CALLY BROOKS: 'Sydney Sweeney's jeans ad isn't problem - obsession with tearing down women is'

Daily Mirror

3 days ago

Actress Sydney Sweeney's latest campaign with clothing brand American Eagle has faced backlash, sparking a debate about race, Western beauty standards, and "woke" culture
This week's internet outrage cycle landed squarely on Sydney Sweeney's shoulders - again. The 27-year-old actress, best known for her roles in The White Lotus, Euphoria and Anyone But You, is facing backlash over her latest collaboration with American Eagle.
‌
The campaign - since removed from the brand's social media - features Sweeney whispering into the camera: 'Genes are passed down from parents to offspring... My jeans are blue.' The narrator then concludes: ' Sydney Sweeney has great jeans.'
‌
Cue the uproar. Critics have called the ad everything from 'tone-deaf' to 'eugenics-adjacent.' Some claim it's sexualising women under the guise of supporting domestic violence awareness; a cause Sweeney has publicly championed.
‌
Others are saying the reaction itself is overblown - a symptom of a hyper-critical, 'triggered' internet culture.
But here's the thing: it's not that deep. The play on words - 'genes' vs 'jeans' - is just a clever marketing tactic. For years, Sweeney has been subjected to fans commenting on her appearance, from creepy Reddit forums to body shaming for her role as boxer Christy Martin in an upcoming film.
‌
We've officially hit a point where every creative choice by a public woman - especially one who dares to be successful and in-demand - becomes subject to outrage.
And while I don't deny that advertising deserves critique (especially when it's connected to social causes), I can't help but wonder if this isn't about the ad at all. I think this is about Sydney Sweeney.
People have been increasingly vocal about how many campaigns she's done recently - from Miu Miu to Armani Beauty, Ford to American Eagle.
‌
But in interviews, Sweeney has been open about growing up with financial insecurity, and the reality that even successful actors in Hollywood often struggle to sustain a lifestyle without steady work. Not every role pays millions.
Let's also address the elephant in the room - her body. Many critiques have focused not just on the language of the ad, but on the way the camera lingers on her figure.
‌
This is not a new conversation - it's the age-old question of who gets to be sexual, and who gets punished for it. It feels like society still hasn't figured out how to let women own their image without accusing them of inviting objectification - even when the proceeds of the campaign go entirely to a mental health crisis line.
Should brands think more carefully about how they align social causes with marketing? Of course. Should we have discussions about how women are portrayed in media? Always.
But we should also know when a discourse is being driven less by principle and more by the public's appetite for tearing down someone who is succeeding.
‌
The real issue here isn't a pun about "jeans". It's our cultural obsession with picking apart every move made by women in the spotlight, made worse by "cancel culture" on TikTok.
And the truly sad part is, it's largely other women tearing her down. Somewhere along the line, feminism became fractured by competitiveness.
Instead of celebrating a woman's success, we dissect it. Question her motives. Assume she's complicit in her own objectification. It's discouraging to see women help reinforce the same scrutiny and double standards we claim to be fighting.