Empowered to Spend : When Feminism Meets the Market

Imagine a world where defiance is store-bought, empowerment is wrapped in polkadots and ‘Girl Power’ gets plastered onto clothing with a $14.99 price tag. Considering we came from big streets to voice out equality, women’s empowerment has progressed over the years with a twist of incentives. Nowadays, these narratives are used to gain sympathy from consumers. Slogans like “My Body, My Choice” have moved from protest banners to billboards and social media ads. This new approach, called femvertising, focuses on leveraging the opportunity to market social justice (Lauri et al., 2023).  However, as these companies race to win consumers' hearts, the purpose now becomes vague. Do they care for the people or solely the growing audience to market their products? 

From Protest to Product

Corporate feminism has reinvented marketing, products now go far beyond their function, but also the story derived behind it. Products now hold sentimental values, and feminism is sought out to be favoured amongst all prompts. This correlates to the Consumer Identity Theory, where it shows that brands are an extension of individuals. These brands are used to reflect their personal style and social identity, meaning that brand preferences are linked to who individuals perceive themselves to be (Ilaw, 2013). In this context, implementing values such as women’s empowerment can create a stronger touch to customers. 

The 2023 Barbie movie is a prime example of it. It has showcased the values of redefining gender roles, focusing on reducing patriarchy, a world of self-discovery, and empowerment. The movie, which was made to uplift little girls, came with a price tag of numerous brand partnerships, selling Barbie-themed everything. From clothes, experiences, and food, everything had a Barbie logo stamped in front of it. While this movie allured important conversations, this turned the empowering narrative into revenue streams. Hence, Barbie focused less on the impact of systemic change, but more on selling a pink and glittery form of it (Shepard, 2024). 

Another example is Nike’s “Dream Crazier” campaign which featured Serena Williams to deliver the message of women’s resilience in sports. However, on the contrary to this powerful gesture, fingers have been pointed at Nike for their poor labor conditions. Nike’s factory workers, many of whom are women in Southeast Asia, aren’t paid enough yet are demanded to work overtime. There still has been newfound reports of Cambodian workers fainting due to the rigorous demand and not enough fulfillment of needs (Davis, 2025). 

The Commodification of Empowerment 

What was once something achieved by political struggles has now turned into a medium of consumption. This aligns with Marx's theory of commodification where the exchange value comes to dominate the use value, in this case: these empowering values are transformed into commodities because of the incentive given within the market (Hermann, 2021). The root all starts from the opportunity that arises when empowerment becomes profitable. With the irrationality that consumers have, corporations take advantage of it through femvertising. The irrationality is further explained by Veblen’s theory of conspicuous consumption, where purchasing certain goods are a sign of status symbol instead of utility motives (Zimmer, 2021).  These brands reflect the values they uphold–and with feminist and wokeism in the mix, these consumers are sought to believe in similar values too. 

Neoliberal feminism touches this topic. This ideology was derived in the Reagan-Thatcher era, which embodies empowerment through careers, consumer choices and entrepreneurship while sidelining the vigilant systemic inequality (Lawson, 2024). It highlighted deregulation, emphasis on individual responsibility and privatization. Gender equality became a subject to market participation and individual achievement. This ideology has the premise of a meritocratic market, where they believe persistence is the key to combating structural inequality, whilst putting off other collective struggles (Bennet, 2024). When women empowerment quotes get plastered onto t-shirts and decorate magazines, it reduces political resistance to marketable aesthetics. Seeing this opportunity, corporations embrace the empowering niche in their programs and branding, which can make them seem more attractive to female customers while slightly feeding into their obligation to improve gender equity. The result of it? Just like what Marx said, it evolves into a product instead of an agent of change. 

Empowerment, what was once achievable through hard-fought political struggle, is now being sold on tote bags, thanks to market incentives and consumer irrationality that corporations absolutely love! The opportunity to embrace the “empowering” niche in their products is not merely profitable for their economic growth – but is also slightly feeding the imagination of customers that it is “improving gender equality”. The result? Just like what Marx said, it does not evolve into an agent of change.

Who Are We Doing This For?

