If an attractive black model or actress had made this commercial, nobody would be complaining. But because Sweeney is white and blonde, and because the American Left has lost its mind, a classic provocative blue-jeans ad (Remember Brooke Shields saying “Nothing gets between me and my Calvins”?) is being cited as proof that America is embracing Hitler’s Master Race narrative. Sure.
This warrants an Ethics Alarms “Bite Me!” if anything does.
Here’s MSNBC (of course): “The backlash has been swift and fierce, and some of it, at least, if you ask me, is fair. The internet has been quick to condemn the advertisement as noninclusive at best and as overtly promoting “white supremacy” and “Nazi propaganda” at worst. These critics point to the copy and the implication of calling a white person superior because of their genes.”
What utter garbage. The ad insn’t about white people, it’s about a particularly attractive individual white female sex symbol who is as unlike most whites as she is any blacks. Saying a commercial starring a single actress isn’t “inclusive” is like saying a production of “Mark Twain Tonight” isn’t inclusive. That complaint nicely encapsulates the idiocy and dishonesty of the whole DEI cult: thanks, progressives!
Here’s more MSNBC brain-poison: “The advertisement, the choice of Sweeney as the sole face in it and the internet’s reaction reflect an unbridled cultural shift toward whiteness, conservatism and capitalist exploitation. Sweeney is both a symptom and a participant.” There is no other way to read this other than as a demand that blonde, blue-eyed women can’t ever be chosen as the star of a commercial. To prove that it isn’t racially biased against non-whites, companies must treat whites as pariahs and inherent symbols of discrimination and fascism. White Lives Suck! It’s a simple-minded trap, but don’t bet on corporate American falling for it. White models and actresses are already under-represented in TV ads, with virtually every couple portrayed now being mixed race. That, however, is good discrimination, or so we are told.
The Washington Post’s analysis was only slightly less obnoxious than MSNBC’s. “The line about her having great jeans — several people are suggesting in the comments on Instagram and TikTok that this is a ‘pro-eugenics ad.’ Whether or not that’s the case, it is part of a wave of imagery of influencers, pop stars and musicians that feels tethered to the values of another time,” says Washington Post fashion critic Rachel Tashjian. “Whether or not that’s the case”????? Yeah, I’m sure American Eagle is promoting “the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable.” Are knee-jerk progressive hacks incapable of ever saying about their own, “You have to admit, this is ridiculous”? The answer is apparently “yes.”
The one inescapable conclusion other than the realization that the Left has jumped the Megalodon: American Eagle has produced a brilliant, effective ad campaign that has increased the visibility of its brand. That it is also is causing the Grievance Mob to freak out is a bonus. From some combination of nature and nurture, they have a sadly reduced intellectual capacity. Bias has made them stupid, but their genes haven’t done them any favors either.
Ethics Alarms 
Hmmm…I wonder how hard it would be for some “non-white” person to go to an American Eagle store and buy a pair of jeans, then go home, set up a camera-mounted tripod in a room with a chair and a mirror, put the jeans on and film the exact same ad…then post it to social media.
Clearly, it’s much harder than whining about Sydney Sweeney doing it.
I hope that AE and Sydney Sweeney show spine, and that the ad is not pulled.
There was a time that the advertising industry knew that controversy sells. Because the leftwing media is making a ruckus about this ad, people want to know what the ad is about, and will try to find it via YouTube. The right wing blogosphere (e.g. Matt Walsh) has a lot of attention for this now, providing free advertising to AE. This is not entirely but kind of similar to the Streisand effect, as negative criticism and attempts to cancellation leads to exactly the opposite result.
Racial minorities tend to be overrepresented in TV commercials. However white people buy stuff too. As whites still make up the majority of the American population, showing a commercial with a beautiful white women makes sense from a business point of view.
It is time that MSNBC gets on with the times, we are not in the Obama / Biden era anymore. As the elections in 2024 have shown, is that the majority of Americans are done with race based shaming. The time that when people and organizations when called out for racism evoked shame and soul searching may be coming to an end. Words like racist, fascist, Nazi, sexist, misogynist, bigot have been overused and have lost all their meaning and power to shame; these have just become expletives like e.g. “asshole” and “moron”.
During the Biden era the identity of minorities was celebrated, e.g. blacks and LGBTQ+ where told to have pride in their identity. Whites and men were shamed, and Western culture and USA history was disparaged.
After the Trump reelection the mood has shifted. Americans are more frank in expressing there pride to be American, and be part of Western culture. Man become more confident in their masculinity and women more confident in their femininity. And it is not a taboo anymore to say that it is OK to be white. And all the DEI mongers and race-baiters from the left, aren’t they racist themselves? It the backlash against the AE commercial not racist? Can MSNBC perhaps explain that?
Is the word “gene” not allowed anymore? Must scientists replace “gene” in “genetic/s” with something less associated with Hitler? Are the Genes and Eugenes of the world required to change their names? Do we erase Gene Kelly, Gene Barry, Gene Hackman and Gene Wilder? Was Eugene Orowitz ahead of his time by taking the name Michael Landon instead?
