Not a girl boss? Not one of us.
The idea of girl-bossing serves no one but capitalism. Feminism started as a civil rights movement that aimed to close the inequality gap between men and women. That focused mainly on legal inequality; that was the first wave. The second wave brought forth the idea of cultural inequality with topics like domestic violence, reproductive rights, and workplace inequality. Fast forward to today, the list of requirements women have to go through is unimaginable. From bearing children to house chores and to “girl-boss”. Biologically, women are the only ones that can carry children, they are required to take care of dometic affairs, and raise the kids they give birth to. In addition to that, today, women are expected to work in the corporate world equally to men. In fact, they are expected to do more, as studies have shown that women have to do more than men to prove themselves equal to them in the workplace[1]. This mindset that was newly taught to women benefits the capitalist gain, as women usually put in more work for less pay. Therefore, while modern feminism tries to champion women’s empowerment, certain aspects of its current form inadvertently align with the capitalist machine, thus creating a contradictory relationship between the original goal of feminism and its distorted practices of today that are harmful to society as a whole.
The “girl-boss” ideology is a new, persuasive phenomenon which was started in the 2010s by a fashion retailer. The retailer herself described a girlboss in her book as a woman ‘whose success is defined in opposition to the masculine business world in which she swims upstream’[1]. This definition can be alluding to the ‘glass-ceiling’ that is often brought up in feminist discussions. This term, however, was taken advantage of and turned into something that promotes individualistic nature and self-reliance, which leads to the ethic of relentless work. Lately, the images of stylish, powerful women running successful businesses flood social media, reinforcing this aspirational ideology. This further fuels the need to be a girl boss in the back of women’s heads and turns certain women who view this as a pillar of feminism against other women who decide not to follow this path. There is no denying that this ideology has its appeal, as it offers a pathway for success and can empower women to not be dependent on a man. Nevertheless, it is inherently individualistic and focuses on personal achievement within the capitalist system; it reinforces the capitalist ideal of competition, potentially undermining the development of collective action and solidarity among women. Furthermore, the aesthetic of “girlbossing” is heavily marketed, which can be superficial, thus portraying a disconnected image from the realities of many women’s lives.
The commodification of feminist symbols and language is another significant point to talk about. It entails the appropriation of feminist ideals, terminology, and imagery by corporations and marketers to sell products and services, raising questions about authenticity, impact, and ethical considerations with regard to feminism. This is lucrative for businesses, and so this undermines the power of feminist messaging. An example of this can be seen in slogans in advertisement campaigns that use phrases like ‘girl power’ in sportswear, like Nike celebrating the power of women’s sportswear. Another example would be the ‘empowerment’ in beauty products, like the campaign launched by Dove called Real Beauty. This type of slogan can be seen in almost every market that caters to women, associating the products with positive feminist values. The core message of such campaigns remains focused on selling a product rather than advancing feminist goals. The commodification talked about extends into the naming of feminine products to attract consumers. This reduces the social and political movement to easily digestible, consumer-friendly branding.
Circling back to the idea of individualism, it has been put as the main focus of the movement rather than focusing on systemic change. Modern feminism focuses solely on individual success within the current system and its power structure[2]. And while it can be argued that individualism is important, it has become insufficient and potentially counterproductive as it fails to address underlying systemic issues. The individual ideology usually puts the onus on the woman to do better rather than fixing the system itself. The “Girl boss” ideology, while celebrating female entrepreneurship, focuses on individual success stories within a capitalist framework. Thus, it reinforces existing power structures rather than challenging them. Further, by focusing on individual success, the collective struggle for systemic change is minimized, in turn dividing women based on their level of achievement and creating a sense of competition rather than solidarity. Ultimately, this leads to women viewing and treating each other in a certain way based on their economic and social status, forgetting that women are supposed to stand up for women regardless of their choice of way of life.
On the contrary, a focus only on systemic change without acknowledging individual empowerment could risk the status women have been fighting for in the corporate world. Individual empowerment is not mutually exclusive from systemic change; however, it has been made so by certain campaigns that women have been bombarded with. Women’s seccuss challenges stereotypes and inspires other women that may feel like it is an impossible task. Further, women in important positions will be essential for the systemic change feminism has been fighting for, therefore, it cannot be denied that women who achieve economic independence are better positioned to challenge oppressive norms and fight for systemic reform. Thus proving that individual action doesn’t negate the importance of systemic change. Nonetheless, for feminism, the individual gain cannot outweigh the collective goal. While empowering individuals is crucial, it cannot be at the expense of other women.
In conclusion, as women, we have to be aware of how we are being used and manipulated to participate in certain activities that could undermine the feminist movement. The struggle of women is not over, and the fight for a change should not be turned into a frivolous endeavour. The mere critique can be viewed to imply that women cannot effectively pursue both individual goals and collective action, however, that is not the case. The feminist movement has conquered many issues women have faced, and it still has more work to do. Women must remember how it started and how it should be: it is women for women, not women for capitalism.
1. Bishop, K. (2022, February 28). Proof versus potential: Why women must work harder to move up. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20220222-proof-verus-potential-problem
2. The irony of girlbossification. InSight Scoop. (n.d.). https://www.insightscoop.org/the
3. Machray, K. (2023, March 25). Girlboss: What does it mean to be a feminist in a capitalist world?. Empoword Journalism. https://www.empowordjournalism.com/all-articles/girlboss-what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-feminist-in-a-capitalist-world/
SIB-Groningen.nl makes use of functional and analytical cookies. If you continue to use our site, we’ll assume that you’re okay with this.