Often, when men are asked to think of a “celebrity” Dominatrix, Margaret Thatcher is their first port of call. It’s an interesting paradox.

Having become Britain’s first female Prime Minister in 1979, she changed the country and economy in ways that still resonate thirty years later, for better or worse. Nobody can deny that she was an accomplished woman. In “The Iron Ladies”, Beatrix Campbell wrote: “She has not feminised politics… but she has offered feminine endorsement to patriarchal power.” Yet is this what a Dominatrix should aspire to?

Politically, Thatcher was the antithesis of what the majority of Dominatrices I know stand for. She aggressively promoted competition and the advancement of the self, but condemned issues that most would class as Feminist concerns. As an individual, she revealed that a woman could be just as ambitious as a man, yet opposed working mothers, single mothers, and – well – other women in general, it seemed. Thatcher preached that a woman’s place was in the home. Sex education and the rights of minorities were scuppered. Feminists demonstrating against her in 1979 bore placards that read “we want women’s rights, not a right-wing woman”. Despite setting the example of a powerful female, Thatcher actively fought the sisterhood.

“For the eleven years of her premiership she kept able women away from the higher echelons of government,” said Naomi Wolf in “Fire With Fire”. “She froze child benefits… A working mother herself, she criticized others for condemning a generation of children to the ‘chaos’ of workplace crèches – if only there were some, most mothers felt – and, by implication, to an adult life of vice and violence.”

What is it to be a Dominatrix? Are we representatives of a Goddess archetype; of something bigger than our individual selves; the living embodiment of female strength and sexuality? Or is this simply an idealised view of a Capitalist career? Is what we do just work? Should we cease to fool ourselves into thinking we’re anything more than service providers for paying customers? Should we concentrate instead on the accumulation of personal wealth and possessions? Is that what real power is in post-Maggie Britain?

In his article “Thatcher, Feminist”, author Tim Lott concluded that “…it turned out that just like men, it was sex, power and money – specifically in the context of shopping – that mainstream women were mainly interested in all along.”

Yes, shopping.

Unfortunately, buying trinkets has never inspired me. My achievements will never be reflected in gaudy diamonds or the defeat of competitors. Other women aren’t my rivals. If I waged war on my fellow Dominatrices, I would merely be fighting against a part of myself. I have no interest in following the traditional 80s business model of maximising profit to the detriment of my friends and colleagues, just to prove that – albeit metaphorically – my dick is the biggest. In my opinion, the power a Dominatrix has is because she is a woman, not despite it.

So anyway, this week, another woman who is widely perceived as a Dominatrix – Sarah Palin – has declared that she’s a Feminist. There are many ironies to this, some of which I’ve mentioned before, but you can read some fascinating and far more succinct articles about it here, here and here.