As Britain's leading businesswomen rang the opening bell of the London Stock Exchange to mark International Women's Day, they were ringing the changes – changes that have seen society edge closer to an equality that our mothers and grandmothers could have only dreamed of.
Meanwhile, Guardian readers were met with a piece by Polly Toynbee proclaiming that "British women's freedoms have gone into reverse".
Well, that's Toynbee's view. Guardian readers won't be surprised to learn it's not mine. We differ on three fundamental points – one of principle, one of process and one of fact.
First of all, on principle; Toynbee's view seems to think that human advancement can only come from state action. The logic of her argument is that there should therefore be no limit to state largesse – and that the more government spends on interventionist schemes, the freer women will be.
I think that is not just foolish economics but also intellectually wrong. Yes, of course the state exists to protect rights and help those in trouble. But it's not a force for moral advancement in itself.
The things that matter to me are freedom, opportunity, community and the individual. These are the things that make us human, the things that allow us to choose how to live our lives, the things that break down barriers to advancement that both Toynbee's view and I oppose.
Second, on a point of process, we obviously disagree about the deficit. Toynbee's view may think that cuts are unnecessary and that borrowing can go on forever. I'd rather face up to reality. Paying our way in the world is not something that's good for men, or good for women – it's necessary and good for us all. I don't know one woman who would want to leave this debt for her children's generation to sort out.
Third, on fact, her piece sidesteps the point that, amid the tough decisions, the effects on women are being ameliorated. The government is taking 1.1 million of the lowest paid workers, 58% of whom are women, out of income tax altogether. It's increasing child tax-credits for low-to-middle income families, while freezing council tax.
Polly ends by bemoaning plans to tackle violence against women, including the millions of pounds directed to specialist domestic and sexual violence support services and to stalking helplines, as well as guarantees for legal aid for the domestic violence victims. This I find particularly shocking, and I say this having been a family lawyer at the coalface for the last 23 years.
Now, of course the job isn't done. Times are tough and it's often women who bear the brunt – juggling duties like work, childcare, caring for elderly relatives, while, in many cases, trying to balance an ever-stretched family budget.
And of course, there is progress to be made in the workplace. The glass ceiling may be well polished but it's as solid as ever, with women being paid 15% less than men and representing only 15% of FTSE 100 company directors. So FTSE 100 boards should aim for a minimum of 25% female representation by 2015. But compulsory quotas are a retrograde step; they mean women are seen as in a job because of their gender not their ability – and they are pointless because women can get there on their own merit.
So let's use this time, in the wake of International Women's Day, to vow that we will continue on the path of equality – not Toynbee equality, where women are thrown scraps of state help, but true equality where they are given the power, the opportunity, and the future they deserve.