importance than girls and women’s equality issues.”

These emerging differences in the framing of gender equality point to the need for further research to better understand and contextualise the experiences of men and boys, particularly in relation to intersecting factors such as age, class, race, gender, and sexuality. For instance, existing research has highlighted gaps in knowledge regarding Nordic men’s experiences of emotional, physical, and sexual abuse. Furthermore, violence experienced by men – whether by other men or in the context of intimate partner violence – risks being overlooked due to societal norms around masculinity, shame, and victimhood.

Nevertheless, the discursive framing that constructs men and boys as positioned outside the scope of gender equality work is in direct contrast with the official Nordic gender equality policy, which explicitly includes men, boys, and masculinities as core components of gender equality.

4.5 LGBTQI+ rights advocacy experts as a risk group

With regard to questions regarding LGBTQI+ rights, open-ended responses indicate that advocacy on trans-specific gender equality issues places gender equality experts at a heightened risk of encountering multiple forms of intimidation and threats.

One Swedish civil society organisation noted that extra precautions are necessary when advocating for or speaking specifically about ‘trans experiences’. In other open-ended responses to survey questions on encountered opposition to gender equality work, a civil society organisation and an academic from Norway reported encountering trans-specific intimidation:

“Conspiracy theories and transphobia in comments.”

“Harassment in social media in the form of putting me on a hate-list of people working for trans-rights and posting it publicly on their webpage and Facebook wall.”

A Finnish civil society organisation reported encountering backlash, such as:

“Trans people are not real and promoting trans rights is ideological brainwashing of young people.”

Another Finnish civil society organisation working with women’s rights reported that their work is being delegitimised by statements such as:

“Our work for trans rights contradicts our aim to advance women and girls, as trans women are not women from the speaker’s point of view.”

A Swedish respondent from academia and research reported that racism and transphobia work together in arguments defending free speech:

“My organisation is crap at dealing with these issues. It does not understand that the very subject I teach and do research on, the very bodies of those of us in this field are under attack. […] My institution thinks it is more important to defend white professors’ right to use derogatory sexist, racist and transphobic language than to protect students and faculty who are affected. In general, the defence of freedom of expression always seems to focus on people’s right to express racist, sexist, transphobic, Islamophobic and ableist views.”

These responses above come from multiple different Nordic countries. The distribution of trans-specific derogatory comments and misinformation, often justified by appeals to freedom of expression, is a cross-sectoral and region-wide pattern across the responses.

Targeting of LGBTQI+ and trans issues has wider consequences: it leads to extra precautions or self-censorship when speaking about gender equality in general, reduces participation in public discussion and civil society engagement, and limits freedom of speech. As some respondents noted:

“Most of the time, risk of discrimination and hate speech on social media heightens when news outlets cover LGBTQIA+ rights or any sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, gender characteristics issues.”

The survey indicates that pushback against trans rights constitutes a recurrent site of discursive contestation within Nordic gender equality contexts. It further suggests that gender equality practitioners without a trans-specific focus may struggle to navigate these tensions and maintain a balanced position, as illustrated in the following response:

“Some believe that we focus too much on gender and exclude trans people. Others believe that we focus too much on trans people, which hinders gender equality work.”

Based on the responses, a further question arises as to how transnational anti-transgender push-back – including misinformation on gender-affirming healthcare, – may align with broader anti-gender opposition to sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR). This includes investigating the linkages with anti-abortion rights campaigning and their wider implications for gender equality. More research is needed to explore these connections in depth.