Men’s issues or issues of the patriarchy?

A response to ‘Do gender equality policies address men’s issues?’ by Gulczyński

In the EUIdeas post “Do gender equality policies address men’s issues?” Michał Gulczyński argues that EU gender equality policies overlook what he calls ‘men’s issues’. As a starting point, Gulczyński reports domains and indicators in which men fare worse than women, as evidence that men, too, face gender-based disadvantages. This list of isolated and decontextualized facts is misleading, as it ignores gender inequality as a structural inequality. This leads to an oversimplified idea of gender (in)equality as a zero-sum game, or a ‘battle of the sexes’. With this post, we aim to shed light on some elements potentially neglected in Gulczyński’s post, hoping to contribute to a wider debate on gender (in)equality.

Men and boys are falling behind in education

As stated by Gulczyński: “men in the EU have much worse education outcomes”. This concern is part of a larger discourse in which boys are often portrayed as a homogenous group (see Mills, 2000). The question of ‘which boys?’ is neglected. As explained by Mills (2000): “issues of poverty and race seem to have also been swept aside in attempts to construct all boys as the victims of an inappropriate schooling system” (p. 244). Focusing on boys falling behind in education overlooks how disadvantages may apply to a particular type of boys, namely marginalized subgroups (Mills, 2000). Similarly, the educational disadvantage of boys/men may not be uniform across age groups, educational stages, or educational subjects. For instance, if we were to look at average levels of numeracy among adults (16-65 years) in OECD countries, men outperform women on average by 11 proficiency score points (Encinas-Martín & Cherian, 2023). Girls do outperform boys in reading, but this gender gap seems to disappear at the university level (Encinas-Martín & Cherian, 2023). To address education inequalities, it is important to recognise their complexity and nuance.

However, this does not mean that the underperformance of boys in reading is not concerning. There may be underlying gender dynamics at play. Reading may be seen as ‘something that girls do’. Both girls and boys believe gender-based explicit reading stereotypes (Nowicki & Lopata, 2017). These stereotypes may be transmitted through culture, and reinforced by classmates, teachers, and family, having real effects on performance of boys and girls alike (Muntoni et al., 2020; Pansu et al., 2016; Salikutluk & Heyne, 2017). Tackling gender stereotypes may then be beneficial for boys, but also for girls to gain confidence in stereotypically ‘male’ topics, like mathematics. Tackling systemic gender stereotypes is not a zero-sum game, as both boys and girls gain from it.

As mentioned by Gulczyński, women are more likely to have a tertiary degree. Is this an advantage, or do women simply need it more? Pursuing higher education may be more necessary for women to compete in the labour market. Indeed, while most men with below upper secondary education are employed (69%), this is only the case for 43% of women with the same educational level (25-34 year olds, OECD countries, 2021; Encinas-Martín & Cherian, 2023). This difference is lower, though still substantial, for those who have a tertiary degree (87% men; 80% women). It seems that women need to be ‘more educated’ to achieve outcomes similar to men’s. Yet, shockingly, despite women being more educated, they still earn less than men in every single OECD country (OECD, 2022).

Men die earlier

Gulczyński mentioned that men die earlier than women. While we are not biologists, it is not hard to find that this is partly a natural phenomenon. For example, cisgender men are more vulnerable to infectious diseases, as well as more likely to be born prematurely, to have genetic disorders, and to develop coronary heart disease (Eskes and Haanen, 2007; Kraemer, 2000). These outcomes are largely attributable to chromosomal (particularly X chromosome-related) and hormonal differences (Basta and Pandya, 2023; Regan and Partridge, 2013).

Yet, it’s not all about biology. Men’s mortality rates spike during puberty and early adulthood, largely due to deaths from violence and accidents (Regan and Partridge, 2013). This increased vulnerability relates to a greater prevalence of risk-taking behaviour among men, who typically assess situations as less dangerous than women do. Men are also more likely to smoke, consume alcohol to excess, and drive recklessly (Oksuzyan et al., 2013). Men also tend to delay seeking medical help until symptoms are advanced (Kraemer, 2000). Normative expectations linked to the traditional male social role, such as valorisation of toughness and discouragement of seeming weak or vulnerable (Tudiver and Talbot, 1999), may promote men’s greater acceptance and normalisation of risk (Stergiou-Kita et al., 2015). Furthermore, taking risks and dismissing health concerns helps men affirm their role as the ‘stronger sex’ and reinforces the social structures that reward such behaviours (Courtenay, 2000).

As stated by Gulczyński, occupational risks are higher among men. This may also contribute to greater male mortality. Due to gender segregation in many risky professions, men are more exposed to traumatic injuries and workplace hazards than women (Eng et al., 2011; Stergiou-Kita et al., 2015). Conversely, women are more likely to report work stress, workplace harassment and bullying, repetitive and high-speed work, and exposure to certain chemical and biological agents (Eng et al., 2011; Biswas et al., 2021). Interestingly, within the same occupations, men are still more likely than women to be exposed to physical hazards (Biswas et al., 2021). Gendered behaviours and norms have been proposed as an explanation for this disparity.

