Gender and Cybersecurity

by Laura Palovuori

Who shapes the digital world?

Cybersecurity is often discussed through technology, risks, and digital threats. Much less attention is given to the people behind these systems — who builds them, who shapes them, and whose perspectives are included in the digital worlds we create. This text is based on the conferene publication from the CSS-Tutkimusfoorumi 2026. The (longer) original can be found here https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe2026041527640 (pp. 529-535 in Finnish). Its origins lie in the project DistanceLAB, one of 22 projects of the REAVES project platform.

The world is changing rapidly, especially due to digitalization. Technologies that were once simple—such as household appliances—are now connected to the internet and equipped with sensors, cameras, and data-processing capabilities. For example, Degeur (2026) describes a case in which one person gained control of 7,000 smart vacuum cleaners worldwide, including access to cameras and microphones. This illustrates how deeply cybersecurity is now embedded in everyday life. At the same time, gender differences remain significant in technology-related fields. Although women’s participation in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) has increased in Europe, Finland still has one of the lowest shares of women in these fields (Eurostat 2026). This raises an important question: Internet is everywhere, but why do so few women enter cybersecurity and related fields? This article explores the issue through three perspectives: the gender equality paradox, self-efficacy, and social constructionism and role models.

The Gender Equality Paradox

Research shows that girls perform as well as—or even better than—boys in science subjects, and many would have the ability to pursue STEM careers (Stoet & Geary 2018). However, fewer girls choose these fields. This leads to the so-called gender equality paradox: in countries with higher gender equality, differences in career choices between men and women are often larger.

One explanation is that in more equal and wealthier societies, individuals have greater freedom to choose careers based on personal interests rather than economic necessity. As a result, women may choose non-STEM fields they find more appealing. In contrast, in less affluent countries, STEM fields may attract more women because they offer financial stability (Stoet & Geary 2018). However, this theory has been criticized. Researchers argue that statistical methods and comparisons may be misleading and that structural factors—such as labor markets and occupational segregation—are not sufficiently considered (Bairoh, Ilmarinen & Tanhua 2026). Other studies suggest that individuals with strong skills in both mathematics and language—many of whom are women—are less likely to choose STEM careers, as they have broader options (Wang, Eccles & Kenny 2013).

Self-Efficacy

Another important factor is self-efficacy, which refers to a person’s belief in their own abilities. This belief influences both educational choices and career paths (Waddington 2023). Bairoh (2023) identifies five key factors that explain gender differences in STEM: mathematical ability and self-efficacy, interests and career preferences, stereotypes and discrimination, masculine workplace cultures, and the strong association between masculinity and STEM skills.

In Finland, stereotypes that portray men as more capable in technical fields continue to shape career choices. As a result, women often report lower confidence in their abilities, lower interest in STEM careers, and weaker professional identities in these fields (Bairoh 2023). This shows that ability alone does not determine career choices—beliefs and social expectations play a crucial role.

Social Constructionism and Role Models

To understand these attitudes, social constructionism offers useful insights. According to Gergen (1985), our understanding of the world is shaped through social interaction and shared meanings. In other words, ideas about what is “normal,” “appropriate,” or “possible” are not fixed—they are created and reinforced in society. This perspective helps explain why certain careers are seen as “male” or “female.” These ideas are not natural, but socially constructed over time.

Changing these perceptions is difficult because people tend to imagine the world based on what they already see around them. This is why role models are important. For example, the Women4Cyber network promotes diverse professionals in cybersecurity and offers mentoring (Women4Cyber 2026). Similarly, the Mimmit koodaa community challenges stereotypes by showing that IT careers are open to people from many different backgrounds (Holmroos-Kolari 2026).

However, challenges remain. Some women report feeling pressure to adapt their appearance or behavior in male-dominated environments to be taken seriously (Talvela 2025). Research also shows that women may downplay their differences or leave the field entirely (Alfrey & Twine 2017). At the same time, visible female role models—such as ethical hacker Laura Kankaala—help challenge stereotypes and broaden ideas about who belongs in cybersecurity (Kankaala 2024; Magnus 2024).

Why Gender Matters in Cybersecurity

Gender matters in cybersecurity because people experience risks differently. Perceptions of safety and threat depend on factors such as gender, age, and background (Millar, Shires & Tropina 2022). As digitalization expands, almost all areas of security now have a cyber dimension, from infrastructure to everyday devices. This makes it essential to include diverse perspectives in decision-making. Globally, women make up only about 20% of the cybersecurity workforce (Millar, Shires & Tropina 2022; Desender & López‑Puertas‑Lamy 2026). However, diversity has clear benefits: it improves problem-solving, helps address skill shortages, and strengthens organizational performance (ISC2 2024). Research also shows that companies with more gender-diverse leadership report fewer cybersecurity incidents, highlighting the importance of diverse perspectives in managing complex risks (Desender & López‑Puertas‑Lamy 2026).

