Kim Machray
Although the nearly decade-old term ‘girlboss’ may receive an eye-roll or be commonly tied to ironic jokes, the notion of what it means to achieve the ideals of ‘girlboss-ism’ is detrimental to the feminist cause.
Girlboss feminism is laced with wilful ignorance of social issues, upholds patriarchal standards under the guise of self-care, and promotes individualistic actions with the goal of becoming financially successful, often at the expense of other people.
Popularised by former NastyGal founder and self-professed girlboss, Sophia Amoruso in 2014, the neologism “girlboss” is often closely attached to words such as self-made, independent, confident, and capable. Mainly aimed at women who work in the male-dominated corporate world, the notion of being a girlboss implies a positive switch of dominant roles within a company, acting as a direct opposition to the majority of white men who are often the CEOs or higher-ups within a business.
“the act of ‘girl-bossing’ is inherently capitalist and drenched in choice feminism”
As highlighted by Muskann Arshad in her article ‘Girlboss, Gaslight, Gatekeep: Feminism in a Capitalistic World’, the act of ‘girl-bossing’ is inherently capitalist and drenched in choice feminism. The inherent nature of ‘girl-bossing’ focuses entirely on the individual: the individual often being a conventionally attractive, heterosexual, middle-class, white woman. Women who don’t fit into this narrow archetype are disregarded and excluded from this allegedly progressive movement that supposedly contributes to feminism and gender equality.
Girlboss culture perpetuates and reinforces unequal systems within our capitalist society under the appearance of fighting for gender equality by attempting to promote women into positions of power instead of men. Although viewed as an attempt to shatter the glass ceiling, girlboss feminism is very selective in the type of women it encourages. It fails to address issues like racialised misogyny, class, and sexual identity in the fight for equality, and so having a white woman in a powerful position does little to improve gender inequality for all women and instead cements patriarchal ideology as a pillar of capitalist society.
“it skews our ideas of productivity”
As well as operating harmoniously within an environment it deems misogynistic, it dehumanises women by implying that their personal development and achievements are defined by their careers – with every choice being to further their professional and economic growth – it skews our ideas of productivity by rendering any activity or achievement that doesn’t end in a promotion at work or extra income worthless.
Perhaps this ‘hustler’ mentality is pushed in an attempt to encourage the consumption of the ever-expanding number of feminist-labelled items such as mugs, tote bags, sweaters, and t-shirts. Promoted by corporate brands, this easily digestible form of feminism deliberately waters down and mellows the most pressing issues in our patriarchal world. In her article, ‘Commodifying Women’s Rights’, Catherine Rottenberg, Professor of American Studies at the University of Nottingham, describes commodity feminism as ignoring “devastation wrought by neoliberal capitalism, neo-imperialism or systemic misogyny and sexism.”
Popularising feminism could be viewed as a positive step in making feminism and social justice a prominent topic in the public consciousness, but making the movement palatable by removing pivotal messages within feminism serves no purpose other than to benefit capitalism by profiting off a hollow campaign that arguably does nothing to challenge power structures. Instead, it works within a patriarchal society to maintain oppressive systems that benefit the upper-class, white, straight male minority.
“this small handful of successful women does not demonstrate that feminism and capitalism can co-exist”
Of course, some women are successful under a capitalist structure. They’ll find themselves with a secure job and income, a fair work-life balance and respect within the workplace. This security could then be passed on to their children, but this small handful of successful women does not demonstrate that feminism and capitalism can co-exist.
Capitalism’s goal is to create profit. In doing so, it exploits by paying workers less than what the product they are making sells for. In response to Barabara Foley’s “Intersectionality: A Marxist Critique”, Ashley J. Bohrer, Assistant Professor of Gender and Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame, argues that there has never been a capitalist structure that has not featured oppression or exploitation – they are fundamental to the system.
Feminism is equality across all sexes, ages, classes, races, ethnicities, religions, and sexual identities. The social movement challenges and aims to disrupt oppressive structures whereas capitalism thrives by exploiting inequalities and narrowing opportunities.
“being a ‘girlboss’ is solely beneficial on an individualistic level”
Under the guise of ‘more money equals more freedom’, being a ‘girlboss’ is solely beneficial on an individualistic level. Still, as a whole, women in entrepreneurial and CEO positions perpetuate the same oppressive structures and inequalities as a man in the same position.
Arguably, this is due to the self-fulfilling nature of capitalism; oppression and exploitation are a feature, not a by-product. The issue with girlboss feminism is that, unlike Sophia Amoruso, not everyone can be a ‘girlboss’. If everyone could become equally successful, the capitalism we know would not exist. The nature of both girl-boss feminism and choice feminism is that they completely disregard the collectivity of feminism and the message of equal liberation that it spreads.
Featured image courtesy of Genesis S Warner on Unsplash. Image license can be found here. No changes have been made to this image.
