Mary-Anne Stephenson of the Fawcett Society said of Thatcher: ``A lot of younger Labour women have said they were inspired to get into politics because of Margaret Thatcher - she made them think a woman could do it.'' Undoubtedly, Thatcher inspired women seeking a position of power in spheres other than politics. Nevertheless, as with all early role models, there were certain problems. At the time, the ?women in power' debate seemed to begin and end with Thatcher. She was a dominant role model at a time of few alternatives. Thatcher was likened to Boudicca due to the lack of modern equivalents of self-made female leaders on such a scale. Thatcher broke through the gender glass ceiling but after that women had to carve their own path without becoming or wanting to become another Thatcher. Therein lays a conundrum and perhaps suggests why the gender battle remains only partly won. The expectations faced by Thatcher to push a female agenda and the resulting criticism for having ?let down' women also led to another barrier. Even today, not all career women want to push a female agenda - some actively avoid it. In parallel, it is interesting to see the outcry when Obama is judged or expected to raise race related issues because of his ethnicity. Men have not experienced things to such an extent. They have always had more than one acceptable male role model. Obama's success was paved with previous black politicians and speakers such as Martin Luther King whose success as a public speaker was due to the prior existence of a black religious culture that was easily translated for civil rights oratory. In addition, since classical Greek/Roman times, politics and public speaking were exclusively male and the deep male voice became associated with being ‘statesmanlike‘. Public speaking (including speaking at meetings, presentations etc) means that some women have to overcome a physical problem. Women have a higher pitched voice. The pitch heightens with age, nerves and when speaking loudly. It is due to that pitch that an association is made of women being perceived as ?hectoring' 'shrill' or emotional. Thatcher is famous for having a voice coach to help soften her voice - it made her more ‘palatable’ as a speaker and avert such associations. Not all things are as easily resolved. Post Thatcher, more women are treading a wider range of identity paths and are more readily accepted for it. Yet women are still under-represented at Board level, in the Commons, in local government and patronised by the media.

Remember the reference to Blair's Babes'. Where are the references to the male cabinet being called Brown's Himbos. Ironically, Thatcher was elected because her party supporters assumed she would not dominate due to her gender. Her eschewing feminist causes and image as a ?traditional' woman also went in her favour. It was when her dominance became palpable that her party support started to wane. Where does this legacy leave us now? Do women, like Thatcher, still have to use their female 'weaknesses' as strengths, adjust any female aspects that are perceived as negative and mask so called 'male' traits to be a success? Or can women who overtly display stereotypical male traits make it to PM and other positions of power?

These are some of the questions that many women are asking. The fact that they are asking them means that the final frontier of gender identity (or gender equality?) has yet to be tackled. And what of Lady Thatcher? She is known just as much for her professional work (however much you may disagree with her policies) as for being the UK’s first female PM. Some might say that this is a true marker of success.