If you are reading this text in English, you are probably new to our website. We are the Polish Association for Boys and Men. We have around 100 male and female members. Since November 2022, we have been working for gender equality in Poland, focusing on men’s disadvantages. These issues include: unequal retirement age and parental leave, gender gaps in life expectancy and education, as well as the risk of suicide and homelessness, among others. We submitted our feedback in response to the public consultation of the new EU gender equality strategy. Here, we comment on the resolution adopted by the European Parliament, which almost completely disregards men’s issues.
A resolution as a prelude to the strategy
Every five years, the European Commission announces the “European Union Gender Equality Strategy.” Last week, the European Parliament adopted a resolution in which it communicates to the Commission what it would like to see included in that strategy.
If someone wanted to write a parody of gender equality policies, it would be difficult to do it better.
For the skeptics, we provide the points and articles where specific quotations appear.
First, a surprise, already in the introductory justification, the Parliament mentions men’s rights! Unfortunately, it does so in the same point in which it lists “far-right parties and anti-democratic, fascist ideologies” and other threats (point D).
There is also mention that there are too few men in care-related professions, and that education is key to gender equality (in point P — only later do we learn what this implies).
Whichever way you look at it, women always have it worse.
Who suffers the most in wars? Women, of course. “whereas armed conflicts disproportionately impact women and girls, including through the rise in the use of GBV [gender-based violence] as a weapon of war, and have resulted in an overall deterioration of women’s rights, with detrimental consequences for the full enjoyment of the human rights of women and girls globally;” (point Z).
There is also something about migration from rural areas to cities. Who is “left behind” when women leave? Women as well: “whereas depopulation is occurring in rural areas, including in the outermost regions, with young people being more likely to leave, especially girls and women undermining their right to stay in those areas”; and “whereas a targeted and intersectional approach is needed to address the persistent gender gaps, in particular in the aforementioned sectors and regions, and to ensure that women and girls are not left behind in the implementation of the Gender Equality Strategy” (point AB).
Health is important — unless it’s men’s health, then apparently it’s not
A separate chapter is devoted to “comprehensive gender-responsive healthcare”. The Parliament “urges the Commission to ensure universal access to gender-responsive and quality-, patient- and outcome-centred healthcare in line with the highest standards…”. At this point, one might expect to read something about men’s shorter life expectancy or about the fact that men make less use of preventive screenings. But reading further, we find: „…for women and girls, in all their diversity, in particular groups experiencing intersectional forms of discrimination, including people with disabilities and from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds, victims of GBV, racialised people and people from ethnic, minority or migrant backgrounds, older, LGBTIQ+ people, especially intersex women, transgender and non-binary individuals, women in rural and remote areas and outermost regions” (point 16). It’s a pity that the groups in need of support were defined in this way, because in the introduction the Parliament seemed to acknowledge that “men are less likely to seek medical attention, as they are generally less aware of symptoms or tend to downplay them” (point N).
Clearly, it is assumed that men will simply not start seeking help and stop downplaying symptoms.
Of course, attention must be paid to sex-related diseases, so the Parliament calls for “tackling gender-specific health needs and risks throughout all life stages, while paying particular attention to diseases that disproportionately affect women” (point 17).
In the same point, we also read about the gender imbalance in medical professions! The Parliament calls on the Commission to “…encouraging more women to pursue medical careers” (point 17).
We must not forget about mental health. The Parliament calls on the Commission to “address the persisting mental health challenges faced by women and girls and marginalised groups” (point 19).
Have we already mentioned the need to address unequal access to healthcare? Perhaps we have, but in yet another point the Parliament “calls on the Commission to address – at EU level – the gaps, inequalities and barriers to accessing healthcare for women in all their diversity, including women from vulnerable groups” (point 20).
Have we really mentioned it? Just to be sure, the Parliament “urges the Commission to develop a comprehensive EU strategy to address women’s highly specific health needs at every life stage and to address the factors that impact the health of women and girls, also by including health in the EU Semester” (point 22).
