She’s the successful career woman rising the corporate ladder. She’s the independent entrepreneur sporting a pantsuit and a coffee mug with the motto “the future is female.” She’s a girlboss. 

Sophia Amuroso, the CEO of the fast fashion company Nasty Gal, coined the term girlboss in 2014. The idea of the girlboss is a successful woman who is unapologetically ambitious and obtains power in male-dominated spaces, such as business. It is an offshoot of “choice feminism” that emerged in the 1990s as part of the larger third-wave feminist movement. This period of feminism relied heavily on individualism and emphasized female autonomy and financial empowerment within the constraints of capitalism.

In the words of feminist theorist Silvia Federici, the ‘career woman’ trope is an ineffective means to practice feminism because the career woman does not obtain her power through solidarity with women, but through the “power of the master, the power to oppress – usually other women.” Girlboss feminism places too much emphasis on the individual potential of women to achieve success within capitalist systems. This perpetuates the false ideal of the American meritocracy that one can obtain opportunities solely based on their hard work, while ignoring  structural obstacles for marginalized groups. 

While the girlboss who climbs the corporate ladder may be achieving economic triumph, it often comes at the expense of the female garment workers who are exploited in developing countries and women of color who are often neglected in corporate spaces. Feminism has been reduced to a commodity for corporations that profit off the oppressive systems that intersectional feminist activists are attempting to dismantle. For instance, in 2009, Nike launched the ‘Girl Effect’ campaign, which sought to relieve poverty of young girls worldwide while simultaneously continuing the use of female labor in sweatshops under terrible conditions and unfair wages. In November 2017, over only a three day period, 360 women collapsed during work at a factory that supplied sportswear brands Asics, Puma, and Nike. As feminist scholar Maria Hengeveld claims, Nike therefore uses inspiring campaigns with strong female athletes and promises to help impoverished young girls to hide their own part in creating poverty and shift the blame of gender inequality on the poor communities that supply Nike with cheap labor. This performative activism perpetuates antifeminist capitalist systems because customers who buy from Nike then believe they are supporting a feminist cause when they are really contributing to the exploitation of female garment workers.

Many female CEOs such as Sophia Amuroso attempt to present girlboss feminism as a way to make capitalism more suited to women’s interests. However, instead of addressing real issues, the girlboss feminist movement led to a period of the increased commodification of feminism and the prioritization of white female voices. For example, while Amoruso profited from her memoir #GIRLBOSS that preached women’s empowerment in the workplace, it was reported that she fired pregnant employees and failed to acknowledge those who contributed to her success. Similarly, Audrey Gelman, founder of The Wing, a women-only work space and social club in New York City, resigned after complaints of mistreatment and disproportionate pay of women of color. Danielle Bernstein, the fashion influencer and founder of fashion brand WhoWoreWhat, uses the girlboss narrative to market her brand, when in actuality she steals designs from small businesses owned by women of color. 

Another problem with girlboss feminism is the blind idealization of women in positions of power. Celebrating and empowering successful women often comes at the cost of ignoring those same women’s faults. Placing a woman in a position of power is not inherently feminist if that woman does not use her platform to empower other women, particularly those who are most marginalized. We must still hold these women accountable. For instance, while Kamala Harris’s win as the first female vice president was symbolically significant in the feminist movement, it caused many people to put her on a pedestal. The reality is that Harris’ morally questionable past as attorney general of California is far from feminist and ultimately reinforced racist systems such as defending California’s death penalty. Questioning Harris’ record and putting pressure on her to defy status quo interpretations of criminal justice is not antifeminist just because Harris is a woman, but rather pushes for a more intersectional form of feminism in the White House.

Simply put, feminism is not compatible with our current capitalist system. Feminism that works within capitalist structures cannot liberate all women, but only a privileged few. Capitalism is rooted in deep patriarchal systems that no woman can solve by herself, which is why capitalism’s emphasis on individualism is a tool used to sustain the oppression of women. If women focus solely on their own empowerment, they fail to see how they address feminist issues larger than themselves. As feminist, activist, and acclaimed writer Audre Lorde claims, “for the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’ house.” It is the nature of capitalism that someone always emerges on top at the expense of leaving others at the bottom. Due to our country’s deeply ingrained patriarchal and racist systems, women of color often suffer the most in the hands of capitalism. Therefore, it is impossible to pursue a more intersectional form of feminism and promote solidarity among all women within a capitalist society.