Feminisation of success or successful femininities? Disentangling ‘new femininities’ under neoliberal conditions

Abstract

This paper critically examines what might be entitled the feminisation of success that is ascribed to optimistic characterisations of new constructions of femininity for young women in the UK, particularly in relation to classed positions. In order to do this it is necessary to understand the complex relationship between feminism, post-feminism, neoliberalism and femininities, especially since the millennium. Young women have been positioned as the benefactors of successful social and political change which, together with ideas of individualism and reflexive constructions of identity, almost mandate young women to embody success. The article seeks to examine and assess the discursive constructions of "successful femininities" in relation to their normative limitations and ask in particular whether the putative existence of "new femininities" is attainable for all young women. With the impact of over a decade of neo-liberal policies and austerity measures being felt by many, it is argued that the discourses of "successful femininities" work to obscure the recalibrated inequalities that have been forged by neo-liberal conditions.

Role Models and Women Entrepreneurs: Entrepreneurial Superwoman Has Her Say

“…This aligns with Projansky's () assertion that white, middle class, heterosexual men, and women are promoted as culturally central in contemporary western society. In this era of post‐feminism it is necessary to critique “the truth” of the (un)successful individual and point to the influence of class, highlighting that some aspects of life cannot be presented as freely chosen and uninfluenced by external factors (Gerodetti and McNaught‐Davis , p. 3). The differing structural positions of women from racial or ethnic backgrounds or lower socio‐economic groups who seek to become an entrepreneur must be acknowledged.…”

“…The differing structural positions of women from racial or ethnic backgrounds or lower socio‐economic groups who seek to become an entrepreneur must be acknowledged. Women from disadvantaged backgrounds are “called” by these new femininities but do not have the same opportunities and resources as their more privileged counterparts “to abide by the individualistic and neoliberal imperative of choice, effort and success” (Gerodetti and McNaught‐Davis , p. 3). Success is about putting in sufficient effort and making appropriate personal choices and failure is constructed as idleness, poor individual decisions, or defiance (Gerodetti and McNaught‐Davis ).…”

“…Women from disadvantaged backgrounds are “called” by these new femininities but do not have the same opportunities and resources as their more privileged counterparts “to abide by the individualistic and neoliberal imperative of choice, effort and success” (Gerodetti and McNaught‐Davis , p. 3). Success is about putting in sufficient effort and making appropriate personal choices and failure is constructed as idleness, poor individual decisions, or defiance (Gerodetti and McNaught‐Davis ). When framed this way, structural accounts of (persisting) inequalities find it hard to be heard and “the responsibilisation of the individual or the individualization of responsibility” has been legitimized (Gerodetti and McNaught‐Davis , p. 7).…”

“…The upsurge of “choice feminism” (Budgeon ) means that women's choices are located within a new gender order—associated with a new form of femininity which is characterized as “self‐determining, individuated, and empowered.” This new form of femininity (ideal, or perfect, femininity) impels women to accept full responsibility in their quest for personal and professional “perfection” and success (McRobbie ). An “ascendancy of successful women” in media representations, educational achievements and labor market participation nurture this new femininity discourse (Gerodetti and McNaught‐Davis , p. 1). The postfeminist heroine is portrayed as empowered, autonomous, playful and youthful, and regularly makes choices which blur traditional femininity and prefeminist ideals (McRobbie ) such as balancing “heterosexual desirability” with “emotional sensitivity” (Budgeon , p. 54).…”

“…First, the role models presented here promote the supremacy of the “perfect” and “successful” female heroine entrepreneur. Success is about individuals taking responsibility, putting in sufficient effort and making appropriate personal choices (Gerodetti and McNaught‐Davis ). We show how in privileging the voices of a particular group of women entrepreneurs, certain femininities (such as individualized entrepreneurial femininity) cast an individualistic, neo‐liberal “everybody is capable” view of entrepreneurship, silencing the specific needs, and experiences of entrepreneurs who are disadvantaged by race/ethnicity, class, and age.…”