But this doesn’t make any sense. Why can’t we be sexually liberated without reducing feminism to just sexual liberation? Why does it have to be one or the other? We can and should have it both ways. Andi Ziesler spends three pages of her book critiquing the space that the politics of waxing occupies. She tells us there are More Urgent Things we should be discussing, though she devotes little time to discussing them, other than to repeatedly remind us of their urgency. This may be ironic, but it is certainly true. The current feminist movement centres around the type of woman who already has many of her needs met, and as a result the movement has some colossal drawbacks. But I fear that by pointing fingers and arguing about  ‘real’ issues versus ‘silly’ ones, we risk undermining the movement altogether.

Let’s take femvertising as an example (this is actually a word by the way): we question its performativity, its depth and its commitment to the cause, and rightly so. When corporations get involved in social movements, people get nervous because corporations represent that evil system we rely on for a living but vocally hate at all times: capitalism. EDF’s campaign to encourage girls into STEM subjects might be performative, and Dove’s Real Beauty campaign might be hypocritical, but when the alternative is not running these campaigns, surely the former is preferable?

Should we not apply the same principles to influencers? We know that their follower count is a social currency, we know that they monetise the messages they promote, but that doesn’t mean they’re not messages worth saying. Give us a way of gaining social awareness or accessing information from people whose work is not neatly tied to profit margins and maybe we’ll take it. There are problems that pop feminism may not be able to solve, but it doesn’t justify discarding the movement as a whole.

Yes, the notion itself has been commodified into overpriced spa days and wellness retreats, but just because it’s been hijacked by capitalism doesn’t make it ungrounded. Reclaiming autonomy over your body, your pleasure or your life is important, particularly if society tries to strip you of such luxuries. How can we turn to fight the bigger battles if we’re not first filling our own cups?

Nevertheless, the underlying issue and one that we cannot ignore is that pop feminism often forgets intersectionality. It leans too closely to White Feminism, a damaging movement that lifts up the "woke", slim, heterosexual, middle-class, white woman at the expense of marginalised people who fight harder for representation and equality. Pop feminism has a lot of work to do if it intends to be taken seriously as a movement; currently, it  leaves too many people out of the conversation. When we talk about sexual assault, we need to elevate the fact that disabled people in the UK are almost twice as likely to fall victim to this. Our discussions on the pay gap have to address ethnicity as well as gender. Issues prominent in non-Western countries, such as FGM, human trafficking and child marriage, are too often overlooked in favour of more palatable topics we can fit into aesthetically-pleasing infographics. This needs to change.

So yes, there are limitations to pop feminism. It is perpetuated on a platform centered on performativity and profit, and it needs to be a hell of a lot more inclusive than it currently is. But the feminist movement as a whole is by no means perfect. Any kind of movement made up of millions of real-life human beings is going to have its deviations and disagreements. If pop feminism is a gateway into teaching young women autonomy over their own lives, if it helps to free us from the fundamental guilt, shame and self-consciousness that seep their way into being female, then by all means I think it’s a good thing. Its faults are not reason enough to strip it of its existence.