International Women's Day: Beyond Performative Celebrations and Capitalist Surrender
On the morning of March 8th, my routine unfolded as usual: waking at 6 AM, having breakfast, and transforming my bedspace into a workstation for a nine-hour writing shift. The only notable differences were realizing it was two friends' birthdays and, later, acknowledging it was International Women's Day—after my father's wish, prompted by years of my insistence. The day brought multiple joyful wishes from female friends and one text from a male colleague: "stronger women, stronger dreams."
Questioning the Narrative
While this sentiment might seem like a simple "Go girls!" cheer, my mental conditioning led me to probe its meaning. From an optimistic lens, stronger women are better positioned to pursue potent dreams. Yet, a critical perspective raises questions: Must women be strong to dream big? Why is strength a prerequisite for dreaming? Shouldn't dreaming come naturally, with realization even more accessible? This inquiry sparked a deeper exploration into Women's Day's true reality.
Historical Roots and Modern Paradox
International Women's Day, celebrated annually on March 8th, originated from the 1917 Russian Revolution, when female textile workers in Petrograd struck against World War I and food shortages, leading to the Tsar's abdication and women's voting rights. The date was fixed in 1922, with the UN formalizing it in 1977. However, assigning a single day to celebrate womanhood feels horrendous—shouldn't it be a year-round acknowledgment? The fact that a man, Kurt Waldheim, finalized this decision adds irony.
Today, women often hide behind layers of disguise, surrendering to societal expectations knowingly or unknowingly. The youth and elderly alike grapple with buried realities of body, personality, and life. This raises concerns about the day's authenticity in a world where women's struggles persist daily.
The Capitalist Co-option
Initially carved to honor women's bravery, Women's Day has been stuffed with capitalist agendas. My childhood memory of applying kajal for "oomph" contrasts with my brother's advice: "Being raw is the bravest identity." Yet, in Delhi's all-girls college, conversations revolved around enhancing figures, longer hair, hair color appointments, and dating app hopes. While women are free to choose, why, after centuries of fighting for political, economic, and social inclusion, do we fixate on appearances?
The answer lies in the hypodermic needle theory of capitalism, developed in the 1920s-1930s, suggesting mass media directly impacts passive audiences. Women, influenced by Shah Rukh Khan's dialogues, fictional mafia lords, and lifestyle app sales, are targeted relentlessly. Female brands, apps, websites, and influencers dominate markets, thriving on conditioning that ties women's will to live to consumerism.
Year-Round Conditioning and One-Day Illusion
From New Year to Christmas, brands host sales offering skincare, haircare, apparel, and more—items women are made to believe they "need." The market constantly reminds women of their perceived lacks or flaws. Yet, on Women's Day, a magical shift occurs: campaigns proclaim, "You are enough, beautiful, capable, and perfect just the way you are." This charade encourages purchases under the guise of self-love, masking year-round critiques.
Escaping this requires wisdom, but the "wiser" minds behind these needles fill them with vanity, numbing and slowly killing genuine self-worth. As Germaine Greer wrote in The Female Eunuch (1970), "The depression of women is necessary to the maintenance of the economy." The market thrives on making women insecure, projecting never-positive views onto them.
Literary and Cultural Insights
Greer highlighted how women surrender to secure marriages and stable lives, often living as mothers or sisters but nothing to themselves. Susan Sontag, in her 1975 essay A Woman's Beauty: Put Down or Power Source?, argued women are conditioned to view bodies as "objects of admiration," scrutinizing each part separately. Society treats women as "caretakers of their surfaces," internalizing that value stems from appearance, not character or abilities. Sontag called for freeing from the "mythology of the 'feminine,'" noting the paradox: women are pressured to be feminine yet criticized for vanity.
Reel-life examples resonate: Eloise Bridgerton from Netflix's Bridgerton defies Victorian-era silence, valuing education and ideals over societal whims. Sehmat Khan from Raazi risks everything as an Indian spy, prioritizing service to country over personal safety. These characters embody strength beyond superficial expectations.
The Moral Imperative
Celebrating Women's Day isn't wrong, but gleefully rolling in its commercialized empowerment rubble is irresponsible. In Henrik Ibsen's 1879 play A Doll's House, Nora declares her duty to herself, asserting, "I think that before all else I am a human being." This echoes Choderlos de Laclos's argument in On the Education of Women that patriarchal society forces women to be "artificial" to please men, with vices becoming customs.
Recently, Jana Barrett's viral Instagram post, My ex-husband just won his second BAFTA and it brought up a lot for me, revealed her 17-year management of family while her husband pursued passions. She wrote, "Behind many celebrated men is a woman whose labour made the achievement possible and her name is never on the award." Women often perform full-time roles, with life squeezed into workout hours or short trips, not by choice but societal assignment.
Through it all, women must recognize the forces casting their identities and shed layers to carve out true selves. International Women's Day should inspire this awakening, not just performative gestures.
