Ms. Simmons continued her drive to ‘equalise’ men and women. She’d succeeded in making us dress like women. Now she turned her sights to employment laws.

It had been the law for some time that men and women had to be paid the same, but it was still the case that men tended to occupy more of the better-paying jobs. It was this she focused on.

She proposed a law that would forbid men from occupying supervisory positions. Of course there was an outcry at such a dramatic and radical shift in the employment dynamic. But such was her majority in parliament that the bill was passed. The only concession she offered was a three-year implementation period.

‘Supervisory positions’ extended not only to industry, but to any position which had a supervisory element.

Seeing which way that wind was blowing, and with teachers being classified as being such a position, I decided to give up my teaching job and work full-time at Peggy’s bar, as it had become. I was not alone. The scramble among men to find non-supervisory jobs drove wages down, and although Peggy was my friend, she said she couldn’t afford to pay me, but that she would offer me free accommodation. I had no choice to comply.

So I gave up my rented flat, and moved into Peggy’s spare bedroom. It was a good job I did. Shortly afterwards a law was passed which forbade men from owning or renting property.

The Femolution was in full swing.

Following her successful introduction of the new law forbidding men from occupying supervisory positions, Ms. Simmons argued that there was no point in wasting valuable resources on educating boys to take such positions. It was, she said, better to concentrate on educating girls to take those positions, while boys would be better off learning the skills they'd need for the jobs which were now open to them, primarily service roles.

Given the changes she’d made to the employment landscape, it was hard to argue with her logic, and again, the bill passed easily.

The outcome was that boys would be required to attend soon-to-be-established colleges where they were taught the skills required for their new roles.

Ms. Simmons called them ‘Serving in Society Schools for Youngsters’. It didn’t take long before they were known as SiSSY colleges.

The concept was that boys didn’t need to attend school from the age of four or five any more. It would only take three years to teach them how to serve, and this would commence from the age of 11. After three years the boys would be ready to enter the service market, fully trained in the required skills.

She also argued that with more women now occupying supervisory positions, the time available for them to bring up their sons would be reduced. She therefore introduced a new role, specifically targeted at graduates of her SiSSY colleges, which focussed on bringing up the boys before the age of 11.

Coincident with that, she also announced that attendees at her SiSSY colleges would be required to wear a uniform appropriate to their potential new roles. She described the uniforms as ‘functional and practical’. It consisted of a short black dress with a white frilly apron. Whatever she called them, most people saw them as being remarkably similar to a traditional French maid’s uniform.

For the young boys themselves, she decreed that with the limited time available to their mothers, that toilet training was no longer a priority, and that they should stay in nappies until the age of ten. Then they would have one year to learn not to wet themselves, or soil their nappies, before they commenced their education at a SiSSY college. Recent graduates of a SiSSY college, she said, would gain unpaid work experience by being allocated to each family which had a boy under the age of ten. His responsibility would be that of a nurse maid, looking after the ‘baby’ and cleaning the house while the mother went to work.

She further promoted this idea by announcing that there would be grants and tax breaks for companies, lead by women, of course, which produced nappies and plastic pants in the sizes required for boys up to the age of ten.

Almost overnight an industry grew up, lead by female entrepreneurs, producing nappies and baby panties in larger sizes.

For boys under the age of three, the change was pretty much indiscernible. But for boys who had been toilet-trained, and who had started school, the effect was profound. The trousers and underpants they had been used to had been replaced with girly knickers and skirts or dresses, now they were required to wear a nappy and baby panties.

But those boys had no vote, so it made no difference to Ms. Simmons’ popularity. Indeed, the mothers who had supported her radical regime found themselves relieved of responsibility towards their sons, and welcomed the change.

The requirement for boys under the age of ten to wear nappies was all-encompassing. They were required to wear nappies 24/7, wherever they were.