The European Commission’s Gender Equality Plan: Back to Work for Women, Childcare for Children, and Discrimination for Men

Gender Equality Report

The European Commission has published its “2025 Report on Gender Equality in the EU”. This is an annual report on the EU’s commitment to the fight for gender equality. The report summarizes the main initiatives undertaken during the period from March 2024 to February 2025 to promote gender equality in areas defined as key. These include, among others, ending gender-based violence and combating stereotypes, equal leadership in all areas of social life, and empowering women worldwide.

Freedom from violence and stereotypes

As one of the key achievements in eliminating gender-based violence, the European Commission cites conducting the EU-GBV survey (European Union – Gender-based violence) and publishing the data on gender-based violence collected from it for all EU Member States. 

Importantly, the study’s methodology allows us to assume that the results reflect reality. Eurostat coordinated data collection in 18 EU countries, where the survey was conducted by national statistical offices. Italy has made available comparable data on key indicators based on its national survey. For 8 EU countries, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) and the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) coordinated data collection in accordance with the EU-GBV survey Guidelines. 

Across the EU, interviews were conducted with 114,023 women aged 18 to 74 about their experiences. As part of the study, detailed data were also collected on the effects of violence and contacts with various services providing assistance to victims of violence.

As noted in the report under discussion, the key findings of the study show that one in three women in the EU has experienced physical or sexual violence or threats as an adult. One of the main issues identified in the study is the underreporting of violence: although most women who experienced violence talked about it with someone close to them, only 1 in 5 contacted a health-care facility or social services, and just 1 in 8 reported the incident to the police.

However, the report on gender equality addresses only EU-wide average data, completely overlooking the fact that data from individual Member States differ dramatically. 

Across the 27 countries included in the survey, 8.5% of respondents in Bulgaria answered affirmatively to the question about experiencing physical violence or threats—the lowest level among the member states. In Poland, this value amounted to 11.6 percent. Very similar rates were recorded only in the Czech Republic (10.6 percent), Germany (10.8 percent), Spain (10.6 percent), and Sweden (11.5 percent). Meanwhile, Hungary (31.2%), Romania (28.2%), Cyprus (21.5%), and Slovakia (20.3%) are at the top of this ranking.

But even more shocking is the scale of sexual violence in the member states of the European Union. While in Poland 5 percent of respondents report having experienced such violence (only Bulgaria has a lower rate—3.4 percent), in Sweden it is as high as 41 percent (sic!), in it is Finland 37.3 percent, in Denmark 33.3 percent, and in Luxembourg 30 percent. Among the EU’s biggest countries, France is at 21.6% and Germany at 14.8%, still way above the level of sexual violence registered in most Central European countries. Overall, the lowest level of violence was recorded in Bulgaria (11.9%) and in Poland (16.7%), while the highest was in Hungary (49.1%) and in Denmark (47.5%).

Data collected by the EU clearly indicate that Poland continues to be, as it has been, one of the safest EU member states, where the incidence of violence against women is among the lowest. 

The European Commission carefully omits from its report the stark differences in the scale of violence among individual countries. However, relying on averaged results for the entire EU will not answer questions about the causes of violence, nor will it suggest what measures can be used to eliminate it.  

The aforementioned study, although its findings are very significant, also very clearly illustrates how the EU views the principle of gender equality. This equality, invoked at every turn, fully applies to women. The report on gender equality addresses gender-based violence, but it provides data only on violence against women. The paragraphs devoted to cyberbullying, workplace harassment, and human trafficking discuss only the situation of women. And although women are obviously at much greater risk of this kind of violence, completely ignoring men in research and in a report addressing “gender equality” (and not “the situation of women”) is difficult to defend. 

In the context of combating gender stereotypes, the European Commission states in its report that some gender stereotypes are still common. More than six in ten respondents agree that women are more likely to make decisions based on emotions, and about four in ten agree that a man’s most important role is to earn money and a woman’s most important role is to take care of the home and family. 

The very question of whether the above issues constitute a “stereotype” or a simple affirmation of biological factors and life experience is highly debatable. Nevertheless, it’s worth asking one more question—whether perceiving reality in the way suggested by the study is harmful in any way. 

Development in an economy based on gender equality

The report strongly promotes gender equality, expressed through the employment rate and equal pay. The EU aims to achieve equal employment levels for women and men in order to eliminate the ‘harmful stereotype’ that a woman’s work consists of caring for the home and family. Unfortunately, under a policy pursued in this manner, the EU completely rejects the possibility for some women to make an informed, voluntary choice to live according to a ‘traditional’ division of gender roles. 

