A bit peeved: womens' enews was among the many publications to respond piously to Anne-Marie Slaughter's essay on how she can't have it all. No, poor woman, she has to rest easy with a tenured position at Princeton when she ought to have had a high state position next to Hilary Clinton's. And see how infernally busy she is.
Now they want us to pay attention to how in the US there is no decent leave for pregnant women, and if you want to take off to take care of your baby, you get no pay, and are lucky if you find that job there when you want to return. What prompts this thought. A hugely overpaid CEO woman -- if the men are hugely overpaid so are the few women who "make it:"
Poor woman, she's not got paid leave. And how anxious womens' enews is to assert she is not at all at all incapacitated for this stupendous job she has.
I'm with Wm Godwin in decrying this reiterated concern with "numinous typologies" as ultimately dissing the rest of us and saying we don't count. They then go on to talk about the most downtrodden, and again we have these exaggerated images which don't address cases that come home to readers but are all glamor or all victim. See my Fabled glamor or abysmal invisibility: tertium non est and A small typical history of adjunct employment
End of brief rant,