What was once a term of endearment is now only said with sarcasm: girlboss. There is a good chance you have come across the “Gaslight Gatekeep Girlboss” meme or have seen content creator Serena Shahidi, also known as glamdemon2004, break down the ironic connotation that “girlboss” has grown to embody. Safe to say if you hear the word there is less of a round of applause and more eyes rolled. Sophia Amoruso, the founder of the successful retail store Nasty Gal, once titled her memoir #Girlboss, which in 2014 was a prolific title but now seems sardonic and outdated. So, how did being called a girlboss go from being a complement to an insult, and what does this say about society’s perspective on corporate culture and capitalism at large?
Before dissecting its downfall, exploring how the term girlboss once gained praise is important. One of the foundational aspects of feminism is in the notion that women are capable of performing all the jobs that men can do, and thus should be given the same opportunities in order to do. The connection between women’s rights movements and labour especially found fruition in the Rosie the Riveter movement, the poster child of the women in the workforce campaign that launched in the wake of men being drafted into the military in World War 2. At a time when the career pursuits were limited to nursing, teaching (below the high school level) and seamstresses, the idea that women could perform in what was considered more masculine work was radical in the Western world. It is also crucial to mention that while the aforementioned careers were available to women, motherhood and domestic labour were still societally deemed as the noblest form of work for them.
Fast forward decades later, women are prevailing figures in the workforce. While sexist attitudes still prevail, it is almost celebrated universally in the United States and Canada that women are expected to work, be it in academia, business or medicine. The wage gap and misogyny in many fields, especially reported in STEM, still act as restrictions for women to become fully welcomed and respected in these environments, but it is generally understood that these issues ought to be diminished. For many, the way to solve these issues is not merely to have more women in the workplace, but to place women in more powerful positions of power.
The idea that providing women roles as leaders is an effective means of encouraging feminism in the workplace is not an ill-intention, but evaluating whether it actually offers female empowerment and safety is a difficult and muddy question. Another way to frame it, in more topical terms, is whether or not having more female bosses –– girlbosses –– is an instrumental way to dismantle the patriarchy. In order to answer this one must analyze the essence of these executive positions in the first place. Under the guise of capitalism, it is almost customary that those on top in the workplace hierarchy rely on a web of people underneath to help them amass their salary, meaning that those high in power in the company profit off the labour and work that those below them do. This is a well-accepted aspect of the corporate fabric, that often does not cause any double-takes, but the gap between what executives make versus their employees is startling when closely analyzed. This gap becomes especially more pronounced in mega-corporations where harsh and gruelling physical labour is often at stake for many employees, seen in controversies from Amazon and Wal-Mart. While having more female CEOs is, on a surface level, inspiring in the context of proving the touchstone element of feminism that women have the same capabilities as men, it does not ultimately dismiss the more harrowing and painful aspects of capitalism’s work structure.
As the ethics of capitalism are called more into question, seen in the rising movements of slow fashion and sustainability-at-large, so does whether or not including more women at the top of the capitalist food chain guarantee the improvement of these ethics. Over the last few years, articles have been published to show the contradictions between the alleged feminist measures by brands and the reality of these practices. Many of these measured have only had a negative impact on many women, such as clothing with female empowerment slogans being sewn by women making less than a dollar an hour in sweatshops. While upper-middle-class women of the West can purchase these shirts and feel powerful, those who created the clothing did not reap the benefits of their labour. Many companies also wrongfully subscribe to the idea that all women see themselves within the framework of capitalistic feminism: it is hard not to gawk at fast fashion stores creating t-shirts with Frida Kahlo’s portrait on it, as the late Mexican artist was a noted Communist.
“More girlbosses equals less sexism” seems like a naive calculation when considering the oppressive corporate framework, but under the all-encompassing ideology of capitalism it is not anyone’s fault for believing that the success of feminism will be found in this structure. Thankfully, the philosophies of ecofeminism and working-class feminism offer alternative perspectives where the equality of women does not have to come at the cost of people suffering. Activist Angela C. Davis’ collection of essays Women, Race and Class provide guidance into a more welcoming form of feminism that stands in solidarity with working-class women, not just the wealthy #girlbosses. Imagining a world where all citizens, regardless of gender, are treated with respect and worthiness is a much more efficient and noble practice rather than applauding more women becoming billionaires at the expense of others.