Some groups do not make use of preventive care as often as they could. Therefore, the Parliament “calls on the Commission to support healthcare systems to develop, implement and evaluate gender-focused disease prevention strategies as prevention can improve women’s and girl’s quality of life; therefore, urges the Commission to implement measures that are both prevention-based and raise awareness about the right to access healthcare services” (point 25).
Point 26 additionally addresses the regional aspect and the availability of services in rural areas — it calls for the creation of mobile units and for taking a „gender-responsive” approach. So, one could potentially, with good intentions, interpret this as a basis for andro-buses, although the neighboring articles do not really encourage this.
Do you know what else can be done as part of health-promoting actions? The Parliament “calls on the Commission to encourage and engage men as active allies in the promotion of SRHR [Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights] to address the broader context of the rising backlash among young men against young women and feminism” (point 28).
How are children made? One might get the impression it happens through parthenogenesis, because the Parliament “recognises that fertility is a critical aspect of women’s health” but it does not explicitly mention male fertility (point 33). Let’s give credit where it’s due — in the introduction, the Parliament notes that such an approach is harmful. Of course, for women: “Whereas sexual and reproductive health and rights are fundamental to the quality of life and the empowerment of individuals, and include access to (…) fertility treatments (…), and whereas they have traditionally been regarded as women’s issues, which hinders progress in this area and perpetuates differences in the treatment of women and men; whereas men’s active engagement in sexual and reproductive health and rights can help challenge harmful gender norms, promote shared responsibility in family planning, and support women’s rights and well-being” (point H).
Climate and environmental changes also have different effects on women and men, for example on health. Therefore, the Parliament “underlines the harmful effects that environmental degradation has on the health of women and girls, especially the impact of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).” So far, scientific sources have reported that PFAS harms male fertility and contributes to testicular cancer. There is even a study showing that PFAS affects male mortality more. But who would care about that? (point 63)
Retirement age and homelessness exclusion
There is a mention of retirement age. The Parliament „calls on the Commission to ensure that the Member States take the gender dimension into account when reforming pension systems and adapting the retirement age, and to consider the differences between the work patterns of women and men, including all unpaid employment practices, taking into account the higher risk of intersectional discrimination faced by women in the labour market” (point 40).
There is an explicit call to “closing the gender pension gap” (point 41), although previous EU documents suggest that this refers to equality in monthly payments rather than necessarily equality in retirement age. Which is still an issue in Poland, which is the last country with 5 year gender gap between retirement – 60 for women vs. 65 for men.
The Parliament also notes the gendered aspects of social exclusion and homelessness! It is obvious who needs to be protected from them.
The Parliment „recalls that inequality in housing drives many women to live in undignified, unsafe situations, at risk of homelessness and violence” (point 48)
Education, work, and fatherhood
Inequalities in education are addressed in seven points under the title: “Women’s rights and gender equality in education, training and the digital sphere” There can be no doubt about who needs support in education. The Parliament “highlights the importance of ensuring access to quality education for girls as a precondition for gender equality, women’s empowerment and full enjoyment of their rights; urges the Commission to ensure gender- and age-inclusive access to all levels of education and training promoting gender equality and dismantling gender stereotypes and harmful societal norms and to especially support the most vulnerable women, girls and persons faced with intersectional discrimination in their education journey; urges the Commission to ensure that the Union of Skills addresses gender imbalances, with the aim of empowering all individuals across the EU” (point 49).
And there is one bright spot. Here we pause and genuinely give credit where it’s due.
In point 52 there is a single insertion, a line and a half in a 21-line paragraph: Parliament “notes that equally boys should be encouraged to enter the EHW (education, health and welfare) sector”!
But let us not forget the message from the earlier point: it is girls who need to be encouraged to pursue medical professions.