I’ve seen several people on X commenting on what I was already thinking. If this is the argument you’re making, then you’ve really lost the plot. Didn’t they just spend like 20 million to try and recruit young white men? Seems like a lot more Sydney Sweeneys and a lot less Olivia Julianna (Why did they hire this woman!?!?) would get the job done.
A local (Atlanta) talk radio station has an early evening segment hosted by a conservative black guy. His criticism of the ad was that he thought her butt was too flat. (I won’t be the one to make any assumptions about why HE, in particular, had that opinion 😉 ) Other than that, he too thought the uproar over it was nonsense.
Ha! I actually also noticed the emphasis on her butt, which is indeed flatter than the current vogue, and I LIKED that in particular because I infer that this is her natural, unenhanced butt!
For the same reason, I like seeing natural (unenhanced) breasts in ads, and natural faces as opposed to the currently fashionable duck lips and frozen foreheads….
So based on my own filters I interpreted the ad as affirming natural body shapes. Yes, genes provide some people with bodies that conform more closely to whatever is the current ideal for bodies (I was a teenager during the Twiggy era, and DEFINITELY didn’t don’t fit that ideal! But times have changed, and thunder thighs have become awesome quads, to my benefit!). This woman actually *doesn’t* fit the current ideal (achievable by Brazilian butt lifts or a good squat regime), and is beautiful nonetheless. So in that way, I think the ad DOES promote a kind of inclusivity.
Is it really safe to assume this chick’s spectacular rack is original equipment? I doubt it.
I found the reaction to this ad hilarious. Here’s a chick who’s won the boob lottery and has been Hosannah’d to the highest for same and absolutely nothing else. And all of a sudden, she’s unacceptable and an outrage?
The Bee saves the day…
https://babylonbee.com/news/american-eagle-apologizes-replaces-sydney-sweeney-with-fat-transgender-double-amputee-of-color
I was close.
“Is it really safe to assume this chick’s spectacular rack is original equipment?”
Clearly, more…um…research is needed…
PWS
My criticism of the ad is that they could have put her in nicer jeans that are not ripped and fit her well.
The ad might tempt a lesser man to convert to Hinduism and live an acceptable – though far less than admirable – life such that he would be reincarnated as that jean jacket.
But not me…
Not inclusive = anything less than a neuro-divergent, pansexual, morbidly obese, gen Z-er with self-diagnosed trauma, “time blindness”, and crushing student loan debt.
Meh. I see the ad as Brooke Shields 2.0.; except that Sydney Sweeney is actually of age.
I guess silly wordplay is lost on The Woke. This is leftist outrage looking for a cause, nothing more.
jvb
I think it’s perfectly clever wordplay in this context. I’m surprised the Smurf or the Blue Man Group didn’t think of it long agao.
Sweeney did another ad which seems to have been pulled, which gets more into the genes/jeans pun “my jeans are blue”. What do you think of this one?
They are cowards. Nothing wrong with that ad, at all. Shame on them. Corporate weenies is why we have these censors.
I thought this one was overly sexualized, but my standards of modesty are probably more strict than most.
Lefty has a problem with WHITE, they want…nay, demand that you have one, as well; to wit:
From the Just How Freakin’ Stupid Does Lefty Deem Their Target Audience files:
(bolds/caps/italics mine throughout)
Philadelphia Inquirer fashion writer Elizabeth Wellington’s observance of Melania Trump’s 2016 Republican Convention white outfit: “(Mrs. Trump’s EVIL WHITE dress was a) scary statement (conveying the subliminal message) that in the GOP, white is always right. (Mrs. Trump’s) all-white ensemble displayed the kind of foreignness that is accepted by her husband’s political party.”
Fast forward two (2) weeks:
Same paper, same…journalist (Wellington) on HRC’s choice of YOU GO GRRRL WHITE outfit for accepting the Democratic nomination:
“(W)hite is a hue that’s both soft and strong […] Clinton’s white pantsuit is telling us she has arrived. THIS IS SURREAL. THIS IS A DREAM COME TRUE.”
Media bias? There ain’t no STINKIN’ media bias.
PWS
Remember when many of the female Democrats in the House and Senate wore white to one of the SOTU addresses? I can’t remember the reason, but Lefty as a whole thought that was fine and symbolic of something noble.
Were it not for double standards…
PWS
Offended? Of course.
But, the WSJ says “Hold my kombucha!” and, of course, doesn’t allow any comments.
American Eagle’s Male-Geared Sydney Sweeney Ads Have Gen Z Women Scratching Their Heads
https://www.wsj.com/articles/american-eagles-male-geared-sydney-sweeney-ads-have-gen-z-women-scratching-their-heads-3c116d82?st=mAVMZ5&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Once again, the WSJ attempts to portray editorializing as reporting. And fails miserably.