In the 1960's through 1980's, when superheroines were emerging as prominent figures in pop culture, they had a definite effect on the liberation of women. From all-female comics to influential figures like Rosie the Riveter, women finally had representatives on their behalf, strong role models that could help them achieve the equality and recognition that they wanted. However, did this really turn out the way it was planned? Did this emergence of powerful superwomen help or hurt the female population? In an article on this topic, author Cari Jean questions the effects of these incredible women on our society. She brings up the idea of "Superwoman Syndrome", and the idea that maybe these women that purportedly can "do it all" set impossibly high expectations for real-world women. In the article, she addresses the historical importance and context for superheroines in 20th century pop culture, but it is primarily about the negative effects and symptoms of this issue.
Miranda Redinger also brings up the negative effects of the "Superwoman Syndrome" in her article. In fact, she seems to advocating that the sexes return to their original "designated duties", so that we may maintain balance in our daily activities. She believes that in redefining responsibilities and rights, women have increased their problems and stress, and actually relieved men of the responsibility they once had, contributing to what she calls "Peter Pan Syndrome", or these men never growing up.
What do you think of this? Are these valid points, or is this idea of "Superwoman Syndrome" simply a scapegoat for the pressures of daily life? Do women really feel "exhaustion, over-extension and a nagging guilt that we are fulfilling all of our duties insufficiently"? Would it have been better if women continued to live as housewives, without "trying to juggle, family, career and social activities" and feeling "pressured to be able to do it all"??