Sydney Sweeney / American Eagle Controversy

[Anonymous]

Am I the only one who doesn't get why this is controversial? I took it as "Sydney Sweeney is an attractive woman and talented actress, she must have great genes." The message would've been the same if they'd used a famous/beautiful Black, Asian, or Hispanic woman: X is good looking and a good athlete/model/actress/whatever, she has great genes. I wouldn't have thought this was a racial thing. But maybe I am missing something?



https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/articles/american-eagle-sparks-backlash-touting-180036853.html

[Anonymous]

If you don't think there's a serious judgment lapse with an ad campaign extolling the "great genes" of a blonde haired blue eyed white woman and literally no one else, I'm not sure what to tell you. There are political figures sieg heiling on stage at political conventions, now is not the time to pretend we've never heard of Nazis.

Sure if they had done it about different women or a lot of random beautiful women it would read differently. Because there wouldn't be a history of violent eugenics behind the message.

[Anonymous]

It feels like a pushback to the body positivity/body inclusivity movement we've been on. It feels like a throwback to the toxic hyper-sexualization of one type of beauty ideal of the 90s/early 2000s.

If you really wanted to extoll someone with "great genes," putting some GOAT athletes in the campaign would be more fitting.

[Anonymous]

I think the rise of the right wing and the associated racism and anti-Semitism and nativism is a serious threat to this nation.

But I don't see this commercial as connected in any way to that threat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you don't think there's a serious judgment lapse with an ad campaign extolling the "great genes" of a blonde haired blue eyed white woman and literally no one else, I'm not sure what to tell you. There are political figures sieg heiling on stage at political conventions, now is not the time to pretend we've never heard of Nazis.

Sure if they had done it about different women or a lot of random beautiful women it would read differently. Because there wouldn't be a history of violent eugenics behind the message.

That's a great point. I think the ad would've been much better with a bunch of different women - maybe all 'model' types or even better, women with 'great genes' for a variety of reasons (athlete, scientist, humanitarian, etc.) Thanks for your response.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It feels like a pushback to the body positivity/body inclusivity movement we've been on. It feels like a throwback to the toxic hyper-sexualization of one type of beauty ideal of the 90s/early 2000s.

If you really wanted to extoll someone with "great genes," putting some GOAT athletes in the campaign would be more fitting.

Yeah, at least show different kinds of great genes.

[Anonymous]

Hopefully this controversy dies a quick death. I think we all have bigger problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you don't think there's a serious judgment lapse with an ad campaign extolling the "great genes" of a blonde haired blue eyed white woman and literally no one else, I'm not sure what to tell you. There are political figures sieg heiling on stage at political conventions, now is not the time to pretend we've never heard of Nazis.

Sure if they had done it about different women or a lot of random beautiful women it would read differently. Because there wouldn't be a history of violent eugenics behind the message.

Did you know that lots of Jews have blue eyes??

Saying blue eyes are pretty doesn’t mean brown eyes are not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you don't think there's a serious judgment lapse with an ad campaign extolling the "great genes" of a blonde haired blue eyed white woman and literally no one else, I'm not sure what to tell you. There are political figures sieg heiling on stage at political conventions, now is not the time to pretend we've never heard of Nazis.

Sure if they had done it about different women or a lot of random beautiful women it would read differently. Because there wouldn't be a history of violent eugenics behind the message.

Nazis or no nazis, most people prefer blonde hair and blue eyes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don't think there's a serious judgment lapse with an ad campaign extolling the "great genes" of a blonde haired blue eyed white woman and literally no one else, I'm not sure what to tell you. There are political figures sieg heiling on stage at political conventions, now is not the time to pretend we've never heard of Nazis.

Sure if they had done it about different women or a lot of random beautiful women it would read differently. Because there wouldn't be a history of violent eugenics behind the message.

Did you know that lots of Jews have blue eyes??

Saying blue eyes are pretty doesn’t mean brown eyes are not.

The problem is that everyone is so sensitive these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It feels like a pushback to the body positivity/body inclusivity movement we've been on. It feels like a throwback to the toxic hyper-sexualization of one type of beauty ideal of the 90s/early 2000s.

If you really wanted to extoll someone with "great genes," putting some GOAT athletes in the campaign would be more fitting.

Yeah, at least show different kinds of great genes.

lol if that was done the woke mob would also scream that it was eugenics on the black body.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you don't think there's a serious judgment lapse with an ad campaign extolling the "great genes" of a blonde haired blue eyed white woman and literally no one else, I'm not sure what to tell you. There are political figures sieg heiling on stage at political conventions, now is not the time to pretend we've never heard of Nazis.

Sure if they had done it about different women or a lot of random beautiful women it would read differently. Because there wouldn't be a history of violent eugenics behind the message.

Ok, so if I say that one person has great genes, that means no one else does? The ad didn't say "Sydney Sweeney has the best genes".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don't think there's a serious judgment lapse with an ad campaign extolling the "great genes" of a blonde haired blue eyed white woman and literally no one else, I'm not sure what to tell you. There are political figures sieg heiling on stage at political conventions, now is not the time to pretend we've never heard of Nazis.

Sure if they had done it about different women or a lot of random beautiful women it would read differently. Because there wouldn't be a history of violent eugenics behind the message.

Ok, so if I say that one person has great genes, that means no one else does? The ad didn't say "Sydney Sweeney has the best genes".

LOL your argument is that an ad campaign that literally has the words "Sydney Sweeney has great genes, oops jeans" in it and which was created to promote the new American Eagle Sydney jean actually is pushing the subtext that everyone has great genes and Sydney Sweeney's are not the best around?

Very persuasive. Much logic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you don't think there's a serious judgment lapse with an ad campaign extolling the "great genes" of a blonde haired blue eyed white woman and literally no one else, I'm not sure what to tell you. There are political figures sieg heiling on stage at political conventions, now is not the time to pretend we've never heard of Nazis.

Sure if they had done it about different women or a lot of random beautiful women it would read differently. Because there wouldn't be a history of violent eugenics behind the message.

NP. It’s almost as if progressives want to alienate literally every voter except the extreme left. This is a delusional take.

[Anonymous]

Feels like a throwback to the 70s with a weird eugenics flex.