Why gender sensitivity cannot be a side category in communication

The advertising industry acknowledges gender sensitivity, but mostly as a side category.

There is growing recognition today that gender matters in the way we communicate. Awards, industry forums and institutions have all begun to acknowledge this, often by creating special categories under DEI or social impact.

That is a welcome step. But it also raises a basic question: Why is gender sensitivity still treated as something separate from “regular” communication? And why is that a problem?

Because the truth is, it is not the so-called “gender-themed” campaigns that shape our thinking the most.

It is the everyday, mainstream communication, the ads we see again and again, the stories we consume without really thinking, that quietly build our ideas of gender.

Anyone who watches advertising in India knows this.

Take a very familiar image. Men are discussing investments or technology, or making decisions. A woman is present in the frame, but in the background, cutting vegetables, serving tea, or simply being there. The ad is not “about gender.” But it is saying something about it anyway.

And because this is so common, we stop noticing it. Which is precisely why it matters.

This is where the current approach of many awards falls short. Whether it is the Screenwriters Association (SWA) or the Abby Awards, gender sensitivity tends to be recognised through special mentions or placed under broader DEI categories. Important, yes. But it also creates a divide, between what is seen as “mainstream excellence” and what is seen as “socially conscious work.”

This separation allows mainstream advertising to escape scrutiny, even when it reinforces the very stereotypes the industry claims to challenge.

But why should that divide exist?

If an ad is creative, high-impact, widely seen, but quietly or openly reinforces stereotypes, can we still call it excellent?

On the other hand, think of the Franklin Templeton ad that challenges the idea that women are not good with financial advice. It does not lecture. It does not position itself as a “cause.” It is engaging, even humorous. And yet, it stays with you. Should it not be recognised for gender sensitivity, even if it does not tick every conventional box?

That is how norms shift, not always through loud messaging, but through what feels normal.

This is the lens that the Laadli Media Awards have consistently brought in. Instead of isolating gender as a theme, Laadli looks at all communication and asks a simple question:
What is this saying about gender, stereotypes and power equations, even if that is not the intention?

Because meaning is not only in what is said.
It is also in what is shown.
And often, in what is casually taken for granted.

This does not mean we should do away with special awards for gender sensitivity. They are needed. They spotlight important work.

But they are not enough.

What is needed is a shift in how we judge excellence itself.

Gender sensitivity has to be part of the core criteria, given as much weight as creativity or impact. And importantly, work that gets this right should be able to win the top awards. Because the ads that get the maximum visibility are also the ones that shape society the most.

If we are not questioning what they are reinforcing, we are missing the point.

Mainstreaming gender sensitivity is not about adding one more category.
It is about changing how we look at communication, across the board.

We need to keep asking ourselves: What are our most popular ads quietly telling us about women, and are we okay with that?