Female Supremacy In Media And Advertising

September 21st, 2012

You’ve come a long way, baby, as the saying goes. Where it comes to advertising, We certainly have. Once relegated to oohing and aahing over new appliances or pouring our men cups of coffee in June Cleaver regalia, now Women are presented as powerful and dominant forces of sexual magnetism and Feminine coercion. Below are some excellent examples of the essence of Female Supremacy portrayed in fashion and advertising today which have broken away from typical gender constructions in past media trends.

16 Responses to Female Supremacy In Media And Advertising

  1. kneeling_nothing says:

    Thanks for this impressive collection! It is great to see that the idea of Female Supremacy is getting more and more successful in commercials: it means that the average psychology, at least in the western countries, is MORE than just accepting the view of Powerful Women dominating docile men. Such an idea is believed to attract potential customers, so it is assumed to ignite hidden desires in the huge mass. Moreover, i am always glad when the “main stream” world discovers Femdom, for two reasons:
    1) as long as Femdom is a practice good enough for Domina studios and secret fantasies, our society would not get any closer to gynarchy; such commercials shows we are ALREADY moving in that direction, and suggest that the future will be a society ruled mainly, or exclusively, by Women
    2) to depict Female Supremacy as a matter of goofy women wearing rubber masks, fake whips (which they can’t even use properly) and fetish cloths is a caricature in my view (i am not playing down the power of fetishes, i hope you/You see what i mean). Commercials describe (or suggest) the Power of wonderful, elegant, charming Women, who enslave men with their aura, their scent, their mind and their irresistible appeal.

  2. nanshakh says:

    “…now Women are presented as powerful and dominant forces of sexual magnetism and Feminine coercion.”
    Naturally, it’s an unstoppable, irreversible evolution.
    Fashion is all about the glorification of Women’s beauty, and it has always been so. Both from the Female and male point of view, actually. And it’s a fact that Women are never as beautiful as when they are arrogant, imperious, claiming insolently the supremacy granted by their Femininity.
    So no matter what, this was an ineluctable evolution.
    The point is, Women and men alike are addicted to Women’s beauty. Even in the most backward patriarchal recesses of this Goddess forsaken small planet, males can’t help being addicted to Feminine beauty. And no wonder: even for the most frustrated misogynists, Woman is the Origin, the reason and the finality of life.
    Quite significantly, all monotheist religions have always seen the Woman as their worst enemy. The patriarchs and their simple minded followers’ first and foremost concern has always been to defile Feminine beauty, and since that’s not very practical in the long run -especially when they are all born of Women- to cover it up, hide it, contain it. But, nothing doing…
    The beauty of Woman is a time bomb. No social, political, religious power could ever restrain or destroy it. It was planted by nature to make sure that, no matter what, Woman’s triumph is ineluctable.
    Lovely selection actually :-))

  3. Joe says:

    It’s good to see an increased recognition of Female Supremacy in mainstream media 😀
    The degree of how pro-Femdom some of these are actually quite surprises me. Take the Levi’s advert for example. Instead of just showing the dominant position of the Woman, it also shows it in the subtext as well, through the way the males are colourless, bland, and have most of their faces covered, whereas the Woman is vibrant, colourful and beautiful, just as it should be. The same goes for the one with the Woman sitting on the man’s back. His face is also covered, which of course is coupled with his lowly position in the photo to show how worthless and unimportant he is when compared to the Woman who uses him as Her chair

  4. Steven says:

    Female power is now often eroticized is mainstream pop culture. I believe the effect this has on men is mostly beneficial for women since it conditions the male brain to associate female empowerment with sexual arousal. The effects this has doesn’t stop in the bedroom but reaches into the workplace and politics too. I’ve known other men that get turned on by having female bosses, it’s not just me.
    However, I wonder about the negative effect some of this can have on some women’s self-esteem? All the powerful women portrayed in these ads and in most pop culture are portrayed as being very attractive. A woman who does not think she is attractive may also have greater feelings of powerlessness. It may also lead to the wrong message that dominance is more about body than mind.
    But kudos to these ads since at least the men are very attractive too. In television I often see an imbalance where the man is ugly and the woman is attractive. My favorite is the one with the woman in lusty red stockings walking the naked men as dogs. Very arousing.