Conclusion

This study shows that gender differences in cybersecurity cannot be explained by ability alone. Instead, they are shaped by a combination of social structures, cultural beliefs, and individual confidence. Despite growing awareness of cybersecurity’s importance, participation remains uneven. Women are more likely to engage in general cybersecurity topics but are underrepresented in technical and professional contexts. Cybersecurity today includes not only technology, but also behavior, communication, and everyday practices. As digital systems become part of all aspects of life—from smart homes to wearable devices—there is no clear reason why these areas should be seen as “male domains.”

However, stereotypes persist. Masculinity is still strongly associated with technical competence, while feminine-associated skills are often undervalued (Bairoh, Ilmarinen & Tanhua 2026). According to Gergen (1985), shared ways of thinking and speaking shape reality. Therefore, changing attitudes requires active effort: challenging stereotypes, increasing visibility of diverse role models, and supporting inclusive participation.

Cybersecurity is a field that affects everyone. Its development involves constant choices, and these choices should reflect diverse perspectives. This is not only a matter of equality, but also of effectiveness and innovation. In conclusion, deeply rooted ideas about gender and careers still influence society. To create change, women (and also non-binary individuals) must be visible participants in discussions about technology and security—and help redefine what a cybersecurity expert looks like.

References

Bairoh, S, Ilmarine, V. J. & Tanhua, I. 2026. Tasa-arvon paradoxi ei selitä naisten aliedusta tekniikassa. Tieteessä tapahtuu 1/2026. https://www.tieteessatapahtuu.fi/numerot/1-2026/tasa-arvon-paradoksi-ei-selita-naisten-aliedustusta-tekniikassa#ki11  Accessed 24.2.2026.

Bairoh, S. 2023. The Gender(ed) Gap(s) in STEM : Explaining the persistent underrepresentation of women in STEM careers. Economics and society; 373. Hanken School of Economics. http://hdl.handle.net/10227/557833  Accessed 24.2.2026.

Degeur, M. 2026. Man accidentally gains control of 7,000 robot vacuums. Sammy Azdoufal just wanted to steer his DJI Romo with a gaming controller. Popular Science.  https://www.popsci.com/technology/robot-vacuum-army/  Accessed 2.3.2026.

Desender, K., A. & LópezPuertas-Lamy, M. 2026. The boardroom firewall: Gender diversity and cybersecurity. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Vol 60,2026.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intaccaudtax.2026   Accessed 25.2.2026.

Eurostat 2026. Steady rise: female scientists & engineers reach 7.9 mln.  https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/edn-20260211-1   Accessed 26.2.2026.

Gergen, K. J. 1985. The Social Constructionist Movement in Modern Psychology.  American Psychologist. Vol 40, No. 3, 266-275.  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/302871718_The_Social_Constructionist_Movement_in_Modern_Psychology Accessed 25.2.2026.

ISC2 2024. 2024 ISC2 Cybersecurity Workforce Study. https://www.isc2.org/Insights/2024/10/ISC2-2024-Cybersecurity-Workforce-Study  Accessed 25.2.2026.

Kankaala, L 2024. Varjojen verkko. Yle Areena audio-podcast. https://areena.yle.fi/1-72363802  Accessed 27.2.2026

Magnus, E. 2024. I’ve built a career in ethical hacking. Online scams are getting much, much worse — and AI isn’t helping. BUSINESS INSIDER. https://www.businessinsider.com/hacker-online-scams-getting-worse-ai-cybersecurity-expert-2024-9 Accessed 15.6.2026

Millar, K., Shires, J. & Tropina T. 2022. Gender Equality, Cybersecurity, and Security Sector Governance. Understanding the role of gender in cybersecurity governance. https://www.dcaf.ch/gender-equality-cybersecurity-and-security-sector-governance  Accessed: 24.2.2026.

Stoet, G. & Geary, D. C. 2018. The gender-equality paradox in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Psychological Science, Vol. 29 No. 4, 581–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617741719  Accessed 24.2.2026.

Talvela, M. 2025. Kuukauden roolimalli (11/2025): Saskia Simisker. Cyber4Women. https://www.women4cyberfinland.com/post/kuukauden-roolimalli-11-2025-saskia-simisker  Accessed 25.2.2026.

Waddington, J. 2023. Self-efficacy. ELT Journal, Vol. 77, No. 2, 237–240. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccac046  Accessed 24.2.2026.

Wang, M-T., Eccles, J. S. & Kenny, S. 2013. Not Lack of Ability but More Choice: Individual and Gender Differences in Choice of Careers in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Psychological Science, Vol 24 No. 5, 770–775. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612458937  Accessed 24.2.2026

Women4Cyber 2026. Cybersecurity is diverse. Saatavissa: https://www.women4cyberfinland.com/ Accessed 27.2.2026.

Programme Manual Online

Choose