Jyoti Naik, who runs Lijjat's head office in a Mumbai suburb, joined the co-operative 40 years ago. She says it is the women's sense of financial independence that has made a small enterprise into a big business.

"These women work here to help raise their children and be financially independent," Ms Naik says

The purpose of this council is to ensure that American women and girls are treated fairly in all matters of public policy,” Obama said in a statement. “My administration has already made important progress toward that goal. I am proud that the first bill I signed into law was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act. But I want to be clear that issues like equal pay, family leave, child care and others are not just women’s issues, they are family issues and economic issues.

Is such a Council needed in the USA or even the the UK? It's main role is to coordinate the work of various agencies across government departments on issues that affect women disproportionately. But there is a danger, as Jen points out here, that remains merely a symbolic initiative and a tool for re-election.

I'm torn over whether this would be a good thing for Britain. It could very well become a symbolic body that pretends the government is being pro-women without actually doing much. Furthermore, it wouldn't be an elected body and add to the litany of quangos that already litter the political landscape.

On the other hand, a permanent council could certainly help coordinate government efforts at a time such as the current economic crisis. It would also take the heat of certain MPs (Harriet Harman), who are forced to push forward equality legislation because no one else is making the case for it in government.

But here's another problem, which the Americans don't have: it may remove popular support for NGOs that push these issues. America has a vibrant civic culture where grassroots feminist organisations (among a range of NGOs) abound. Britain doesn't. We have a few high-profile organisations like Abortion Rights and Fawcett Society (not a definitive list obviously), but nothing like the breadth and depth in the USA. A Council might make feminists in the UK even more complacent about pushing their agenda at government level. Possibly.

The Government has quietly shelved plans to encourage local councils to avoid funding "single-identity" groups after realising it could severely hamper charities working within some of Britain's most vulnerable communities.

Single-identity groups are those charities that work exclusively within one cultural, religious or geographical community. That means charities combating honour violence, for instance, or working with the children of asylum seekers, or even rape crisis centres that only deal with female victims.

As pointed out in that article, this will be hugely welcomed mostly by small groups who help among the most vulnerable in our society, especially women.

Last year I went to a meeting organised by Asian women groups, attended by John McDonnell MP of Hayes and Harlington (Labour), where many groups voiced their worry that the government's new "community cohesion agenda" could shut them out.

The point of the agenda was to say that funding targeting just one ethnic or religious group was harmful for communities because it fostered tension. There is some truth in that, though it's futile to force through a blanket solution without judging this on a case-by-case basis. Fortunately, the big outcry in support of Southall Black Sisters killed off Ealing Council's plans and now this blunt instrument.

I think there's two issues here that need to be separated, as Naomi Wolf does quite well in the discussion.

The first is symbolism versus actuality. Is Obama not a feminist because he hasn't elected enough women to his cabinet? Possibly. But I think playing the numbers / representation game is a tricky road to take because there's no indication that its more likely to mean a woman President or PM; Obama was the only black Senator before he managed to break the glass ceiling. As Ms Wolf also points out, GW Bush was great at playing up feminist symbolism to cover up his own agenda.

What matters is what Obama will do once he becomes President, before we can judge whether he remains true to his earlier (largely) feminist voting record. To that extent too, electing women may matter less in actual impact on women when compared to issues like raising the minimum wage; raising benefits and alleviating poverty - which all disproportionately affect women. I think there is a real danger, as has already happened with the race debate, that symbols end up mattering more than actual legislation and the impact it has on women, even if it isn't directly targeting women.

Naomi Wolf wants a post-label era, which will no doubt prove controversial with a lot of people.

The second point is that US feminists will have to keep up the pressure on Obama to ensure he follows through with his promises. That not only requires building coalitions with other groups such as trade unions, and progressive groups, but also continually highlighting legislation that could negatively impact women - whether directly related issues such as abortion rights, or anti-poverty campaigns. It's a tall order, but then US feminist groups are quite well funded.

I think the same issues apply here. My impression, and criticism I guess, of activist feminist organisations here is two-fold: first that not enough attention is paid to Westminister and tracking legislation on issues that indirectly affect women. And second that my impression is still that we're not engaging other groups outside the traditional 'feminisphere' when these issues come up. Unfortunately, I have a habit of saying this a lot. Am I wrong to have those impressions? Be happy to hear other thoughts.