You may have seen neoliberal feminism at work in the business world if you hadn't previously. You've heard, maybe, something about "defeating stereotypes" or "feminine leadership" being strategies for making women achieve their "unfulfilled potential." Women need to empower themselves most of all, as claimed by supporters of the movement. Differences are believed to stem from individual, and not institutional, factors. To better assist you with an understanding of the promises made by neoliberal feminism. Being a feminist has turned into a source of pride and cultural capital for film and music stars. The word has become ubiquitous on social media and the mainstream media.

Thus, neoliberalism, which has employed feminism to advance political agendas and boost commercial worth, is increasingly being entangled with the gender equality movement. Another type of feminism has also surprisingly gained popularity at the same time. There is a renewed wave of mass feminist militancy on the political landscape following the election of Trump and the renewal of explicit sexism in public culture. This development seeks to surpass simple identification into the promotion of social change. One of the major antidotes to the increase in toothless, non-confrontational appeals to feminism is the return to mass-scale feminist protest and mobilization in the form of the Women's March and the #MeToo movement.

Diving into the Nuances of Neoliberalism

This feminism indicates that gender-based inequalities continue to exist in contemporary society. Although relatively recent, the term describes a phenomenon that has been evolving over several decades. The American philosopher Nancy Fraser observed in the early 2000s that the second wave of feminism, which started in the 1960s and was founded on the idea of access to social rights—in the areas of sexuality, family, and work—had shifted due to the rise of neoliberalism.

In her 2011 essay "Feminism, Capitalism and the Cunning of History," she illustrates how neoliberalism managed to capture certain demands of feminism and convert them into liberal ones because both groups shared similar ends, particularly the end of women's emancipation. With its variegated and contradictory forms, what do we make of the contemporary feminist renaissance? A bizarre form of feminism that has lost faith in social values such as equality, rights, and justice has arisen over the past five years, particularly in the US and the UK. Since it accepts gender inequality (as opposed to post-feminism, which concentrates on individual women's "empowerment" and "choice," while dismissing feminism) and refuses to accept that socioeconomic and cultural systems determine our lives, I call this neoliberal feminism. Bestseller manifestos such as Sheryl Sandberg's Lean In, which depict women as completely atomized, self-optimizing, and entrepreneurial, are shaped by this very brand of feminism.

Sexual harassment and the gender pay gap can be acknowledged by neoliberal feminism as symptoms of persistent inequality. However, the economic and structural roots of these phenomena are overlooked in the solutions they propose. Neoliberal feminism, which always calls women to assume full responsibility for their health and well-being, ultimately singles out the middle- and upper-middle classes, thus leaving the vast majority of women outside of its rhetoric. In addition, since it involves a market calculation, it is not much concerned with social justice or mass mobilization.

The Feminist Choice and How it is Being Threatened

Feminism can now more easily be massified, distributed, and commodified in the marketplace with the rise of neoliberal feminism, which is focused on getting individual women to focus on themselves and their aspirations. This is because it almost perfectly matches neoliberal capitalism. Furthermore, this feminism is overtly exclusive, targeting only so-called aspirational women. In doing so, it reinforces heteronormativity and white and class privilege, furthering both neoliberal and neo-conservative objectives. This feminism is not a threat to the status quo.

"Post-feminism" began in the early 2000s, a movement that believes women have reached equal rights and that there is no need to discuss discrimination and social justice. The debate then shifts to the topic of women's personal choices. In particular, should individuals work harder to adapt to a challenging workplace or, on the other hand, resign? Two perspectives on the issue seem to be in conflict with each other at first: on the one hand, those of people like Anne-Marie Slaughter, who quit her work as Hillary Clinton's aide to go back to her university post, allowing her more time for family, and the writer of the energetic essay "Why Women Still Can't Have it" in The Atlantic. These two ostensibly contradictory perspectives both rise out of the same movement, known as choice feminism.