  5. pilate says:

    Advertising certainly has changed over the years, reflecting (and sometimes shaping) norms and beliefs. It’s wonderful to see Women presented as powerful and dominant in recent ads. But we must give credit to the ad campaign that started it all back in the 1960’s — Virginia Slims. Those ads turned society’s view of the “traditional Woman” on its head. The campaign featured gorgeous, independent, confident Women in take-charge roles. I loved the funny vignettes contrasting Women’s plight from the past and today’s liberated Woman (with her long cigarette in hand). Men were often portrayed as hapless buffoons who were getting left in the dust. 🙂
    I’m certainly not an advocate for smoking, but did I ever love those ads (and saved a large collection of them)! I sincerely believe they shaped my fascination for Female Supremacy.
    You’ve come a long way, baby … indeed.

  6. Ethan James says:

    i would second Nanshakh’s thoughts. i would also add that fashion / advertising tends to both reflect current trends and point the way towards new ones. From that point of view it seems obvious that Female Supremacist / Female Dominant imagery would abound. I have seen the same things happening in popular music videos. Also one only has to watch so many beautiful Women walking down the street in stiletto heeled boots to see just how pervasive these trends are becoming. The adverts are playful to be sure but they also tap into Women’s increasing power/dominance in society and males deep rooted desire to submit to it.

  7. Jeff says:

    I believe there is definitely a trend going here. Even more traditional advertizing tend to change the “smart” person from a guy to a girl.
    Many commercials have shown that the expert can indeed be a woman! I love the commercials that shows the oaff of a man trying to figure something out and the woman comes into to save the day by showing her knowledge proving that she is superior. It’s obvious that Madison Avenue understands that women are understanding that they want to be in a dominate position. and that it sells.
    Another video ad, that was featured in Goddess’es blog was the “power to the V”. Again, causing a pardigm shift into women being trophies to women being the cause of death of males.
    Goddess, can you guide us in how to leverage this for Your holy purpose? Should we, as your devotees, show our support to these companies by giving them our patronage? Should we have a letter campaign encouraging them in their ads?
    Lastly, is there a tumbler that are holding these femdom ads?

  8. nanshakh says:

