When you scroll through Matilda Djerf’s social media pages, you see a mishmash of country-esque fashion and chic girl-boss attire. She is the it girl of Scandinavian fashion, boasting three million Instagram followers who delight in her perfectly curled blonde locks and the glamourous and scenic places in which she poses. But the fashion designer, who founded the Swedish fashion brand, Djerf Avenue, has now been accused of bullying staff and creating a discriminatory work environment.
The brand, which made around $35 million in revenue last year, has been under fire in an investigation led by the Swedish news outlet Aftonbladet. The news outlet reported that current and previous employees have made allegations against its founder. The whistleblowers have said that they have been belittled and experienced fear at the hands of Matilda. Matilda has also been accused of making fatphobic comments. In a nutshell, things aren’t looking good for the 27-year-old who made it to the Forbes 30 under 30 list in 2023. Especially in an era of cancel culture.
In a response to the investigation Matilda said: “If an employee has felt mistreated or felt bad in their role because of my actions, it is something I am really sorry about and apologise for.”
Matilda added: “I do not recognise myself in all the claims that have been made and choose not to comment on individual cases.”
Whilst Derf has to some extent taken accountability for her actions by apologising it does not address the elephant in the room – whether the claims made against her are true. And her decision to not address this question would naturally rouse scepticism over her innocence. The use of the word “felt” might also indicate an attempt to gaslight the accusers. But their accounts paint a shockingly vivid picture of workplace bullying, which makes it difficult to believe that they could be susceptible to self-doubt or confusion.
A former employee, called “Anna”, said: “Every day there is a psychological terror going on in that office. It’s by far the worst workplace I’ve been to.”
A current employee, known as “Stina” described her experience of working there as “a daily occurrence of people being bullied.”
Another person, known as “Alexandra” elaborates on the effect the workplace has had on her wellbeing: “I’ve never been so afraid of a person in my entire life. She could scold you in front of the whole office,” said Alexandra.
Alexandra also said: “I’ve never been in a workplace where I’ve had a panic attack, but I got it the first time she scolded me. Afterwards, I just sat there and shook.”
As far as the claims go, Matilda is shown to be a toxic boss who carelessly berates her employees, which works as a force of intimidation and affects employee mental health. Whilst such claims present her in a horrific light, it does not suggest anything too unusual, insofar as a toxic personality goes. But another claim shows a more alarming side to her workplace persona.
An unnamed person who has spoken about their experience says that Matilda has a toilet which can only be used by herself or “her favourites.” They add that when the toilet’s “please do not use” sign fell down an employee was forced to clean the toilet because it was not used by the right person. It is suggested that it was not used by one of “her favourites.”
When discussing this subject, Stina said: “She doesn’t even want to go to the same toilet as us employees. We are not fellow human beings or colleagues for her.”
The idea of Matilda having a toilet in her workplace, which she forbids others from using could either imply that she is a germaphobe or a narcissist. It is possible that she is both, but given her insensitive and aggressive approach to employees, there is a stronger argument for the latter. Nevertheless, her prissy approach to using the loo could tie-in with a narcissistic mindset, in which her heightened sense of self-importance is communicated through her control over who uses the toilet.
Tellingly, the brand’s chief operating officer (COO) stands by Matilda’s sense of self-importance. Pernilla Bonny, COO at Djerf Avenue said: “Matilda has her own toilet, which is a measure we have introduced to help her stay healthy.” Bonny’s response suggests that if Matilda shares the toilet with others she may become ill. Such a concern implies that it is not just Matilda who feels self-important, but that a higher-up within the organisation also sees her as a kind of precious matriarch. Nevertheless, if it is true that the toilet can be used by “her favourites” then perhaps the concern surrounding her health is a fib, being used to hide her preferential treatment.
But beyond her behaviour in the workplace, it is important to consider her wider persona and the implications of her fashion brand, in order to get a better idea of what she is about. Like most influencers, Matilda’s social media presence is impeccable. Her stylish clothes and her decision to be pictured in serene and leafy outdoor environments as well as luxurious indoor buildings give a “I’m so much better than you but equally down-to-earth” sort of vibe. A bit like a socialite who is attempting to pull off the “very demure, very mindful” lifestyle.
