Feminism has never been “one size fits all”: there are many different interpretations of feminism and approaches to women’s empowerment within feminist thought. One would think that any interpretation of feminism would be beneficial in combating issues such as gender inequality and how intersecting axes of oppression affect women in society—but this is unfortunately not the case. For example, “girl feminism” is a sub-type of feminist thought that favors middle- to upper-class white women while doing nothing to dismantle patriarchal systems.
The “girl boss” took the world by storm in 2010, creating a self-proclaimed feminist takeover of the corporate world. On the surface, it may appear to be a movement aligned with the principles of feminism through female empowerment, but a deeper examination reveals that “girl-boss feminism” is not genuine feminism at all but rather completely antithetical to the ultimate goals of feminism. Girl-boss feminism does highlight the fact that women are in charge 47.7% of the global workforce and only 27.1% of women are managers and leaders, but highlighting the problem of gender inequality and giving a surface-level empowerment speech is about the limit of what the movement can do.
Origin Of The #GirlBoss
The term “girl boss” comes from Sophia Amoruso, creator of Nastygal.com. She is also the founder of GirlBoss, a community for ambitious women who want to succeed in the corporate world financially. She based the #girlboss movement on her journey from selling vintage clothes on eBay to running a once-successful fashion brand. Her ideology was superficially coded with feminism: if she could go from “rags to riches,” then every woman could. The term girl-boss”...seems to imply that the words ‘girl’ and ‘boss’ are inherently at odds, hence the need to combine the two to indicate a female boss.” Of course, the need to add a feminizing disclaimer in front of one ‘Boss’ emphasizes issues of gender equality in the workplace: historically, when society labels someone as a ‘boss’, people will assume they are male. Supporters of the #girlboss movement say that representing the title ‘girlboss’ is empowering because it shows that girls can be bosses too, not just boys! (When was a man in power called a boy?)
However, the term does not actually empower women towards true equality in the workplace, because “…a girl is a young woman – to suggest that a female worker or leader is The #girlboss is directly disciplining her.The phrase itself isn’t even rooted in true empowerment: it makes the thought of strong and successful women “…more palatable by rolling it around with glitter and I wash it pink.” If the title of a “feminist” movement perpetuates the problematic power dynamics it is supposedly trying to solve, it will not succeed.
“Choice” Feminism and Intersectionality
One of the founding principles of feminism is intersectionality: the recognition of women’s diverse experiences based on factors such as race, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, and disability. True intersectional feminism seeks to dismantle not only the gender binary but also other oppressive structures that operate within the capitalist system. Girl-boss feminism, however, focuses on the achievements of privileged women, overlooking the unique challenges faced by marginalized women and perpetuating inequality and binary gender ideologies within the feminist movement. In this way, girl-boss feminism implies a kind of “choice” feminism, in which all women are said to have the choice to wake up and decide to #girlbos. However, most women can’t just wake up and decide to be a #girl-boss: they have a lot more hoops to jump through. The movement therefore lacks a full representation of the struggle that all women in the corporate world (and beyond) may face. Sophia Amoruso is a white girl and her ideology reflects her lack of understanding of how the world works for underprivileged women. The girlboss can be roughly defined as a stereotype, according to the author Moira Donegan: “…typically millennial, white, and straight—which represented women’s career ambition.” This category of women has more privileges in the workplace than women of color or women of a different gender or sexual identity.
Identifying as a girl-boss does not instigate change, but rather creates a “…damaging identity which contradicts the progressive theory of intersectional feminism…”. To truly effect change for women, everyone’s struggles must be included in the narrative. Girl bosses try to compete with both women and men, trying to gain the most power and wealth. If their school of thought were to step back and look at the intersections between capitalist and patriarchal thought, it would become apparent that a communal approach is needed. Being a #Girlboss is inherently capitalistic: being out for personal financial gain and using your privilege to break through any kind of glass ceiling in the corporate world. Capitalism too much “…promotes competition over cooperation” and not only threatens a woman’s development within society, but can also alienate her from her sexuality. So how can a movement based on capitalism be feminist?
On the subject of the intersection between #girlbos, sexuality and capitalism, one name comes to mind: Gwenyth Paltrow. Goop’s company is a perfect example of why girlboss feminism isn’t actually feminist. Paltrow’s privilege helped her found Goop and instead build a company to authentically empower women’s relationship with their sexuality. Paltrow’s primary goal was to make more money without scientifically backing up her claims. Once again, being a white woman and owning a company does not make you a feminist icon. Yes, it makes you a woman and a boss—but it doesn’t mean you have women’s best interests at heart.
Advocates of girl feminism proudly stated that the movement was a way for women to gain power back from the men who run things. They claimed to be feminists through “female empowerment” because they fought for surface-level equality. While some white women could gain representation in the corporate world/workforce, this was not the case for women of color. This 2023 chart on the left depicts the lack of representation for women of color in corporate roles. While 28% of women hold a C-suite position in the corporate world, only 6% are women of color. If being a #Girlboss was truly empowering and gender equality, how come only white women are reaping the benefits? It is not feminist to only provide a path for privileged women to gain more representation in the workplace.
The “broken step” would have to be addressed by the #girlboss movement to justify the distinction as a genuine feminist. The full problem with gender equality in the workplace is shown in the diagram to the right. #girlboss would see that for every 100 men, a total of 87 women are promoted to manager. They would not be able to see that for every 100 men 91 white women are promoted and only 54 black women. The statistics depict the true reality for women in the workplace: women’s empowerment must push all women, not just the privileged ones. The “feminization” of the workforce is another example of a surface change that still maintains the main structure of patriarchy. Despite all these,”…why to [you] we expect a female billionaire would help the average woman more than a male billionaire would help the average man?’ While “girl-boss feminism” may resonate with some as a form of personal empowerment, it lacks the depth and commitment to social justice reform that characterizes genuine feminism. Don’t be a bossy feminist – be a human instead. Understand that identities have interconnected elements and that not all women are equally privileged in society.
