Here's a brilliant story about a woman elected to Westminster who sued the Express for misrepresentation. The newspaper described Vera, Lady Terrington, newly elected Liberal candidate for Wycombe as heading for a future of "furs and pearls". Tragically, even though the focus of her campaign was women's rights, she lost her libel case. The jury thought that what women in public life wear was a legitimate matter of public interest.

Apart from the name, (mmm, where are all the Vera, Lady Terringtons now?) it could have been yesterday. In fact it was 1923. Women in parliament were a novelty. Come to think of it, women with the vote were a novelty. It is an acknowledged fact, of course, that embedding political change takes time, yet if in the election of 2010, a similar court case was brought, how easy it is to imagine it producing a similar outcome. (If in doubt follow this link) It is as if, remarked one poster recently in response to a piece about the absence of women, the whole election was taking place in about 1950.

I don't think this is entirely about women. All sorts of things are going on: the campaign coverage is dominated by the televised debates and the Clegg factor. Not many other politicians at all are getting much space on the airwaves or in the press. The differences on the most pressing policy areas – the economy and Afghanistan – are of timing rather than substance, the "narcissism of small difference" as the Guardian editorial put it on Friday. Reporting of politics is increasingly trivial (see politicians' wives, passim). And of course even if you don't see the women, they are there. Harriet Harman and Tessa Jowell still feel they are playing an important role, even if last Thursday's debate aftermath was my first sighting of either for at least a fortnight. Across the three largest parties, 25% of candidates are women, up two points on the last campaign.

Where male MPs are retiring, Labour and the Lib Dems have selected women to replace them in half the seats, the Tories in 27%. On the current poll standings, there should be slightly more women in parliament on May 7th, perhaps up to 23% according to the invaluable work being done by the Centre for women in democracy from 19.8%. Not quite measurable on the Richter scale of political upheaval, but progress.

But it is also the case that although the last generation of women MPs toiled hard and sometimes effectively (the latest crime figures, for example, suggest Jacqui Smith was more useful at the Home Office than some have previously allowed), after the first term when Mo Mowlem and Clare Short brought drama and transformation to everyday politics, it seems many decided it was safer to keep their heads down, or to give in and play the media game. There are few dominant women MPs, and not many men either. It has hardly been a shining era for big political personalities anywhere at Westminster, only of big political disasters (an area where women finally appeared to compete on level terms with men).

Our whole political culture is in crisis, and the absence of visible women participants is a symptom as well as a cause. Watch the Lib Dems on this: gender equality is not at the heart of their programme. But voting reform is. Changing the way we do politics is beginning to have an effect in the devolved parliaments and assemblies . It could work at Westminster too.

Imagine a real challenge to the three party leaders who have so much more in common than they have to divide them, a world where every time public spending cuts were mentioned, a voice argued this one disproportionately hurts women, or where Afghanistan was mentioned someone who asked, is this actually working?

Meanwhile, cling on to the Terrington rules. For Vera's fate has turned out to be a foretelling of the life of women in politics for the rest of the 20th century. Frocks are like sex – great fun, but not part of your politics. And never, ever make jokes. At least not about frocks.