Femwashing: How Corporations Exploit Feminism in Canada

Move over “glass ceiling,” “pink wave,” and “glass cliff”—there’s a new term gaining traction in the corporate world: “femwashing.” While the label may be new, the behavior it exposes is anything but. It’s simply the latest iteration of corporate public relations masquerading as progress.

Femwashing refers to a corporate strategy where companies publicly claim to champion the advancement of women, but behind closed doors, co-opt the language of gender equality to boost brand perception, attract clients or deflect criticism. It is a calculated corporate practice of adopting feminist language for profit, without a real commitment to gender equality; a glaring disconnect between progressive rhetoric and reality.

Much like “greenwashing,” where companies boast of sustainability while leaving a massive carbon footprint, or “pinkwashing,” where brands assert LGBTQ+ allyship without meaningful support, femwashing is fake feminism dressed up for profit. It’s performative, opportunistic and ultimately hollow.

To understand how femwashing operates within the legal profession, it's helpful first to examine how it plays out in its most visible form: consumer-facing brands. These examples lay bare the blueprint that law firms have been all too eager to follow.

A Laundry List of Examples

Femwashing is most visible in globally recognized corporations, where glossy branding meets public scrutiny. Nowhere is the disconnect between image and action more striking than in companies that publicly celebrate women's empowerment while privately reinforcing gender inequality.

In recent years, many high-profile brands have embraced feminist messaging in their marketing—often referred to as “femvertising.” These campaigns spotlight women athletes, leaders, or everyday role models, delivering messages of confidence, ambition and strength. Yet behind these empowering narratives, troubling contradictions emerge.

In several widely publicized cases, companies that celebrated women in their ads were simultaneously penalizing those same women behind the scenes—especially when it came to pregnancy, motherhood, or pushing back against unequal treatment. Such stories reveal femwashing in its clearest form: the strategic use of feminist language to boost public image, while quietly upholding the very systems that marginalize women.

Hiding in Plain Sight

But not all corporate femwashing is this blatant. A more insidious version hides in plain sight: the continued absence of women in leadership—particularly in industries that market primarily to women. Many household-name brands that profit from “girl power” messaging are still led almost entirely by men.

This leadership gap is a defining feature of femwashing across the corporate world. According to The Prosperity Project’s 2024 Annual Report Card on Gender Equity and Leadership, while the number of women in executive roles in Canada rose by 5.5% from 2023 to 2024, the pace of progress remains slow, and men continue to dominate leadership at every level. The report further notes that “Black women, Indigenous women, Women of Colour, women with disabilities and 2SLGBTQIA+ women [are] all but entirely excluded” from leadership positions.

This fragility is especially troubling as more companies begin to quietly roll back their diversity and inclusion initiatives. These programs, once promoted as signs of progress, are now among the first to be cut. In doing so, companies reveal what femwashing truly is: a marketing strategy disguised as social change, not a genuine effort toward equity.

Dirty Laundry

Femwashing isn’t limited to big consumer brands—it’s alive and thriving in the legal world. Law firms love to publicize their commitment to gender equality. Their websites are lined with DEI statements, and their feeds fill up with polished posts every International Women’s Day. But behind the carefully crafted optics, the reality is far less inspiring.

Women lawyers still earn less than their male counterparts. Men are encouraged to negotiate salaries aggressively, while women who do the same are labeled difficult or ungrateful. The pay gap isn’t just a glitch in the system—it’s a feature of it. Women lawyers are also routinely expected to take on more non-billable work yet these tasks are rarely valued in promotion decisions. And when it comes to advancement, access to key clients and high-visibility assignments remains tightly controlled, often doled out behind closed doors based on favoritism.

Nowhere is femwashing more evident than in the way law firms handle parental leave. While firms frequently tout their public-facing policies supporting working mothers, the internal culture continues to penalize women for becoming parents.

Women are often discouraged, either directly or indirectly, from taking their full parental leave. There’s an unspoken expectation to stay plugged in: to check emails, attend calls and remain visible throughout their absence. Upon returning, they face the uphill task of rebuilding their practice, often without institutional support or a formal reintegration process.

Unpacking Femwashing in Law Firms

This disconnect is compounded by the rigid structure of the billable hour. With annual targets that range from 1,700 to 2,300 hours, the model assumes an uninterrupted, full-time work schedule that fails to account for the disproportionate caregiving and domestic responsibilities that still fall on women. Despite growing awareness of work-life imbalance, firms continue to evaluate all lawyers by the same narrow metric, regardless of circumstance.

Femwashing in law firms isn’t limited to one firm, one province, or one isolated incident; it is a Canada-wide, structural issue.

At the On the Path to Equity for Women in Law event, the Law Society of British Columbia reported that as of 2020, while the gender ratio of practising lawyers in BC was near parity (approximately 49% men and 51% women), women were exiting the profession at higher rates, with drop-off becoming more significant with seniority.

The top reasons cited by women lawyers in BC for leaving private practice included: demanding billable hour expectations, after-work obligations, lack of mentorship, being assigned administrative or low-value work, limited flexibility and few opportunities for advancement or recognition. In contrast, the women who chose to stay cited satisfaction with mentorship, professional development, organizational leadership and having control over their work.

A Familiar Pattern

Ontario reflects similar patterns. According to the Law Society of Ontario 2024 Annual Report, while men and women are nearly equally represented among practising lawyers (51.6% men, 48.4% women), the retention gap tells another story. Among lawyers aged 65 and older, only 20% are women. When it comes to leadership, male partners significantly outnumber female partners: 18% versus 7.6%. Men are 2.37 times as likely to hold partner status.

Pay equity remains another critical area of concern. According to the Canadian Bar Association’s 2022 Pay Equity in the Legal Profession study, male lawyers earned more than female lawyers across all experience levels. In some firms, male equity partners earned up to 25% more than their female counterparts. Even when billed at the same years of call, men were charged out at higher rates—an invisible yet impactful form of economic discrimination that directly affects compensation.

The disparities persist in in-house roles. The 2024 In-House Counsel Compensation & Career Survey by The Counsel Network and Caldwell found that female in-house counsel earned, on average, $21,500 less in base salary than their male peers. The wage gap was even more pronounced at higher levels: only 34% of women reported earning over $200,000, compared to 52% of men.

This isn’t just a numerical imbalance—it signals a lack of power and influence that trickles down through every level of a firm. When women are excluded from partnership, they’re excluded from the rooms where key decisions are made, policies are shaped and firm culture is set.

Breaking the Femwashing Cycle in Law Firms

Femwashing hinders meaningful progress. Much like brands that co-opt feminism for profit, femwashing in law firms offers the illusion of progress while reinforcing systemic inequality.

A genuine commitment to gender equality requires law firms to take substantial, actionable steps. This includes creating clear, transparent criteria for hiring and promotion, particularly for women seeking partnership roles. Firms must also prioritize workplace flexibility that accounts for the impact of motherhood, ensuring that women are not penalized for their caregiving responsibilities.

Performance evaluations should be based on measurable, objective criteria and the allocation of assignments, promotions and advancements must be transparent and fair. Women’s achievements should be evaluated against consistent, definable performance metrics, with honest, constructive feedback tied directly to those standards. Law firms must also actively track promotions and career progression, setting clear goals for gender parity and holding themselves accountable for meeting those targets.

By moving beyond performative token gestures and focusing on tangible, calculable changes, law firms can wash away the stain of femwashing and make genuine strides toward creating a truly equitable environment for women in law.