Yes, women live longer, but do they live better? Women live on average 25 percent fewer years in good health than men worldwide (World Economic Forum, 2024). Although women tend to live longer lives than men due to the combination of biological and social factors outlined here on average, they also “suffer from elevated morbidity rates across a range of conditions because of their depressed SES [socioeconomic status] and greater exposure to social stressors” (Read and Gorman, 2010). Women have a higher incidence and prevalence of disability at all ages (Oksuzyan et al., 2013) and have poorer self-reported health and quality of life throughout the life course.

Retirement age

In 2017, Poland lowered the retirement age from 67 to 60 for women and 65 for men. This is pointed by Gulczyński as an example of unequal rights disadvantaging men. Justifying this decision, Prime Minister Morawiecki stated: “The role of women must be appreciated and therefore the legislators provided for the possibility of an earlier retirement. What we propose reflects not only social expectations but also different roles for women, different roles for men.”

What comes off as an advantage for women may be a curse in disguise. Shorter working lives translate into lower pensions. In the EU, pensions are, on average, 37.6% higher for men than for women (Brimblecombe & McClanahan, 2019). According to OECD data, in Poland, in 2022, women’s pensions only replaced 31.5% of pre-retirement earnings, while for men, this rate was 40.3% – a gap 8% higher than the OECD average. Additionally, retirement may simply reflect a transition from the labour market to housework. Indeed, in Poland, women who live with an older parent tend to retire earlier, pointing to women taking on care work rather than enjoying retirement (Abramowska-Kmon, 2020).

Lowering women’s retirement age is thus rooted in patriarchal norms. It can constitute an example of ‘Benevolent Sexism’, portraying women as nurturing, pure, and in need of protection. It reinforces traditional gender roles and perpetuates inequality by confining women to caregiving and homemaking responsibilities (Glick & Fiske, 1997).

Disparity in retirement age harms both men and women. Men are required to work longer and enjoy less free time, while women do not necessarily work less and have lower pensions. The implied conclusion that women ‘gain’ and men ‘lose’ in retirement age in Poland is misleading.

Men’s representation in politics

Gulczyński cites Murray (2024) in arguing that men’s substantive political representation often fails to reflect intersectionality. Class and education disparities among men lead to voices of ‘disadvantaged men’ (in Murray’s words) not being heard. However, this is fundamentally a class problem, not a gendered one.

Elsässer & Schäfer (2022) review research on working class representation and point to a pattern: working-class occupations’ representation has been decreasing relative to their population share, while people with university degrees occupy a bigger share of parliamentary seats. Amongst other reasons, this is explained by decreasing union density and representation of left parties (Hemingway 2020b; Matthews and Kerevel 2021 as cited in Elsässer & Schäfer, 2022), parties’ selection bias (Norris and Lovenduski, 1995 as cited in Elsässer & Schäfer, 2022), and working-class individuals’ lack of resources to invest in political participation (Elsässer & Schäfer, 2022).

Women’s political representation has been growing in tandem with their increasing participation in the labour market (Iversen & Rosenbluth, 2008), but they are doubly impacted by some of the same factors reducing working-class representation. Particularly in party systems where individual candidates have more power and discretion, women are highly under-represented in relation to their labour force participation. Accumulating work – domestic and outside the home – renders women less available to build political capital and become ‘suitable’ candidates when compared to men (Iversen & Rosenbluth, 2008). Furthermore, it is important to recognise that women of all classes remain disproportionately underrepresented in politics and other areas of leadership, holding less than 30% of seats in parliaments globally (UN Women, 2023).

In sum, framing ‘disadvantaged men’s’ political representation as a gender issue overlooks the broader dynamics of gender inequality, as well as the important issue of class representation.

Concluding remarks

All in all, ‘men issues’ do not exist in a vacuum. In bell hooks’ words, ‘people are hurt by rigid sexist role patterns’, yet ‘male oppression of women cannot be excused by the recognition that there are ways men are hurt by rigid sexist roles’ (Hooks, 2004, p.26). Men’s issues are embedded in a larger structure of gender norms and oppression. As illustrated in this post, men’s disadvantages share the same roots as women’s. Reducing these issues to an implied ‘battle of the sexes’ in which some are ‘losers’ and others are ‘winners’ is reductive and potentially harmful. It undermines the fight for gender equality by ignoring that in many ways it can be a positive-sum game, where everyone wins. Unless, of course, one regards the loss of an unjust privilege as defeat rather than social justice.

Tags: Women, Inequality, Gender, Gender inequality, patriarchy