When I watch children play – as I unfortunately have to do more and more often these days, as my son, unlike his parents, persists in gaining motor skills and developing social instincts – I am always struck by the same thing. While little boys tend to get on and just play, little girls seem unable to move until they have established all the rules, mapped out all the possibilities and defined everyone's role precisely. I don't know if it's social conditioning (but, if so, it's clearly of an intensity and potency that Kim Jong-un himself would envy), some strange quirk in the female psyche or DNA, or an unholy combination of the two that causes it, but I'm increasingly convinced that women remain hamstrung all our lives by our readiness to dicker about at the edges of things instead of jumping in and getting something started.

This week, for instance, I – along with many other people – have been invited to attend a debate about rebranding feminism. "Rebranding" – like all forms of marketing – is the ultimate in dickering about at the edges. It's so much easier than actually creating something whose worth people will come to recognise and start buying – or buying into it, in the case of intangible sociopolitical movements – as a natural result of its proven efficacy.

Feminism doesn't need rebranding. It just needs to overcome the people-pleasing instincts of its majority members and focus on a few core issues, and then beat the shit out of everything and everyone in its way until those issues are satisfactorily resolved. And, yes, ideally those core issues would be decided by a global referendum of women, so that the agenda isn't set primarily by those (generally white, middle class) who are already fortunate enough to have the time and energy to spare for organising social change. But until that becomes a practical possibility, everyone just needs to keep at the forefront of their minds the fact that "check your privilege" and "intersectionality" are revolting words but beautiful concepts, and proceed accordingly.

We keep our eyes on the prize of securing an equal share of power and choices for women – the true freedom, for example, of whether or not to have children, derived from free access to contraception, abortion, economic independence from men, sufficient parental leave, flexible, affordable childcare options and so on – not on defining what they should do with that freedom once they have it. (Have children? Not have children? Stay at home with them? Or go back to work? Call themselves "a mummy", "a mother" or "a parent"? Enough.)

No more burdening of any one woman, be she Nigella, Miley Cyrus or Jennifer Lawrence, with the task of representing anything other than herself, any more than we burden Sir Alan Sugar with speaking for all preternaturally hairy businessmen who have leveraged a mildly cantankerous mien into a showbiz career, or Mervyn King with speaking for all Mervyns.

Once you've got a good, successful product that does what it says on the tin ("Feminism: helping women not have their personal or professional lives or reproductive rights borked since approximately 1792"), people will seek it out.

Let the game begin.