The paradox of empowerment for women

Photo by Connor Scott McManus at Pexels

Buse Camlar argues that joining systems of power is not the same as changing them

I’m 17. I can’t vote. And I’m being told my generation doesn’t care about politics, by the same system that won’t let us into it yet.

I care about politics. I always have.

Empowerment is the foundation of modern political and feminist discourse, yet it carries a hidden irony. As marginalised groups gain access to the corridors of power, they are often forced to adopt the very structures, behaviours and values that originally marginalised them. The system seeks to change others, rather than itself. What appears to be progress can therefore become a process of adapting to the system, rather than transforming it.

In the political arena, empowerment is often equated with representation. For a political outsider to gain enough influence to pass legislation, they must often speak the language of the establishment. This effectively neutralises the movement’s original spark, clinging onto traditional values rather than expanding in an increasingly interconnected and globalised world.

While representation can provide marginalised groups with a voice, simply placing individuals within existing institutions does not necessarily mean those institutions themselves have changed. Are people who must alter and reform their identities to gain access to political influence really empowered, or are they becoming victims of inhibition and restraint?

In contemporary societies, feminism has undergone a radical transformation, not just in legislation and the political sphere, but in terms of marketing. While more people than ever identify and label themselves as ’empowered’, the term is increasingly used to validate individual consumer choices, rather than to dismantle the systemic barriers that hold the majority of women back.

A feminist message built to challenge inequality can become just another product

YouGov data found that 83% of Britons said men and women should have equal rights, status and be treated equally, while only 35% said they were feminists when asked directly. The research suggests that how we understand and respond to the word ‘feminist’ can depend on how the question is asked.

In the past, feminist slogans emphasised the need for political and social change; today, they are frequently found on mass-produced t-shirts made in overseas factories by underpaid women. The contradiction is difficult to ignore. A message that was once designed to challenge inequality can become another product designed to generate profit.

When empowerment becomes a brand, it risks losing its political significance. The movement shifts from a political struggle for rights to an individual pursuit of confidence. Women are encouraged to feel powerful through what they buy, wear and achieve, while the structural inequalities surrounding them remain largely untouched. Empowerment becomes something that can be packaged and consumed, rather than something that requires society itself to change.

The paradox of empowerment remains that true freedom cannot be purchased. If empowerment is only available to those with the capital to buy it or the privilege to navigate existing systems, it is not feminism, but a new marketing demographic. To resolve this paradox, the focus must shift back to collective agency: the power to change the world for everyone, not just the power to succeed within a broken one.

True empowerment should not simply give people the opportunity to enter existing systems of power; it should give them the ability to question why those systems exist in the first place.

Want to do something about it?

Join the Fawcett Society, a UK organisation campaigning for women’s rights and gender equality.