I really don't know what to think but this is how it went: I listened to a radio interview of the head researcher of the Family Federation in my country (an organization whose goal is balanced population development and good family life). She was asked about the reason why there are less babies born each year. She talked a lot about different possible reasons - and a lot about women.

After the interview I sent her an email - it's a hobby - asking why didn't she mention the theory that one important reason is the widening gender gap: the males and females live in different areas, men's education is lower, and the marginalization of men is more common. Furthermore these are trends and the gaps are exceptionally big here compared to neighboring countries.

She answered that the federation has taken up these issues and sent me some links. Then she asked what I think should be emphasized. I took a look at the articles behind the links and answered that they had mostly talked about the regional differentiation and had hardly mentioned the other gaps.

Then I told her, among other things, how I thought that I really don't believe anything can be done about problems that affect boys and men but benefit girls and women. those problems just won't get to the political agenda.

That happened a couple of weeks ago. Yesterday I noticed that she had given an interview (or press release, can't tell). And - I couldn't believe my eyes - talked exactly about the same things I had mentioned. For example, she said that it would be a national scandal if girls did in school as poorly as boys now do. The same I had wrote in the email.

What's more, another, a high ranking official this time, had done the same in the biggest newspaper (here again it's hard to tell if they interviewed him or just based the article on a press release). His concerns were once again about the same I had written about in the email to the researcher. He had talked about the problems earlier, the strange thing was that the two articles were published the same day.

Later on several media outlets published some version of the original articles (or press releases)

And just a couple hours ago I noticed that second highest ranking cabinet minister and the leader of the biggest party had given an interview raising once again the same concerns. That must mean that he's going to raise and keep it on the political agenda (I hope it must).

As I said, I don't know if all this is just a coincidence. But it's very weird how something, I said won't and can't happen, actually happened: problems that boys and men in particular face rose to the political agenda as problems that boys and men n particular face. It's like a lesson given by people who know how to steer the system.

Perhaps - probably - it won't stay on the agenda. Then again, now the "male problems" have been connected to the future of the nation - and to the well-being of women ... who knows?

(The country is Finland, the third most equal country in the world accordin to the WEF, LOL.)

EDIT: Thanks!

I had a conversation about this with a friend who has written about politics for years. We really didn't talk about the email because nobody knows for sure if it had an effect or not.

But he thought that what the conservative party leader said was interesting. We'll have an election in a year and the parties are trying to come up with new talking points. He thinks that the conservative party might have actually decided to make the declining birthrate one of their talking points AND link it to the problems boys and young men face. Thus they could bring up the controversial idea of "men's rights" and at the same time appeal to their traditional voters who have patriotic and family-friendly issues close to their hearts. So far no party has brought up almost any men's issues, so they could appeal also to the voters who want to fix those problems - and could do it in an "honorable way" without making women and the influential feminist faction angry. That could really mean a remarkable new share of the votes, particularly when the turnout of men is very low among the men who the system has let down.

That again could lead to a situation where other parties started to compete for the same votes and thus bring up the same kind of "male problems" linked to the declining birthrate. (The declining birthrate has been a big issue for a couple of years but it's been looked as a problem that can be solved by helping women and families, not boys and men.)

All that could mean a dramatic shift in the gender policy ... or it could mean nothing. Trying to foresee the political future is interesting but futile.