In her famous book, Lean In, Facebook CEO and feminist Sheryl Sandberg claims we "need women at all levels, including the top," to change the system. She doesn't mention the potential ways in which Western capitalism might systematically abuse weak labour laws in foreign countries, which hurts women abroad regardless of who's sitting in boardroom meetings. She definitely doesn't mention how reforming a fundamentally corrupt system might be better than joining it in the long run.

Sandberg's argument that capitalism and feminism can cooperate has become extremely popular. Like how Emma Watson gave feminist speeches at the UN while being a Burberry and Lancôme ambassador, the media typically glorifies this narrative where women "on the inside" —in leadership positions, boardroom meetings, or large, influential organizations-can change the system. That's why many successful female business owners and celebrities have shifted away from criticizing the accumulation of capital to glorifying "girl boss" careers in finance, law, medicine, etc.

But the good-intentioned zeal neoliberal feminists have devoted to actualizing their middle-class dreams has blinded them from economic realities.

For starters, the idea that representation at the top will eventually trickle down to improve women's lives at the bottom is fundamentally flawed. This approach recycles trickle-down economics principles, similar to Reaganomics, which surveys in 2020 indicate to have failed: 56% of Americans living in poverty are women, the majority being non-white. In response, neoliberal feminists argue it's "not about race" because we're all women and therefore oppressed in the same ways.

Yet it's increasingly evident that the neoliberal feminist's ultimate goal is not to dismantle social inequality but to supplant women, and often only certain types of women (i.e. university-educated white girls), in elite positions to profit from and actively exploit other inequalities. That is to say, inherent in bourgeois feminism is the desire to succeed in our system without challenging it. It was clear from the beginning that early suffragism, which became neoliberal feminism, relied on inequality: suffragettes like Elizabeth Stanton appealed to white men by arguing white female votes would overpower Black ones.

Following the tide of '80s financialization and increased female participation in 'big' industries like oil and pharmaceuticals, abolitionist or intersectional feminism pioneered by Bell Hooks and Angela Davis has fizzled out. Weakened activists emerged from the ashes of radicalism instead. Neoliberal feminists today support charities 'giving back' to homeless women without protesting the Wall Street pundits who bought up empty homes and the governments that created unfair zoning laws. These are the feminists who put on a pussy hat and voted for Biden without considering how his border deportations harmed Latin American women.

The cognitive dissonance of simultaneously opposing and being complacent in oppressive systems dilutes the potency of feminism. By encouraging collaborations between millionaire female celebs and multinational clothing/beauty companies (or just commercializing feminism in general), neoliberal feminists build an empire of consumption reliant on cheap, unpaid labour from the global South. By encouraging consumption as activism, bourgeois feminists cheapen the movement's intellectual tradition: being a feminist no longer means reading and engaging with critical theory from Wollstonecraft to de Beauvoir; one simply watches Ted Talks by a Forbes 30-under-30 entrepreneur.

Most egregiously, capitalist feminism aligns with neo-imperialism in foreign policy. In the early 2000s, the majority of neoliberal white feminists supported brutal bombings in the Middle East— which killed around a million-—because they thought mass murder would eradicate the terrorists and, therefore, liberate Brown women from 'primitive' Brown men. They forgot airstrikes kill women, too.

Back at home, neoliberal feminists preach tolerance and acceptance before criticizing several different women whose lives don't fit into their way of thinking: Hijabi women should "take off the veil" because their religion is backwards, undocumented migrant Latinas are "irresponsible," and should have come legally, poor Black mothers are inherently "unfit parents," etc. Underlying their inability to discuss race is a saviour complex. Subconsciously or not, neoliberal feminists believe European political institutions and the European way of thinking are superior. Other cultures and economic systems are inherently more primitive. That's why they often eschew feminists from different parts of the world who disagree with their views, like Iranian pro-Sharia law feminists, Japanese degrowth feminists, and, god forbid —the Chinese Marx-reading feminists...

While the spread of feminist businesses and consumption-from makeup and clothing to consulting services geared towards women-has brought many educated, cosmopolitan, martini-sipping women their financial freedom, the commodification of feminism has undoubtedly atrophied its ideological roots. To be considered a feminist today means supporting certain celebrities and owning certain things instead of using critical thinking skills. And while neoliberal feminists proudly post about inclusivity on Instagram, in the depths of a sweaty Shein factory, it makes no difference to the 12-year-old Bangladeshi girl whether the hoodie she's sewing says "MAGA" or "The Future is Female."