Abstract
Inclusivity in the marketplace is often a site of ideological contestation. While there has been undeniable progress toward more diverse representation and visibility of a range of identities, genders, sexualities, and life trajectories in marketing (Campbell et al. 2025; Kachen et al. 2026), there is growing backlash against these efforts, driven by anti-DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) agendas and amplified by far-right and alt-right groups (Ginder and Johnson 2026). This has influenced a range of brands to take both subtle and overt stances that trivialize, undermine, or challenge ideas and practices related to DEI. Specifically, when it comes to gender equity we observe three possibilities: brands are (1) relying on antifeminist ideological signaling, (2) amplifying harmful ambassadors, and (3) leveraging antiwoke backlash. We argue that these actions by brands can be conceptualized as dimensions of brand misogyny.
We define “brand misogyny” as an ideological position whereby brands resist or push back against gender equity efforts, reinforcing harmful attitudes that uphold male dominance and evoke hostility, contempt, punishment, and control of women and girls. We demonstrate how brand misogyny reveals the ideological fault lines of inclusion/exclusion in the marketplace and we document its dimensions and indicators. Note that we are not denying the importance of marketplace inclusion as a core marketing principle; rather, we aim to highlight where ideological resistance and backlash may be working against it in order to prompt awareness and action (Hirschman 1993).
Conceptualizing Brand Misogyny
Brand misogyny is framed by what precedes it, a context hostile to gender equity, and by its antithesis, market inclusion. Accordingly, brand misogyny aligns with anti-gender-equity backlash in ways that (re)produce current power dynamics. It differs from representational tactics such as gender stereotyping, sexualization, and objectification, which reproduce sexism in marketing practice; from commodity feminism, which co-opts feminist language for profit; and from patriarchal marketing, which describes marketing that operates in accordance with a male-dominated power structure that produces the symbolic annihilation of women (Gurrieri 2021). Instead, we find that brand misogyny is underpinned by the following three dimensions.
Ideological Signaling
Brand misogyny relies on ideological signaling by selectively showcasing messages that reinforce the dominant order. Brands subtly or overtly employ antifeminist ideological signaling (e.g., supporting misogynistic or harmful ideas or rhetoric) that reinforces gendered hierarchies and hegemonic ideals. By amplifying messages that express contempt, hostility, and exclusion of women and/or girls, such campaigns may appeal to audiences aligned with harmful ideologies (e.g., framing women as submissive and to be controlled). This dimension of brand misogyny can normalize antifeminist perspectives that oppress, dominate, or exploit women.
Amplifying Harmful Ambassadors
Brand misogyny can also be expressed as supporting or endorsing harmful behaviors, policies, or individuals that are misogynists and/or perpetrators of violence against women. A key mechanism for this is brand ambassadors and endorsers who align with antifeminist worldviews, such as brands choosing to collaborate with celebrities who have a history of violence against women. Such branded actions frame women as objects and men as subjects, in turn promoting the degradation, humiliation, and punishment of women. This can also be interpreted as trying to appeal to men who seek dominance and subordination of women. These campaigns help “forgive” and normalize the lack of consequences for men for gender-based violence, offering cultural permission that normalizes gendered harms and market violence (McVey, Gurrieri, and Tyler 2025).
Leveraging Antiwoke Backlash
Finally, brand misogyny can operate by leveraging antiwoke backlash, with brands retracting or downplaying visible DEI commitments. Brand activism in the marketplace is seen as a positive pursuit, aiming at taking a public stance on sociopolitical issues with usually positive outcomes for brands (Vredenburg et al. 2020). However, some brands are withdrawing prior brand activism actions and allyship and, consequently, their support and endorsement of DEI policy designed to promote gender equity (Ginder and Johnson 2026). Brands’ antiwoke ideological positioning contributes to the dismissal, ridiculing, belittlement, and silencing of feminism and undermines prior advocacy and advances in gender equity by ideologically positioning women as inferior. Such tactics might appeal to audiences aligned with conservative or antiprogressive ideologies and contribute to the normalization of gender-based inequalities.
Based on these examples, in Table 1 we offer a summary of the dimensions and indicators of brand misogyny alongside examples of brand misogyny for contextualization.
Brand Misogyny Dimensions and Indicators.
Conclusion: Combatting Brand Misogyny
Naming brand misogyny and identifying its dimensions and indicators can help us understand barriers to inclusion—specifically, how marketing becomes ideologically aligned with anti-DEI agendas that undermine social progress, create resistance or backlash to change, and protect existing power structures. By demonstrating how brands can leverage harmful rhetoric through morally contested “culture wars” (Yannopolou and Daskalopoulou 2025), we foreground the importance of practitioners and scholars attending to exclusionary branded narratives in the marketplace that can (re)shape market perceptions of inclusion (Kipnis et al. 2021). On the one hand, brand misogyny might risk inciting consumer boycotts, association with harmful ideologies and movements, public backlash and condemnation, higher regulatory scrutiny, and long-term reputational damage. On the other hand, there is likewise the possibility that audiences may simply disengage from brand misogyny due to ideological alignment, apathy, or exhaustion, or because they experience such content as triggering.
To this end, policy actors can develop regulatory standards that enforce antidiscrimination rules and penalize brands that promote misogynistic or exclusionary content. Platforms can reduce the amplification of brand misogyny in content through algorithmic oversight that reduces its visibility and promotes accountability through clear governance standards and transparent content reporting pathways. Educators can equip students with the critical literacy skills to recognize and critique misogyny, anti-DEI agendas, and backlash dynamics. In addition, policies and institutional practices that promote gender equity (e.g., industry awards) can play a crucial role in both undermining and combatting brand misogyny (Zayer, Coleman, and Gurrieri 2023). Through introducing the concept of brand misogyny and by operationalizing its dimensions and indicators, we call on scholars and practitioners to recognize brand misogyny and further examine the implications of such gendered harms, hierarchies, and inequalities for brands, audiences, and society at large.
Footnotes
Joint Editors in Chief
Jeremy Kees and Beth Vallen
Special Issue Editors
Samantha N.N. Cross, Rebeca Perren, Eileen Fischer, and Anders Gustafsson
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data Availability
No data were created or analyzed for this article.