I noticed a lovely ad the other day. A workplace giving flexibility, so you can manage your responsibilities and your work at the same time.
Before you read further, be honest with yourself. When you read that first line, was the character in your head male or female?
If you said male, applause. Somewhere, an ad brief did its job.
If you thought female, well, correct. The ad showcased a woman, not in those exact words, but along those exact lines. And here’s the thing, it was beautiful. The work thinks about her. It’s considerate enough to give her the time to manage both aspects of her life.
What stayed with me was that I’d seen another ad from the same brand. A man was the hero this time. I don’t remember the messaging, but I remember the tone. Adrenaline. Action. Fuel your passion. Feel alive. Ambition, momentum, going further in life.
Same brand. Two people. Two completely different value systems handed to them, and neither one asked for it.
What Is Progressive Sexism in Advertising
There’s a term for what I’m circling here, and marketers should know it well before their next brief goes into production: progressive sexism. It describes advertising that looks like it’s championing a gender, usually women, while quietly reinforcing the exact stereotype it appears to be challenging. The ad never says women belong in the domestic lane. It just keeps casting women into that lane, dressed up as empowerment, so the stereotype gets a rebrand instead of a retirement.
The closest formally studied concept to this is benevolent sexism, a term introduced by psychologists Peter Glick and Susan Fiske in 1996 as one half of their ambivalent sexism theory. Their research splits sexism into two forms: hostile sexism, which is openly negative, and benevolent sexism, which reads as warm, protective, even complimentary, while still locking women into a narrower, subordinate role. Flexibility framed as a gift given to women so they can “manage it all” is a clean example. It sounds considerate. It also quietly assumes she’s the one who needs managing to do in the first place.
Advertising has its own related term for the marketing-specific version of this: femvertising, where brands sell empowerment as a message rather than build it into the actual portrayal. Femvertising can be genuine. It can also be a surface layer, an aesthetic of progress with the same old casting decisions underneath it.
The reason progressive sexism is worth naming specifically, separate from benevolent sexism or femvertising, is the mechanism. It isn’t just a compliment that limits. It’s a full emotional register, ambition here, nurturing there, assigned by gender and repeated so often across categories and campaigns that audiences stop registering it as a choice at all. It just becomes the shape a “relatable” ad is supposed to take.
The Ariel Example: A Familiar Frame, Finally Named
Mum in the laundry room. Mum at the stove, checking the pot while glancing at her phone. Mum wiping a toddler’s face while dad, if he’s in frame at all, is on the couch, unbothered. It’s such a familiar shot that most of us stopped noticing it was a shot.
This exact scene became famous enough for a brand to build an entire award-winning campaign around dismantling it. Ariel’s Share the Load campaign centred on a father watching his daughter juggle a full-time job and a full household while her husband relaxes and waits to be served dinner. The twist wasn’t the daughter. It was the father, realising mid-ad that he’d handed down a pattern he never meant to pass on.
That campaign worked precisely because it named the frame instead of just repeating it. That’s the whole difference between advertising that reinforces progressive sexism and advertising that interrupts it. One shows the pattern as normal. The other shows the pattern as a choice someone made, which means it’s a choice someone can unmake.
What the Data Says: India, Australia, and the Global Default
The research backs up what your eyes are telling you. Globally, most ads still default to traditional roles for both genders, and the gap between the two is razor thin, not because women have caught up, but because men are just as boxed in. Men get boxed into the provider-hero. Women get boxed into the nurturer-juggler. Neither box is a compliment. Both are a leash.
India and Australia both show up in the Unstereotype Alliance’s most recent findings as markets where the picture is a little more layered than the global default. Indian advertising has higher than average diversity in male body size and is more likely to show men in non-traditional roles compared with the global norm, suggesting at least one side of this equation is starting to loosen. Australian advertising scores well above the global average on disability representation, four percent of ads versus one percent globally, which shows inclusion can move meaningfully on one dimension while gender roles stay exactly where they’ve always been on another. Progress isn’t one dial. It’s several, and they rarely move together.
There’s also a business case sitting underneath the ethical one. Research from Oxford’s Saïd Business School, done with the Unstereotype Alliance, found that ads scoring higher on progressive, non-stereotyped portrayals actually predict stronger short-term sales likelihood and long-term brand equity. Which means the old script isn’t even the commercially safe choice anymore. It’s just the lazy one.
The Other Half of the Story: What Advertising Sells Men
Here’s the part that gets left out when this conversation turns into a women’s issue, and it shouldn’t be left out, because it’s really the other half of the exact same mechanism.
While women are being cast as the ones who nurture, men are being cast as the ones who conquer. Ambition. Adrenaline. Physical dominance. Stoicism dressed up as strength. Researchers have a term for the exaggerated version of this: hypermasculinity, first defined in a 1984 study and since studied extensively in advertising content, describing an ideal built around toughness as emotional control, danger as exciting, and callousness as confidence. One widely cited analysis of men’s magazine advertising found that more than half the ads studied contained at least one hypermasculine belief, and in some publications aimed at younger or lower-income men, that number climbed above ninety percent.
The visual masculinity ads sell is rarely a real life. It’s a highlight reel with the emotional register stripped out, and the research on precarious manhood, the idea that masculinity functions as a status that has to be constantly earned and can be lost, shows this isn’t a neutral aesthetic choice. It’s pressure, applied at scale, on an audience that advertising also actively discourages from admitting it’s under pressure.
So while women are being praised for capacity they were never asked if they wanted, men are being sold a standard of ambition and control they can’t actually sustain either. Both audiences end up misjudging their own worth against a script neither of them wrote.
Why This Is a Marketing Problem, Not Just a Social One
It would be easy to file all of this under social commentary and move on. I’d push back on that instinct, and here’s the marketing case for why.
Every brief that casts a role by gender by default is making a targeting decision, whether the team meant to or not. That decision shapes who feels seen by the brand, who feels excluded by it, and increasingly, who feels quietly worn down by it. Consumer research already shows audiences reward brands that get this right and penalise the ones that don’t, which means representation has moved from a values question to a performance metric.
We’re also marketing into an unusually fast-moving cultural moment. Attitudes about gender, ambition, and domestic labour are shifting quickly and unevenly across markets, which means the casting shorthand that felt safe a few campaign cycles ago may already read as tone-deaf to a chunk of the audience it’s meant to land with. Sensitivity here isn’t a soft skill anymore. It’s a briefing requirement, the same way a media plan or a budget is.
The ask isn’t complicated. Stop defaulting to a gendered casting choice out of habit and start asking whether the brief actually requires it. Let ambition-led messaging include the people who also nurture. Let nurturing-led messaging include the people who also build something for themselves. Test the casting the way you’d test any other creative variable, because at this point, that’s exactly what it is.
Society already applies enough pressure on both these fronts. The least advertising can do is stop being an uncredited co-writer on a script that was supposed to have been retired a long time ago.
Leave a Reply