This movement holds that being a feminist is largely a matter of living one's life however one chooses, whether that entails working and heading the IMF or remaining at home to have a family. Companies are trying to create solutions to this issue so that women do not have to make a choice. This is how neoliberal feminism redesigned itself around the familiar "work-life balance" in the 2010s: more flexibility, tolerance, fewer late meetings, home office days, etc. In short, all means should be used to retain female workers.

They should not feel like they are giving anything up. Even some companies provide women with the possibility of freezing their eggs in case they want to have children. Without necessarily ruling out the possibility of having children, companies are trying to attract recent graduates with aspirations other than spending their young adult lives changing diapers. But it's also a way of ensuring that women will never have to interrupt their careers due to a pregnancy that will interfere with the company's growth ambitions. The feminist movement reassigns a goal of individual development to struggle to balance or even harmonize an enjoyable private life with a working life, avoiding any reference to social justice.

Putting Feminism in Danger

But one of its unintended effects could be risky. Neoliberal feminism has provided an opening for a militant feminist movement exactly because it has brought the "f-word" into mainstream view and acceptance. This movement advocates mass mobilization to resist Trump's sexist policies, as well as the neoliberal agenda of putting profits over people.

It was clear some of the work for the most recent feminist insurrection was already done. Keep in mind that #MeToo originated as a grassroots movement started by African American activist Tarana Burke over a decade ago, and that it is following previous mobilizations such as SlutWalk, an international movement that organized protests against rape culture and victim-blaming that accompanies it. But Sandberg, Beyonce, Emma Watson, and others had already made feminism cool and attractive, and so #MeToo was able to spread so far so fast at this particular point in history, with Trump's election and policies as the triggers.

How to sustain and deepen the mass feminist renaissance as resistance and to refuse the logic of neoliberal feminism is now the most urgent question. How do we make feminism a threat to the many forces still oppressing, marginalizing, and stripping rights from whole segments of society? There has been a lot of cultural work accomplished by #MeToo. As best it has done, it has exposed how rampant masculine entitlement is in our culture. But ultimately, this won't be sufficient. Systemic transformation cannot be guaranteed by revelations alone.

New feminist movements have, however, emerged in recent times. An example is Feminism for the 99%, which helped organize the International Woman's Strike. These movements speak to and oppose a dizzying set of disparities that women, minorities, and precarious communities more generally experience, broadening considerably the solitary frame of gender. By demanding dramatic shifts in the social, cultural, and economic realms, these feminist communities are creating new possibilities and hope for the future. This is precisely the type of frightening feminism we require, given how bleak the future already seems forever more individuals globally.

Unrealized Possibilities of Neoliberal Feminism

Besides the pay and wealth gaps, there is also the opportunity gap. In summary, there is a gender gap to be bridged. Moreover, it is also given to appear as being monetary and negative to the global economy. There is a perception that a whole reservoir of unrealized feminine talent may at last be accessed! On this account, prejudice forestalls human competitiveness in the job market, ultimately reducing the economy's overall performance, rather than being a human rights abuse.

That being stated, the point that financial institutions produce gender inequality discourse is no trivial matter. By giving the struggle for equality a new goal—the struggle for economic growth—they are perpetuating the struggle for equality. Each institution generates a startling figure on its own. As the World Bank informs us, gender inequality costs us 160 trillion dollars globally; McKinsey estimates that ending it would add $12 trillion to the global economy. The drawback of startling figures is that, no matter how objective and logical they may seem, they are hard to photographically depict. By merely engaging an emotional aspect of our brain that cries out, "Wow, this is big," they are hoping to get businesses to do something to increase profits.

Furthermore, if a measure of equality is justified by something other than equality as an end in itself, what if economic reason changes, a downturn occurs, or the birth rate declines? With the expensive cost of living and intense social pressure in South Korea, this might be so there. The majority of youth there have abandoned dating or having kids because a child is such an expense, and many more are fleeing. What will become of the reactions to this indocility? Will there not be a move to reinstate women's reproductive role?

