(In which Grieves decides that he likes this post-feminism stuff.)

I noted at the time of writing it that this article that there was something of a weak flank exposed. A good deal of my reasoning behind the relative weakness of feminism here to across the Atlantic is that women are simply in a better state. To demonstrate this I used the epitome of female success: Thatcher. There is an obvious response to this argument: that she is not a fair case to reference as she is remarkable. This is certainly something which few would argue against: even her harshest critics were aware of her power as a political operator. This is not true of the average woman and simply because she was able to overwhelm prejudice does not mean that all women would be capable of such a feat.

Now let us give this argument its fair dues: there have been three Prime Ministers since Thatcher {as easy as it is to forget Major, and perhaps even Brown} and of them none have been women. This demonstrates a clear bias towards men. But it must be remembered that this position is filled only through members of cabinet who have managed to elbow their way forwards into pole position. Thatcher filled her cabinet with men {besides notable exceptions such as Edwina Currie, who single-handedly crippled the British egg industry and resulted in the deaths of four million chickens} and Blair was easily the superior of Margaret Beckett. Brown’s pursuit of him in power was assured by their dealings. Accordingly there were no real opportunities for women to reach the pinnacle, as a consequence of the one who did and the nous of the two that followed her.

Therefore perhaps a better area to consider would be that of cabinet. It is here where the evidence for post-feminism outstrips that of feminism. Because what the best piece of advice to be offered to any woman seeking political power (besides, of course, as painful as I find this to type, that they join the Conservatives) would surely be not to worry. For such strides have been taking over equality that not only will competent, aptly skilled women be allowed roles in government, but that even those who are only as able as the most incompetent male cabinet ministers can gain them.

Take the notorious case of Ruth Kelly: a Catholic cultist was permitted to be Minister for Women and Equality. The theological hard-liners of Opus Dei were heeded fully, and she ultimately appealed against the reforms of gay adoption laws being applied even and equally. Only the threat of a full-on cabinet rebellion in the tail-end of Blair’s reign led to the policy which was her brief as Minister being arranged against her will.

Could this have been anticipated? Well, her refusal to attend any vote where she would have been whipped into supporting gay rights probably could have provided a hint. As could her membership of a Catholic sect aforementioned, who certainly refrain from taking the soft line upon matters of carnal morality.

Furthermore she is largely responsible for the present policy on bio-fuels, responsible for the exacerbation of widespread starvation in developing nations.

Or perhaps we could touch upon Tessa Jowell, who’s valuable contributions to government (the introduction of OFCOM is notable) are dwarfed by the carnage resulting by her relationship with money. Her husband’s dealings with the avowedly neo-Falangist Silvio Berlusconi generated considerable controversy which she barely escaped unscathed from and it is upon her watch that the Olympics has (predictably) ran over budget to the tune of several billion pounds.

The likelihood is that it shall continue to overrun by several billion more.

But the most notable example could never be any other save Estelle Morris. Despite only serving as Secretary for Education and Skills from June 2001 to October 2002 she managed to make a mess of the education so thorough that her successors have yet to undo much of the damage. The amount of lasting harm she did in a position she spent so little time in is actually quite impressive. She resigned declaring that she felt inadequate for the task, but this was hardly news to many.

Although she had a modest history in education it seems likely that her connections and heritage (her father and an uncle were Labour MPs) influenced her ascent into a role she was entirely inept in. Certainly her present position of Baroness was not warranted by her career. Her unpopularity amongst the NUT was immense and led to her being heavily heckled during a conference due to her desire to implement neo-liberal policy tying pupil results to teacher wages.

However it is her treatment of students that was most dire: displaying a total absence of common sense and empathy she pronounced that children would be too stressed by the AS level in its present form, and instead of spreading out the examinations over the course of a few weeks they ought to be packaged together on a single day. This, as any imbecile could have informed her, resulted in increased stress for students as their exams were staged in quick succession and without opportunities for rest. It also resulted in carnage for revision schedules, that were forced to cover all material relevant to an entire subject at once. The consequences for history were students having to hop mentally from era to era, in a fashion almost begging for errors to ensue through understandable slips of a century or two. Candidates with extra time witnessed their time extended into vast and wearying stretches. This policy has yet to be over-turned, a grim legacy of an inept minister.

Morris later became Minister of Arts, despite openly admitting that she knew very little about contemporary art.

Enough, it is hoped, has been compiled here to demonstrate that women have nothing to fear from any confinement beneath glass ceilings within White Hall. They need not be indefatigable to reach their desired locations, they need not be formidable or remarkable or exceptional to be picked in the stead of men. They need not be titans. They can be as inappropriate for the role required of them or as incompetent in executing it as are many men who reach cabinet positions, yet still be given jobs. A true testament to the success of feminism if ever there were one.

As well as further evidence for the obsolete nature of its central analysis. When it comes to granting positions of power, it would seem, there is only the same meagre amount of talent expected of men anticipated of women in order for them to serve Her Majesty’s Government. If this is a Patriarchy it is a remarkably lax one.