The Problem With “Girlboss” Feminism

Written by Furqan Mohamed

The official definition of the cultural idiom, girlboss, is a confident young woman who does not necessarily own or run a business, but who follows her ambitions. Girlboss was popularized by Sophia Amoruso, founder of the fashion company Nasty Gal. The phrase was born out of a kind of marketing campaign for Nasty Gal’s clothes but popular culture took the phrase and ran with it, making it a pillar in modern feminist circles. Like with every feminist tool and trend, however, it’s critical to interrogate how the concept of “girlboss” feminism can be problematic and where it’s limitations are.

So who gets to be a “girlboss”? The phrase is often limited to women with money and status, but even ordinary women participate in girlboss culture through paying for memberships at places like The Wing and purchasing feminist merchandise like stickers and tote bags. The sad irony is “girlboss” cultural objects, such as any number of feminist-themed t-shirts are likely made in countries where the labour market is saturated by Western factories who abuse and underpay the girls and women who work there. These women are placed in difficult economic circumstances, for us as consumers, and they certainly do not get to participate in girlboss culture, the way that some women in the West can.

“Girlboss” feminism is incredibly harmful because it perpetuates standards women can be shamed for not meeting. The most insidious thing about “girlboss” feminism is that it appears to be liberating. Having women occupy spaces of power is important, but it’s important to ask how exactly that happens. The girlboss is sassy, “fierce”, but never angry or violent. She is “perfect” and “has it all”, never overworked or stressed. Men are seldom asked to perform or water-down the way they exist in public spaces. Moreso, if any power in the corporate workplace is the most popular measure of the progress women have made, then what does that say about our culture? What about the women who do socially reproductive work (underpaid or not paid at all), such as being stay-at-home moms, or being a caregiver for elderly parents? Or the (often immigrant) women of colour who are nannies and aides? Are they not worthy of highlighting and celebration as well?

As a whole, the “girlboss” trend is an example of one of the many instances of what is known as “commodity feminism”, selling “empowerment” through social media and excessive consumerism. Rather than highlighting all the economic obstacles facing women such as access to childcare, higher education, sexual harassment in the workplace, and fighting for legislation to right these wrongs, “commodity feminism” allows us to participate in a hollow kind of performative feminism.

Once we understand that “girlboss” and trends like it are harmful, the next logical step is finding a different notion to celebrate the achievements of women, one that is aspirational and at the same time respects the various social and economic positions of all women. Women deserve to admire each other and our accomplishments, not limiting our worth to our relation to capital.