Source : Clean Clothes Campaign, 2020

While consumers feel a sense of pride to be wearing a brand that advocates their rights, the real winners are the masterminds behind all these brandings. These corporations tend to operate a system that dehumanises their workers and disregarding social costs, often putting them on pedestals of a demanding work environment yet not enough rights fulfillment. The clothes we consume from fast fashion are made by the loving touch of garment workers, of which are 80% women. These brands preach for sustainability and empowerment, only to practice the contrary to those closest to them. Fewer than 2% of garment workers globally earn a decent living wage making them vulnerable and unempowered in the supply chain–despite the contributions they give out to corporations (Clean Clothes Campaign, 2020). Feminist-branded products are mostly consumed in the Global North and produced in the Global South. Western consumers purchase these “empowered” goods made by garment workers who live in sad conditions with limited economic agility to move. The sad reality is that too much of their costs goes towards retail and profit of the brand and less than 1% gets paid to the craftsmanship behind it. 

Feminist economics has called attention to how traditional markets tend to undervalue women’s labor, specifically in these garment industries. When corporations proclaim equality and sustainability without looking back at the exploitative acts, they are participating in ‘faux empowerment’. Tracing back to neoliberal feminism, it often accentuates benefits only to a certain hierarchy of people making once again, marginalized people vulnerable actors to this. Feminism should resist these commodification and link back to the radical roots of collective action and economic policies for redistribution. Systemic reforms like fair wages and convenient healthcare systems should be prioritized. Empowering women does not come in the form of t-shirts, rather the actual structural changes for feminism to take its full impact.

The Greater Good as a Marketing Tool

The implementation of these feminist messages in brands can push the narrative to empower people, however it seems that it might be more heavy on seeking profits. Once a protest of equality becomes a marketing tool, it shifts the direction away from the broader public good. While this may buildup awareness regarding these issues, it rarely has a concrete outcome to those affected. Even when companies claim to support social causes, their contributions are often symbolic or superficial. Very few actually contribute by donating  a significant portion of their feminist-themed profits to grassroots feminist organizations and labor unions. So the next time you see empowerment slogans in sales, ask yourself : Is this made for the cause, or is it just capitalism in a pink font? 

References : 

Aguirre, A. (2025). Can women truly have it all under capitalism? A feminist economic analysis of labor and gender roles in modern society. Heliyon, 11(5), e27304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2025.e27304

Clean Clothes Campaign. (2020).Clean Clothes Campaign. (2020). Fashion checker: Who pays for our clothes? https://cleanclothes.org/news/2020/fashion-checker?utm_source=

Clean Clothes Campaign. (n.d.).Clean Clothes Campaign. (n.d.). Poverty wages. https://cleanclothes.org/poverty-wages?utm_source=Hermann, C. (2021). Conspicuous consumption: Theoretical background and economic relevance. In Handbook of Consumption, Wellbeing, and Sustainability. Oxford University Press. https://academic.oup.com/book/39886/chapter-abstract/340097760?redirectedFrom=fulltextIlaw, M. A. (2013). Who you are affects what you buy: The influence of consumer identity on brand preferences. Inquiries Journal, 5(06). http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1035/who-you-are-affects-what-you-buy-the-influence-of-consumer-identity-on-brand-preferences

Lauri, S., Grasso, M., & Giugni, M. (2023). The personalized politics of feminist digital activism. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 26(6), 905–924. https://doi.org/10.1177/13675494221137371Lawson, L. (2024). Is it possible to be a neoliberal feminist? Inequality.org. https://inequality.org/article/is-it-possible-to-be-a-neoliberal-feminist/Bennett, S. L. (2024). The commodification of feminism — A critical analysis of neoliberal feminist discourse. Studies in Social Science & Humanities, 3(5), 47–57. https://www.paradigmpress.org/SSSH/article/view/1143Davis (2025) Nike’s Cambodian workers faint at their machines. The company says it’s not responsible. ProPublica. https://www.propublica.org/article/nike-factory-cambodia-fainting?utm_sourceShepard, M. (2024). The neoliberal illusion of choice: Femvertising, consumerism, and the co-optation of feminism (Master’s thesis). California State University, San Bernardino. https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3061&context=etd&utm_source

Zimmer (2021) Veblen’s theory of conspicuous consumption. EBSCO Research Starters. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/political-science/veblens-theory-conspicuous-consumption