Her strong social media presence paired with the success of her fashion brand, which reached its impressive revenue after only four years in business, makes Matilda seem like the archetypal girlboss. She has also spoken out about how she suffered from an eating disorder and how she used to self-harm. This makes her seem like the type of successful figure that many people can empathise with, rather than feel alienated by. Such an admission from an influencer might equally provide comfort to a proportion of her following who may have also experienced the same struggles.
So before the scandal, her public image did not suggest that she was a malicious person at all, but merely an influential businesswoman who had overcome some personal struggles. It sounds almost inspiring, doesn’t it? We tend to admire those who have gone through hardships but ultimately manage to pull through and live what seems to be at least, a fulfilling life. So considering this context alone, she would be to many, an influential female figure.
According to the lecturer Alexandra Solomon, who specialises in gender and gender roles at Northwestern University, the “girlboss” label has enabled women to exercise power and rise to a challenge, without isolating or threatening the people around them. But the allegations made against Matilda are contrary to Soloman’s take on what a girlboss represents. This not only suggests that she no longer upholds the values of the label, but also indicates that she has perhaps been an inauthentic girlboss. Interestingly, this idea of inauthenticity is also presented in her brand.
The brand website states that a “love for” the “perfect basics” forms part of the brand ethos. When scouring through its items, I see that a baggy white shirt costs £90 and a top described as a “[d]aily T-Shirt ribbed-white” costs £50. Do such items really live up to the expectation of “perfect” when they are both basic yet expensive? Surely, something basic should be reasonably priced. And if an item is pricy, it is not appropriate for “daily” use – at least for most of us. Now this is the interesting part, the brand describes itself as a “safe space” producing a fashion style that is “universally inclusive.” Clearly, the allegations indicate that the brand workplace is anything but a safe space.
The idea that it champions inclusivity is also laughable. Anna spoke about the prejudice she has seen against a plus-sized woman, whilst working at the brand. She said: “There were some employees who were plus size or another ethnicity that was used a lot in the company’s social media because it looked good. But it wasn’t genuine.” These claims suggest that diverse and plus-sized women were used as trophies which created a mask of inclusion, rather than a legitimate endorsement of it.
But Anna also discussed how a photoshoot panned out for one of the women. Anna said: “When the pictures were delivered, Matilda said that they had to be redone” because the fashion designer believed the woman looked too fat in the clothes. These claims suggest that Matilda saw plus-sized women as some kind of obstacle to a good fashion shoot, which goes against the inclusivity the brand claims to stand by. The brand’s false commitment to inclusivity and her annoyance towards the plus-sized woman imply that Matilda sees overweight women as a type of asset that is necessary for business but unappealing on a personal level. Such a viewpoint ultimately dehumanises plus-sized women. It’s giving shallow girlboss who fails to truly empower all women vibes. Undoubtedly, this shows a lack of feminist values. But it also gives an overwhelming sense of the “girlboss” label gone wrong. Because in this instance, it no longer mirrors Solomon’s take on what the label upholds.
However, Matilda’s further response to the allegations could indicate that she is open to personal growth, which might prevent her from reaching a full-blown moral decline. Matilda said that the Aftenbladet investigation “gives both [herself] and Djerf Avenue the opportunity to develop and become better.”
“I will work actively with my leadership and, among other things, continue to take support from a coach,” said Matilda.
So Matilda has indicated that she is willing to change her approach to dealing with colleagues and has to some extent taken accountability for her actions. Whilst this is promising, Matilda has still not addressed whether the allegations made against her are true, which shows that she is refusing to face up to the claims. The allegations, if true, would make her a significantly less inspiring figure from a feminist standpoint, as they indicate that she has misused her power to demean and mistreat other women. Similarly, it would also show that her brand has not adhered to its core values, which does not set the best example for an authentic “girlboss.”
