Background: In educational policies, two discourses on gender have existed since the 1980s. I call them the "gender equality discourse" and the "boy discourse". The gender equality discourse in education is based on international and national declarations and plans, and is focused predominantly on the position of girls and women. The boy discourse, which has gained popularity through the media, draws on the gender gap in school achievement, attainment and behaviour. Purpose: The purpose of the article is to describe and analyse the history of these discourses in Finland since the 1970s, with contextualisations to the international and European equality politics. Sources of evidence: The analysis is based on international and Finnish policy documents, earlier ethnographic research and the author's own experiences as an activist in the field of research, administration and teaching in gender and education. Methodologically, the article uses the ideas of multi-sited ethnography and auto-ethnography. Main argument: I will suggest that, despite constant efforts, sustainable change has not been achieved by the gender equality discourse. It has encountered problems because equality work in education has been conducted in short-term projects. Another reason is that issues of gender and gender equality are difficult to grasp and politically sensitive. I will also argue that the measures suggested by the boy discourse have been ineffective. Theoretical problems with the boy discourse lie in the categorisation of genders as if girls and boys were two different species. Moreover, in Finland currently, boys' achievements in school, even if (on average) weaker than girls' achievements, seem not to lead to weaker positions in further education and in the labour market. I suggest further that, despite the widespread media publicity about underachieving boys, efforts by teachers and administrators to give boys extra support have resulted in little impact. Some projects that started from the boy discourse continued by developing measures that drew on the gender equality discourse, with no special emphasis on boys. This would be a positive step if the gender equality discourse actually led to changes in educational practices. Unfortunately, this does not seem to happen. Conclusions: I will conclude by suggesting that gender awareness is needed at all levels of education. This involves consciousness of social and cultural differences, inequalities and otherness, all of which should be built into educational practices, as well as a belief that these practices can be changed. It also includes understanding gender as being intertwined with other categories of difference.