Parliament also notes inequalities in occupational safety and “calls on the Commission to increase investments to improve working conditions and health and safety in the care sector, in which the majority of workers are women” (point 57).
Points 59 and 61 state clearly: Parliament “calls for strong promotion of paternity leave”. Why? Because “caregiving responsibilities must not be a barrier to women’s career progression”. Many points address obstacles that women face in their careers. Yet, there is nothing about the obstacles fathers face in taking such leave — for example in forms of employment that make it difficult to go on leave.
Have we already mentioned that war affects women the most? Parliament “calls on the Commission and the Member States to reinforce the recruitment, retention and advancement of women in national armed forces and civilian missions” and to prepare a follow-up to the five-year “Women, Peace and Security 2019-2024” (point 64).
„But where does this rage and backlash come from?!”
And let’s not forget that inequality is getting worse and worse, and it is completely unclear why people dislike equality-oriented ideas. According to Parliament, there is a “continuing erosion of democracy, women’s rights and gender equality”. That is why a separate section deals with the “safeguarding [of] organisations working for women’s rights […] and countering anti-gender movements.” Parliament “urges the Commission to conduct in-depth research on anti-gender movements to gain deeper insights into their current operations and financing strategies” (point 71).
The Parliament „highlights with great concern the growth of the ‘manosphere’.”
Therefore, it calls on the Commission to “investigate and sanction VPLOs that do not fulfil their obligations to remove harmful content”. The Commission should develop “measures to address the rise of misogynistic and far-right values among boys and young men concerning gender equality and women’s rights and measures to counter them”. And to examine “the growing divergence in attitudes between young men and young women towards gender equality” (point 72).
For the achievement of all these objectives, the engagement and funding of non-governmental organizations is, of course, essential. Therefore, Parliament “calls on the Commission to ensure sustainable and accessible funding for organisations working for women’s rights” (point 74).
We mentioned the need to examine how anti-gender movements are funded. In the meantime, we already know: Parliament “warns that a significant portion of the funding driving the growth of anti-gender movements across the EU comes from foreign actors” (point 75).
Have we already mentioned that particular inequalities appear in rural areas? Probably, but let us repeat that Parliament “calls on the Commission to create and implement sub-programmes and activities dedicated to women in rural areas” (point 81).
And let us not forget to take into account all citizens’ perspectives. Parliament “calls on the Commission to actively consult and involve women and girls in all their diversity, including through representative organisations, in the preparation and implementation of the post 2025 Gender Equality Strategy” (point 85).
The Union speaks of men as objects, not as citizens
The word “boys” appears twice in this document: in the context of encouraging careers in education, health, and care, and in the context of the far-right. Fathers appear only in the two points cited above — in the context of the need to assess whether paternity leave is effective. A lot of space is devoted to the dramatic consequences of motherhood for women, but there is nothing about whether it is easy for fathers to take leave or what effects taking on care responsibilities has on them.
There is nothing about life expectancy, gender imbalances in EU international exchange programs (Erasmus+ or DiscoverEU), suicides, dropping out of education, or military obligations.
Let us emphasize once again: Parliament notes that “armed conflicts have a disproportionate impact on women and girls”. It calls for ensuring universal access to high-quality healthcare for women and girls, promoting preventive healthcare among women and girls, ensuring girls’ access to high-quality education, encouraging girls to pursue medical professions. Finally, it calls for consultation with women and girls.
That is why we ourselves must make sure our voice is heard. MEPs and the European Commission must hear about the other side of gender inequality.
The Gender Equality Strategy affects how European funds are allocated. Will local authorities, over the next five years, again give extra points in recruitment to girls, or will they organize programs to prevent boys from dropping out of education? Will only girls in STEM be supported, or also 18-year-old boys traveling with DiscoverEU? Will the “gender-responsive”” in health mean only reproductive health and female cancers, or also premature male deaths, their fertility, and the diseases that particularly affect them? The European Parliament has shown that this will not happen without pressure.