A multilevel-marketing sales pitch is kind of like porn: You know it when you see it. On Instagram, there’s a formula. A bright-eyed woman — maybe she’s blonde, maybe she’s smiling widely, maybe she has her product laid out on the table in front of her or on a rack behind her. But the focus is still on her, because she’s not just trying to sell you a thing, she’s trying to sell you a feeling.
Women’s faux-powerment was part of LulaRoe’s lore from nearly the beginning.
There’s probably a long, meandering caption below. There might be some seemingly RANDOM CAPITALIZATIONS for extra EMPHASIS. And then, of course, there will be hashtags: #beyourownboss #womenempoweringwomen #hustle #followyourpassion #girlboss
The specter of girl-bossery is front and center in “LulaRich,” the four-part Amazon docu-series about now-infamous multilevel marketing (MLM) company LulaRoe. The series explores the rise and (partial) fall of the clothing MLM, which saw a meteoric rise between 2013 and 2016, and ultimately became a mainstream news story because of its predatory recruitment practices, which left many of its retailers, mostly women, in debt, and left LulaRoe facing a mountain of litigation. (The company recently settled a suit brought against it by Washington State.)
In some ways, it feels like the girl boss was always destined to start recruiting for an MLM; the logical conclusion of an era dominated by #getyours corporate white feminism. Nothing exposes the emptiness of such an ethos than witnessing it be so easily co-opted by an exploitative, conservative, anti-feminist enterprise like LulaRoe.
Women’s faux-powerment was part of LulaRoe’s lore from nearly the beginning. “I watched my wife shatter glass ceilings,” Mark Stidham tells the camera in “LulaRich,” about his wife and co-founder DeAnne. As the story goes, the company came to be after DeAnne began selling maxi skirts she made at home out of the back of her car. As demand grew, DeAnne and her husband Mark, both devout Mormons, began selling merchandise to independent distributors who would buy merchandise, resell it, and recruit more distributors.
But LulaRoe didn’t just sell skirts and “buttery soft” leggings in an assortment of tacky, limited-edition patterns. They sold the dream of unfettered financial success — “full-time pay for part-time work.” With LulaRoe, the company told its would-be consultants, women could have it all: the money, the perfect marriage, the beautiful children and the ability to stay home with them.
In “LulaRich,” former retailers discuss how “women’s empowerment” was a core part of the recruitment pitch — and a way to encourage distributors to work more, work harder, and sometime bring their entire families into the enterprise. It was a bait and switch: entice struggling white women with the fantasy of opportunity for endless financial gain (that was the “empowerment”), and then reinforce traditional gender roles once they were ensnared.
In some ways, it feels like the girl boss was always destined to start recruiting for an MLM.
“LulaRoe hid behind the guise of uplifting and empowering women,” said former retailer Courtney Harwood in “LulaRich.” “We were supposed to be empowered at first and then the husband was supposed to take over.”
It had the potential to be a perfect storm. The rise of LulaRoe coincided with the mainstreaming — and ultimately, political dilution — of feminist messaging. In 2012, Sheryl Sandberg published “Lean In,” which essentially argued that the path toward women’s advancement and equality, specifically within the context of the workforce, rested on individual women. “We hold ourselves back in ways both big and small by lacking self-confidence, by not raising our hands, and by pulling back when we should be leaning in,” she wrote.
“Lean In”became a massive bestseller. The messaging was seductive precisely because of its individuality. As Leigh Stein put it in an essay for Medium, “by presenting gender disparities in the workplace as a war to be fought on a personal level, Sandberg allowed women to feel like they were activists whenever they advocated for themselves.”
Fighting to change a sexist system to benefit the collective is overwhelming; it requires years of political organizing without the promise of personal benefit. “Lean In” offered another way forward: Ask for more. Raise your hand. Rise through the ranks. Demand power. Make the system work for you. Rather than positioning capitalism as in conflict with feminist political goals, girl boss feminism offered up the idea that capitalism might actually be the path toward salvation.
It was a comforting message, especially for a generation that was set up to fail by entering the workforce during and in the immediate aftermath of the financial crisis of 2008. (As a member of that generation who became a journalist covering women’s issues around the time “Lean In” came out, I can attest to the overwhelming power of its worldview.)
The Golden Age of the Girl Boss (circa 2012 to 2020), dominated by beautiful, white, rich women founders, quickly followed. Sophia Amoruso, Leandra Medine, Miki Agrawal, Audrey Gelman, Tyler Heaney, Steph Korey. These women’s lives were coded as aspirational; their wealth a feminist achievement in and of itself. You’ve probably heard their names and seen their glossy photos. You might have also read about their inevitable falls from grace.
Amoruso, who created clothing company Nasty Gal, published her memoir, #GirlBoss, in 2014. It offered a politics-free version of feminism, one that again suggested that the monetary success and ascension to power of one woman might inevitably be considered a win for us all. It is a convenient and self-serving idea. As Jia Tolentino wrote in her 2019 book of essays, “Trick Mirror,” “A politics built around getting and spending money is sexier than a politics built around politics.”









