Wiw

 What do you think?Have I misspelt the word in the title? Do you think that I do not know the spelling of the simple most word 'wow' ? Nah, your guesses are all wrong. Of course, I know 'wow', and how! And, yet, I have chosen the title "wiw"?!?

Well, the title is a mock at the facile, almost silly, use of that phase " working woman" that is often tossed about in a truly meaningless way. Saw this pic  of an actress gloating about how she is a working woman even after child birth. She was gassing on, holding forth to equally stupid fashion photographers screaming away to glory, "Mam, this side!" All along, the Baby was held by the nanny! Even for a pic-op, the "wiw" lady, whom all were gushing about, did not hold the Baby. As if , "sexi"ly showing off the baby bump, posing in funky leotards while "carrying" the baby made a woman a working mother! As it is, she is in a glam profession. True, it has its travails. Yet zipping in and out of funky cars, while lesser mortals did all the dirty work, hardly makes a female a working woman.

For sure, not. In fact, such stupid show-off mocks the backbreaking work of a real working mother. She has to singlehandedly cater to household duties, look after every minute need of the baby, leave her in the creche while her own heart is twisting with paroxysms of guilt, work full time in a tough job. If this is the reality of a metro/city woman, can you imagine the plight of the  new mother in the rural context, busy with home, hearth,  and farm workload? 

A token use of the female roles while using to hilt one's feminity is hardly being a working mother. Such convenient tokenism suits all, especially the consumerist market forces, supported ably by the patriarchal discourses. This is "within is wonky", " wiw" feminism, rampant in all fields! Sad is the involved simplified presentation of womanhood, most suitable to consumerism, and its pater familias, the omni-potent finance capitalism!

Pratima@ eve's fig leaf/for status quoist forces a sheaf!