The Commission boasts, among other things, that in Malta the increase in women’s employment is particularly significant, at more than 32 percentage points over 13 years. As noted in the report, “this change has been supported by policy measures to attract more women to the labour market, such as tax breaks and national insurance payments for years taken to take care of children, training programs, free childcare, and free school transport.” 

Equality, as presented by the EU, is reflected solely in equal participation in the labor market, but not in an equal right to decide how our lives should look.

According to the European Commission, the latest available data (for 2023) show that women’s employment in the EU has exceeded 70 percent for the first time. This change occurred in the context of an overall increase in the employment rate in the EU to 75.3%. Moreover, although the increase in women’s employment was lower than in the previous two years, it was higher than the increase in men’s employment. This led to the lowest difference in employment between women and men in the past decade, amounting to 10.2 percentage points. This trend—considered positive by the Commission—is consistent with the long-term trend observed since 2009, though with clear differences between individual countries.

It is worth noting that the EU measures undertaken in support of equal employment levels stem from the premise that this is a prerequisite for achieving “gender equality”. 

In reality, however, it is difficult to find justification for the claim of “gender inequality” purportedly resulting solely from employment differences. It’s different when it comes to pay. In this case, when work performed by a woman and a man in the same position has comparable value, any difference in pay will be clearly unjustified. 

The European Commission emphasizes that it is important to “promote a better uptake of family leave and flexible working arrangements by men, as well as a more equal sharing of care responsibilities at home between both genders.” This is intended to align the effective retirement age and reduce disparities between the proportions of women and men in full-time employment and part-time work. 

Once again, however, the European Commission completely ignores preference issues—those of both women and men—as well as the biological factors arising, for example, from motherhood. A perfect example is the work-life balance directive, which introduced a requirement that the legal systems of EU Member States provide for two weeks of parental leave that only the child’s father may take. This solution is a source of pride for the European Commission, as highlighted in its report on gender equality. At the same time, this measure has deprived parents of the right to decide for themselves, based on their own will and needs, how to care for their child, and subjects mothers to pressure to return to work earlier. This is not an equality-based action, but rather the coercive imposition of one’s own ideological concepts. 

It is worth noting that in Poland, the solution chosen was to extend the existing parental leave (which until now could be used by both parents, according to their preferences) by an additional two weeks for the father only. However, this was not a solution resulting from the EU directive, under which those two “for the father” weeks could be introduced by taking that leave time away from the mother. 

The approach presented by the EU in this regard is entirely consistent with the ideological line it has espoused for years: women should return to the workforce as soon as possible after giving birth, and children should be placed in childcare facilities as quickly as possible. 

The report explicitly states that “one of the main reasons behind differences in employment patterns for women and men is the gendered division of unpaid care responsibilities, particularly of unpaid care as for children,” and classifies this phenomenon as a problem.

The European Commission notes that the latest data confirm that it is women who bear a larger share of the responsibility for childcare. These differences cannot be denied. However, the key question remains whether they arise from systemic discrimination against women on the basis of sex, or perhaps from biological factors and personal preferences, particularly among women? 

To address the problem faced by women who wish to return to the labor market quickly but cannot arrange childcare other than caring for their child themselves, the European Commission should develop solutions that will enable women to make a free choice in this regard. This is why, among other things, the Ordo Iuris Institute had advocated many years ago (along with a number of other proposals that would implement a genuine pro-family policy) the introduction of a care-and-upbringing voucher, which was intended to cover the cost of care (whether in the form of daycare, a nanny, or a family member) or to enable a mother who wishes to do so to personally care for her child by supplementing the household budget with funds from the voucher. In Poland, this postulate has been partially implemented as part of the “Active Parent” program. 

However, the direction taken by the EU is the opposite. The European Commission consistently seeks to implement “gender equality” by shortening the period during which mothers care for their children and by placing children as quickly as possible either in institutions or under the care of people other than their parents. Therefore, the report includes a reference to the so-called Barcelona targets.

The so-called Barcelona targets, established by the European Council in 2002, stipulate that each EU Member State should ensure that 90% of children over the age of 3 and at least 33% of children under the age of 3 are in formal childcare. All this to achieve ‘gender equality’ by sending the mother into paid work as soon as possible after childbirth, because, as we read in the so-called Barcelona objectives, Member States should “continue to work for equality between men and women by developing measures to make it easier for women to enter and remain in the labour market.” 

