In discussions about gender, it’s not uncommon to encounter headlines like “Women Are Winning the Gender War” or op-eds asking, “Is Feminism Hurting Men?”

These narratives frame gender relations as a battleground, where progress for one side inevitably means loss for the other. These portrayals reinforce a zero-sum mindset. So progress for women is seen as inherently disadvantageous to men, or that doing more for boys and men means doing less for girls and women.

This perspective, often amplified by media and cultural rhetoric, perpetuates the idea that gender equality is a zero-sum game, rather than a shared opportunity for collaboration and mutual benefit.

This mindset contrasts sharply with positive-sum thinking, which suggests that through collaboration, innovation, or shared effort, everyone can benefit. It emphasizes that women and men are not at odds but can rise together.

To understand the roots and impact of zero-sum thinking, we conducted a large-scale survey of U.S. residents at the Social Economics Lab at Harvard. We collected data on respondents’ policy stances, extent of zero-sum thinking, as well as detailed ancestry and family histories.

Specifically, we asked participants whether they believed gains for one group come at the expense of another across various domains: between countries, racial groups, immigrants versus non-immigrants, and income groups. By analyzing responses across these domains, we could assess zero-sum thinking both in general terms and with regard to specific issues.

In the context of gender, a zero-sum mindset manifests as the belief that if women gain, it must come at the expense of men, or vice versa. Rather than asking questions about the overall relative position of men and women, we asked more specific questions about wages. Respondents were first told that “since the 1960s, the average wages of women have risen relative to the wages of men.” They were then asked which of the following two statements they most agreed with (on a 1-10 scale): “Women’s wage gains have been at the expense of men’s wages” or “Women’s wage gains have not been at the expense of men’s wages.”

Five findings on zero-sum thinking

The results revealed several patterns.

First, zero-sum thinking is more prevalent among respondents living in urban areas and among those with lower incomes or levels of educational attainment. Geographically, it varied significantly by state: Utah residents exhibited the lowest levels of zero-sum thinking, while those in New York were among the most zero-sum.

Second, zero-sum thinking is not confined to one side of the political spectrum. Both Democrats and Republicans exhibit zero-sum perspectives, but in different areas. For example, Democrats are more likely to believe that the wealthy gain at the expense of the poor, while Republicans are more likely to believe that immigrants’ success comes at the expense of non-immigrants.

When it comes to gender, Republican respondents are significantly more likely to hold a zero-sum view, believing that women’s progress disadvantages men.

Third, younger generations consistently exhibit stronger zero-sum views, including on gender issues. For example, they are more likely to agree with statements like, “Women’s wage gains have come at the expense of men’s wages.” At first glance, this might seem counterintuitive. One plausible explanation lies in the economic environment, as the chart below suggests.

 
Older generations came of age during periods of higher economic growth and more favorable conditions, which may have fostered a greater sense of abundance and reduced zero-sum thinking.

Fourth, the roots of zero-sum thinking can often be traced to personal and family experiences, shaped by larger historical and economic forces. Key factors like ancestral economic mobility, immigration history, and the legacy of enslavement play critical roles in shaping contemporary perspectives.

For instance, individuals who have experienced greater upward intergenerational mobility—whether directly or through their family—tend to exhibit lower levels of zero-sum thinking. Witnessing progress within one’s family may foster a belief in shared societal gains rather than competition.

The history of slavery in the U.S. provides another important lens for understanding zero-sum perspectives. Black respondents are more likely than other groups to hold zero-sum views; but among Black respondents, those with ancestors who were enslaved tend to hold a more pronounced zero-sum mindset. Place-based effects further amplify these patterns: individuals whose families lived in counties with higher rates of enslavement historically are more likely to hold zero-sum views, even generations later.

Fifth, local culture matters. Counties with larger populations of white Southern migrants or a stronger “Confederate culture” during key historical periods tend to foster higher levels of zero-sum thinking among residents, regardless of whether they were directly involved in these events. These patterns reveal how deeply ingrained and far-reaching the effects of historical experiences can be on contemporary mindsets.

Narrow zero-sum, broader positive-sum

Are some settings truly zero-sum, or does this perspective limit our thinking? Some situations may genuinely seem zero-sum, especially when viewed narrowly. Take, for instance, a workplace promotion: if there is only one position available, one person’s success will inevitably mean someone else’s loss. Similarly, college admissions—a significant source of stress for many young people—can seem like a zero-sum game. With a finite number of spots, one candidate’s acceptance might feel like it directly reduces opportunities for others.

However, a broader perspective can shift this narrative. While that single promotion may be limited, fostering a culture of collaboration and productive interactions at work can lead to the company’s overall growth. In turn, this growth might create additional opportunities for others, transforming an ostensibly zero-sum scenario into a positive-sum outcome. The same holds at the level of the economy. Recognizing this potential requires moving beyond the immediate competition and focusing on the bigger picture.

Unfortunately, zero-sum thinking can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. When people believe that gains for one gender come at the expense of the other, they are less inclined to pursue collaboration or cooperation. Instead, they adopt adversarial or competitive stances, framing interactions as battles to be won rather than opportunities for mutual benefit.

This mindset can turn potentially positive-sum situations into actual zero-sum outcomes, simply because cooperation was never considered. Such thinking can be particularly harmful in personal relationships. Believing that women’s progress comes at men’s expense—or vice versa—undermines trust, shared goals, and emotional connection, creating tension that is detrimental to fulfilling family or romantic dynamics.

To move beyond a zero-sum mindset in gender relations, a collective effort is needed from parents, educators, policymakers, and the media. The narratives we emphasize shape how people perceive opportunities and challenges. Framing situations solely through the lens of competition, scarcity, or inevitable trade-offs is not only narrow-minded but also reinforces zero-sum thinking. Instead, we must highlight the potential for collaboration and mutual gain, encouraging individuals to recognize and create positive-sum opportunities.

While not every scenario can be transformed into a win-win, taking a step back to ask, “Where is the scope for mutual benefit?” can shift perspectives and unlock creative solutions. By fostering this broader mindset, we can better equip individuals to find common ground and embrace gender progress as a shared endeavor rather than a divisive struggle.

Stefanie Stantcheva

Stefanie Stantcheva is the Nathaniel Ropes Professor of Political Economy at Harvard and Founder and Director of the Social Economics Lab