    @Steven
    “However, I wonder about the negative effect some of this can have on some women’s self-esteem? All the powerful women portrayed in these ads and in most pop culture are portrayed as being very attractive. A woman who does not think she is attractive may also have greater feelings of powerlessness.”
    I am not sure I feel quite the same about those adds. These are fashion adds, so basically they cater to Women’s needs, concerns and expectations about their beauty. The world of fashion exists by providing to Women all they can think would help them to be beautiful. It would be pretty difficult to sell to them any product by associating it with ordinary looking Women, not to mention fully plain ones. No Women is going to spend money in clothes, shoes, cosmetics, accessories, jewels, to feel ordinary.
    Two essential conscious components of Women’s individuality is that they are beautiful, and they are unique. That Women are beautiful is a fact. Doesn’t mean that all Women are beautiful. Rather, the Female of the species is beautiful. It’s not a democratic law, it’s not as if each Woman is entitled to be beautiful, it’s not as if it’s unfair that not all Women are beautiful. Nature is little concerned about being fair. Ideally, all individuals in the species strive to correspond to the criteria that define the species. Beauty is a criterion, among others. Not all specimen of the species correspond to that criterion. But the most representative specimen of the species is the one that will best embody all the defining criteria of the species.
    As a species, tigers are large, powerful, strong and extremely lethal predators at the top of the food chain. There are a lot of tigers, some are more or less fit and healthy and powerful. If an Alien from outer-space was asking you to show him a tiger, you would preferably try to find one of the most representative tigers, an “ideal” tiger. Something like the tiger equivalent of a Greek god.
    The point is, beauty means exactly that: the criteria that define the most “classic”, fittest, genetically perfect specimen of the species. If you take 100 tigers, one will be the most beautiful specimen, and another will be the less beautiful. And there’ll be a whole range of more or less ordinary tigers in between.
    And there we are, beauty is a criterion. Adds that sell to Women’s need to be good looking are going to use an archetype of The beautiful Woman, as universal as it may be. Nothing wrong with that. Except that, it’s a fact that fashion is primarily intent on making Women feel bad. But not as Steven says, to make those Women who do not think they are beautiful feel bad, feel they don’t belong to that pool of fashion Goddesses, so they should feel less self assured at being dominant.
    No no no. The fashion industry, including these adds, is determined at making ALL Women feel bad. Absolutely all of them without exception. It’s a curse. None of them can be allowed to escape it.
    Fashion is about selling beauty. A whole range of things, the most expensive things actually, that are supposed to be an inclusive package: buy that package, and you’ll be beautiful, don’t buy it and then… well are you really sure you have it all from birth and you can do without the fashion package? are you sure you measure up to those photoshop enhanced dream Goddesses? So the point is not to reassure the prospective customers, but rather to convince them they fall significantly short of the required criteria for being a beauty, But(!) that they might have some potential, and that thanks to fashion, high technology and cosmetics, if only they are willing to spend the right amount of money buying the right fashion, and services, and treatments, then they will become real beauties. And more significantly, it will help them hide those abominations that disfigure them, and that the most enchanting Female of the species can’t help seeing plainly whenever She’s looking at Herself in a mirror.
    Fashion is about making Girls and Women feel insecure about their looks, feel envious about how beautiful they might look, and feel bad about how they actually look naturally. Fashion is purely evil and sadistic ;-)) Everything in the world of fashion is about displaying unrealistically beautiful Women, (supposedly beautiful), so as to sell products to Women who strive to identify with that image.
    The problem with fashion, is that it is often about mediocrity. Not mediocrity of Women, mediocrity of the fashion industry. Fashion is not only all set on a standard of beauty, which in a way is understandable as it makes for universal communication, but it pretends to impose a standard that is depressingly insane. It is not much based on Feminine beauty, but on the mediocrity of most fashion designers.
    The point is, there was once a time when fashion was about making dresses for Women, but that required outstanding talents. Because Women have shapes, and very subtle and intricately profiled shapes, and to taylor garments that will look good on such shapes, and will make the shapes look even better, is really not accessible to everybody. So as fashion became an industry targeted at the masses, it resorted, understandingly, at rather reseting the standard so that mediocrity fits it, instead of keeping a high standard that would oblige mediocre designers to raise up their abilities to actually taylor clothes that would fit the shapes of real Women. In one word, models are not chosen because they are beautiful Women, but rather to be used as coat hangers. It’s not too difficult to cut out any piece of garment, to put in on a hanger, and to marvel at how much it fits well.
    When I look at these adds, I do not agree that the adds are so much about all the models looking beautiful. Some are, some are not so extraordinary, and most are a little stereotyped. But the photos are very skilfully made and enhanced. The settings, the looks, the accessories, the lightings, the concepts, a lot of work went into these photos. They reflect anything except reality. And they don’t pretend to, which is fine. In fact, the whole setting of each photo is made to look artificial, including the models, male or females. So it shouldn’t be seen as specifically directed at making some Women feel inadequate, it makes everyone feel inadequate. Even an exceptionally tall and anorexic fashion model doesn’t even look like that, and doesn’t look like what She would eventually look on a photo after going through such treatment.
    All this to say that I don’t think these photos are sending a message that only beautiful Women can be dominant. That used to be the complacent message usually carried out by fashion: Look stunning, and you’ll wrap males around Your finger. It was a rather diminutive message, a somehow misogynist one. As if Women could only strive at being beautiful.
    Here, instead, the message is about Women who don’t bother to wrap males around their finger. They trample them.
    What makes it different in those adds, is that Women are prevailing, they are setting their foot on males, holding them on a leash, parading them as dogs, using them as furniture. The real message is about Femininity, prevailing upon masculinity because of inherent Feminine qualities, not just good looks. Of course it remains fashion adds, so it’s all about Feminine beauty and looks, and eroticism, but that is a given in any fashion add. But not only, by far. Here Women are shown as being wholly Feminine in their attitudes, rather than just beautiful. They look young, candid even, almost fragile at times, and yet, they are omnipotent, males are at their feet, vanquished, subdued, leashed, almost changed into stone.
    Women here are shown as triumphing and ruling the males because it is already in the natural order of things. Males are mesmerised, put down, by the very nature of Women. It is their original place to be vanquished by Femininity. It does not require an effort on the part of the Women. This is not the finality of this fashion, these adds do not sell it as a tool to dominate males. On the contrary, fashion here is used to show that Women are already on top of males.
    Typical is the way males are made to be just a mass, a pack, they are wiped out of any individuality, they are just raw material. One constant in the attitude of the Women here is their obvious indifference for the males. De facto, the males are already so enslaved and insignificant that these Girls would not even bother to be disdainful toward them.
    These Women are vainglorious, selfish, they are concerned with themselves, with their looks. And they are ok with that. They claim their privilege to be just that. Most importantly, the message they send is intended for other Women. The males are just part of the scenery. Like in, there are always males everywhere, and they are always down there, all over the place. Mere accessories. Like pebbles on the beach, why pay attention? This is actually what is specifically dominant in these adds, these Women are obviously dressed up for themselves, and for the Women who are looking at them. Males are at their feet, their place, period. Why bother for them? No, these very assertive, determined, conquering young Ladies are putting an extra effort to look good, but only for themselves, and to provoke the admiration and recognition of their Sisters looking at the adds, certainly not to seduce those slaves. Because they are slaves, obviously. All the symbols are there. Not of domination, but servitude. And why bother for slaves?
    Here the message is beyond the old, traditional, Femme Fatale message. The Femme fatale who is so arrogant, but who is also sulphurous, imprisoned in Her character like a geisha, all devoted to vamp males. Take the male out, and the Femme fatale doesn’t exist. These Women are not Femme fatales, males are already vanquished actually. (Except maybe for the Yves Saint Laurent add?). In the Voodoo series, the Woman is taking Her naked slaves out on a leash, in other Voodoo adds (not shown here), She is walking them in a park, obviously like dogs. It’s not for them that She’s all elegantly dressed up, right? She’s paying attention to look good for Herself, and for other Women. Not for Her dogs.
    So there is the significant change and evolution apparent in those adds. They don’t say: “look the Femme Fatale and males will be at Your feet.” They say the exact contrary actually: “Dress up for Yourself, for Your own pleasure, Your freedom to feel how good, how unique, special, on top, in charge, and totally independent You are. As for males, who cares? You are a Woman, wherever You’ll go, You’ll walk on them.
    There I see a real Female supremacist message. And a rather subtle one in a way 🙂