EU politicians justified their proposals also by the best interests of children, who supposedly, by being in formal care, would better develop their social skills, and separation from their parents was supposed to have a more positive effect on their personal development. In fact, it has been known for years that (especially for children under age 3) collective care is generally detrimental, and that the best developmental conditions are provided by being with their mother or under the care of someone from their immediate family.

Equal leadership in society

According to the European Commission, one way the principle of gender equality is implemented is through the equal participation of women and men in all sectors of public life – especially in politics, journalism, and civil society. 

Interestingly, the report notes that the concept of the systemic inclusion of women in these fields “is confronted with stronger violence and hate, particularly online.” The authors of the report do not address the reasons for such a negative reception of a policy based on introducing into public life individuals selected not for their competence and experience, but solely for meeting a gender criterion.

In this context, the European Commission praises the solution adopted in Spain in 2024, which introduced a statutory requirement for balanced representation (neither gender may account for more than 60 percent nor less than 40 percent) in constitutional bodies or bodies of constitutional importance, as well as in the appointment of ministers and vice presidents and of persons to the highest positions in the state administration, as well as in other relevant bodies.

It is a fact that in European countries, for many years now, access to political and social offices and positions, as well as to the labor market, has been equal—the European legal systems do not provide for any restrictions based on gender and severely penalize any discrimination by employers. Despite this, as the European Commission itself notes, inequalities marked by the underrepresentation of women in positions are still visible.  

Forcing employers to hire, and citizens to choose, individuals of a particular sex instead of individuals with specific qualifications is not only a measure that, in practice, introduces sex-based discrimination, which is harmful to society. This is also harmful to women themselves, who in such a reality must contend in their professional and public lives with being labeled as having it “easier,” and whose successes are attributed to EU quotas rather than to their qualifications and their own hard work.

In fact, the problem of “insufficient gender representation” should be resolved by answering the question of why this is the case. We probably have many more gender equality reports ahead of us before the EU accepts the simplest, most natural answers, which it has so far completely excluded from any consideration.

Examples worth emulating

The report focuses on the key actions and achievements of EU institutions and Member States in the field of gender equality over the past year. It also includes encouraging examples of national initiatives for gender equality.

Among the examples worth emulating identified in the report, it is worth noting the European Commission’s praise for Croatia, which amended its criminal code so that it defines “gender-based violence” as “violence directed against a woman because of her sex and forms of violence that disproportionately affect women.” This provision appears to completely preclude the possibility of gender-based violence being perpetrated against men, which does not prevent the Commission from considering this a positive change and one that responds to the call for implementing “equality” between the sexes.

The Commission also commends the amendment to the Croatian Criminal Code, which introduced a new criminal offense of “brutal killing of a woman” (femicide). To determine whether a case qualifies as the crime of femicide, Croatian authorities will assess whether the victim was intentionally harmed because of her sex. Furthermore, “the brutal murder of a woman” has been added to the list of crimes that are not subject to the statute of limitations.

The authors of a report on “gender equality” do not see any contradiction between the call for equality and the introduction of systemic discrimination against men, including in the area of criminal law. This obvious inconsistency might be amusing were it not for the fact that the European Commission has deemed the Croatian regulations positive examples, which means we can expect support for similar legislative measures in other countries. 

In its report, the European Commission also praises the German parliament, which “passed a law to prevent ‘sidewalk harassment’ by abortion opponents in the immediate vicinity of counselling centres for pregnant women and abortion clinics.” As noted in the report, “law aims to effectively protect pregnant women from this increasing kind of harassment and to ensure that they can freely take advantage of counselling services and have access to facilities that carry out abortions.” 

So here, the European Commission praises not only the restriction of freedom of speech and the right to express one’s own views, but also openly places the right to unrestricted use of counseling services and access to facilities that perform abortions above the right to life of unborn children. The European Commission report contains no references to issues such as pregnant women’s right to access information (which facilities performing abortions often fail to provide adequately); instead, it praises the criminalization of expressing pro-life views that could persuade a woman not to kill her own child. It is deeply troubling that the European Commission holds the position that classifying such behavior as “harassment” is a legislative solution worth implementing in the other EU member states as well.

Summary

The latest report on gender equality is, in fact, a substantial list of actions that the European Commission has taken toward the uniformization of gender, which it itself defines as “equality.” It consistently strives for this equality through coercion—labeled “incentives” or “equal opportunities”—and systemic discrimination against men. 

This kind of policy must at some point lead to public opposition.

Anna Kubacka – analyst at the Ordo Iuris Center for International Law.

Source of cover photo: iStock