Under neoliberal feminism, such gender stereotypes and prejudices are the fundamental cause of the persisting inequalities between men and women. Corporate discourse regarding gender equality is all about the idea that we must better ourselves, without questioning the fundamental causes of inequality beyond the stereotypes. Men by not discriminating; women by stepping forward. The only structural account that is given is that individuals (or their heads) are too flawed to be able to utilize cognitive shortcuts to facilitate judgments being simpler. 

We now have to, bit by bit, modify our conduct and reason better as independents. As it is true that preconceptions and cognitive inclinations do influence the widening of inequality, these are neither the single lever nor the explanation behind its causes. Firms' internal communications sometimes obscure all the key methods that must be undertaken to fully understand the historical and political roots of inequality and more effectively fight it by directing all reconstruction activities towards people.

Female leadership" is frequently promoted as the secret to creating a more robust, sustainable human society. It is thought that women are wiser, more compassionate, and more focused on sustainability. Christine Lagarde, the chief of the European Central Bank (ECB), believed that women's inherent abilities may save the economy. "

One study finds that they are particularly good at thinking holistically, managing complexity, and embracing cooperation – attributes that are ideal when it comes to trade negotiations," she stated at a World Trade Organization (WTO) event on March 8, 2023. However, it is said that women continue to censor themselves excessively. Neoliberal feminism, as shown by Sheryl Sandberg's writings, holds that a lack of drive and determination is at the core of the inequality issue. To carve out a seat at the table, women must learn to put themselves forward. However, only a specific group of women—those who aspire to become future leaders—are the target audience for these remarks.

A common theme in female leadership training is the "wonder woman," "superheroine," or "exceptional woman." Being a woman is not enough; you should be a strong woman. This is a means of attracting more resources from people at a time when productivity is declining, particularly in France, by demonstrating to them their capacity for miracles. While it may be the case, women are under a lot of strain because of it! 

Those who are not leaders are likewise marginalized. In keeping with the notion of dramatic cost reduction, how many of these enterprises that advertise these wonder ladies also use cleaning services? Therefore, which is more feminist: giving its highly promising executives training in eloquence or revaluing the employees who clean the workplace both monetarily and symbolically by reintegrating the cleaning services into the workforce and requiring them to work regular hours so they can have families? The work that has to be done on the male side is overlooked when the emphasis is on female leadership. All too frequently, lectures on diversity and inclusion are created and attended by women. However, without men's involvement, parity cannot be attained. Additionally, men must make room for women in executive roles if we want to see more of them, even if that means enforcing quotas in traditionally female-dominated fields with low economic value.

Finding Your Voice Through Feminist Practices

Neoliberal feminism's tendency to adopt and reinforce individual competition is its drawback. Not challenging the disparity in income distribution or absurdity of the capitalist system of production, Sandberg's promise of equality is equal access to the unbiased labour market. Privileging some women carries the implicit threat of stripping them of what they acquired and restoring them to their previous status as mothers or sexual objects if they fail to be compliant. Rather, we must re-learn a sense of shared struggle reorganize our lives and strive to resist all types of dominance. In The Gentrification of the Mind (2012), American writer Sarah Schulman insists that we must accept some degree of discomfort to do this.

The dream of total comfort is the basis for our concept of happiness. But we must ask ourselves some uncomfortable questions. Rather than pushing this discomfort aside, we should reinsert it at the centre of our lives. Being a feminist is a resistance ethic, striving for a more livable world for all, not a way to boost one's self-esteem or public speaking skills. 

We have to lay the need for conformity aside and cooperate with women who are not the same as we are. But on the contrary, it doesn't mean feminism cannot be nice. It simply has to provoke unrest, disrupt the balance, and create apprehension about the world we are living in. Only once we have felt a small moment of discomfort will we be capable of looking for other solutions, ways of life, and task completion methods without fear of inconveniencing others.

.    .    .