  9. NASCAR67 says:

    The standard of “handsome” for men today scares the shit of out me and my wife. Hair gel, hairspray, fake tans, and fake muscles:
    http://youtu.be/SDeWJqKx3Y0?t=4s
    Who told these guys this is good?

  10. Julie says:

    Nice Ads 🙂

  11. Saharah Eve says:

    Nascar67,
    Fret not; it IS a phase! LOL

  12. Steven says:

    @nanshakh
    I read your analysis and have to say it is very agreeable.

  13. nanshakh says:

    @steven
    Thank you Steven 🙂

  14. feminist says:

    LOVE THESE ADS!! THANKS GODDESS!!

  15. Pedamore says:

    Thanks for posting this inspiring collection of ad images!
    I enjoyed reading Nanshakh’s perceptive and eloquent analysis of 25 September, and agree with him.
    My small contribution, and reason for posting, relates to the Yves St Laurent image, which Nanshakh points out differs markedly from the others.
    To me it references Marilyn Monroe in ‘Diamonds Are a Girl’s Best Friend’, and especially Madonna in the ‘Material Girl’ video, which was a knowing pastiche of Monroe’s performance a generation earlier. A key point of this iconography is that these strong women exploit their doting male adorers for what they can take from them.
    It’s remarkable also how the men in the YSL ad are almost identical clones, hinting strongly at their commoditisation: “Mere accessories. Like pebbles on the beach, why pay attention?” to quote Nanshakh above.

  16. Rika says:

    While I applaud the increase in the imagery of powerful women in advertising, I feel saddened that “easy route” of the stereotypical imagery is still being used to portray this power. Corseted women (read: uncomfortable) with riding crops, women who trod on a man underfoot, men viewed as furniture – these are so used and dated images that play to the male-fantasy of the dominant woman. Speaking as a dominant woman and author on female dominance, this imagery is actually counter-productive to the establishment of actual female-led relationships – as they provide artificial definitions of what it means to serve a woman. I don’t know how many women can’t wait to lie down on three men – when there is a perfectly comfortable couch to sit on while your husband does the dishes!
    I’m not knocking the ads…I do enjoy them and they’re a step in the right direction…and they’re supposed to be over the top and fantastical. It’s just that, before declaring success, recognize that we’re getting tricked by the ‘mainstreaming’ of the same old stereotypes – instead of really attacking the issue of what a serving a woman, with reality-based needs, wants, and desires, entails.
    – Rika.

leave a comment