A range of female heavies was in attendance for the pre-International Women’s Day breakfast: a premier and governor, the Prime Minister’s wife, state and federal ministers and shadows — and Nicole Kidman on screen. The message: women can do it, whatever it is. Lots of inspirational examples of  (white) women who made a difference.

We’re munching too much food — all low-fat — and buying raffle tickets for ultimate indulgences. The crunch of pastry made it hard to hear sagas of starvation and no sewage that, hopefully, our money raised would help address. Corporate and workforce tables as well as individuals; big numbers, 1500-plus, celebrating victories that the younger members are probably unaware were both very recent and vulnerable.

It raised the question: how do we engage the energy that room represents into the continuing battle to change the power structures and assumptions still underpinning masculine controls over almost everything?

Yes, there are women premiers (two) but on male territory still of valuing skills, jobs and behaviours. There seems to be a hiatus in pushing gender issues; social issues have slipped on the policy priority list compared to the ever-growing inequitable economy.

The older ways of engaging politically no longer seem to work — not just for feminism but for most of the older structures of political change. Active membership organisations are all in trouble; many have ossified and operate in ways that have little appeal. There is wide attendance and support for functions, events and gatherings such as festivals, but little commitment to wider engagement.

The idea of long-term organisational service seems to be a relic of the past century. There is also political change as policy making is no longer part of the party process, so community advocacy groups are not engaged. There is professionalising the tapping of public opinion and engaging mostly those with power to deliver money or votes.

It means ideas and ideals seem to have limited influence, as politics haggle over the middle ground and leadership is reduced to following focus groups rather than principles and beliefs. The similarity between party offerings reduces the “product differentiation” that once attached people emotionally and organisationally to particular goals and parties.

Leadership becomes image driven; choices are encouraged with the best financial rewards. Voters are often reduced to bargain hunting the promises or futile searches for the remains of some political beliefs.

The mantra of choice, tied to individualistic models of self-interested behaviour, suggests clearly that citizens are redefined as customers. This change develops levels of cynicism and mistrust and limits people’s interest in political engagement, unless as a career.

The relevance of politics seems to lessen as the options become more similar and those groups, once excluded, get symbolic inclusion, albeit without the necessary culture change. Forms of human rights legislation make formal discrimination illegal but often fail to make the necessary cultural differences to the ways that institutions work.

Whether in the workplace, home or community, at leisure or being served, the way things happen still puts up barriers to those on the outside. There is much that still needs to be fixed but a lot of it is much less visible than the earlier forms of exclusion, so can also be seen as individual failures rather than systemic.

An interesting example is why women are not represented appropriately at all levels of the workplace, despite substantial increases in participation and higher levels of qualifications, in the under-40s at least.

The answers are primarily cultural. Macho work cultures make long hours a signal of commitment, while these may have no relationship to productivity or value. Expectations of particular male gender or other cultural characteristics are used to allocate rewards and resources.

Those who have the power to determine what counts make sure they retain that control, so little really changes. Numbers may move up for a while and then they stop. Women skills are seen as less valuable and family responsibilities are still expected to be allocated on gender lines.

What can we do about it? Programs such as mentoring can be useful to navigate the current unfair barriers but can also reinforce the idea that it is the individual’s problem, not systemic.

The pressure for workplace changes now tends to be for adjusting some aspects of the workplace for a better mix for those with family responsibilities. But flexibility and part-time work tends to mean women’s jobs and lesser capacity for higher level responsibility, and it’s mainly women who take these on.

Progress is dubious. Pay differentials are increasing. Women in influential top jobs seem to be static. The few reforms we are seeking, such as equal pay and parental leave, are well overdue and limited. Women get fooled by the mantra of choices but fail to question why their choices seem to place parenting and good jobs in conflict.

Feminism was once about making wide changes in the way societies were run and what was valued. It seems to now be mainly about minor expansions of women’s illusory choices.

Like the rest of the politics of change we once all supported, ageing activists such as me seem to find the current political processes no longer interested in making societies more civil and equitable.

Some suggestions: start by putting the social system back on the political agenda. We need much more fairness in the distribution of power and resources rather than increasing our economic wellbeing. We need to revalue what is valued in the public accounts and sphere so relationships, nurture and care are recognised and rewarded on the policy agendas.

We must deal with crises such as environmental changes and financial mismanagement in ways that are equitable and fair. We need to raise both trust between strangers, and trustworthy governance, so put ethics on the political agenda. This would allow us to develop more feminist futures.