I admit Lucy Delap's 'The Superwoman: Theories of Gender and Genius in Edwardian Britain' is one of the scholarly publications that aligns with and influences my thought of the topic. Lucy provides a good balance of recognising the need and impact of the term in the 20th century struggle for female rights, and perhaps, its limitations in 21st century feminist discourse.
Let's get into the fun (or not) stuff!
Miriam-Webster dictionary defines superwoman as "an exceptional woman, especially : a woman who succeeds in having a career and raising a family".
Oxford English Dictionary defines the term as: "woman who is unusually strong or intelligent or who can do something extremely well, especially a woman who has a successful career and also takes care of her home and family"
There are so many things to unpick from those definitions. The idea that the definition given to the word is linked to a woman being able to achieve career success AND raising a family is to be mild, nauseating. The word "unusually" also suggests that the norm is for women to potentially be not very strong or intelligent.
I recall a conversation between myself and Simon C. (a man I respect so much and who I had the priviledge to learn from at JPM), when I asked him whether labels were a good thing, particularly in discussing sexual orientation. His response, which I fully took on board was that labels matter, and can have good impact when applied in the right context.