WomensStuff

To start, I want to mention that I am trying to keep my post feminism related and not politics related. Sometimes it's hard to separate the two, but I know that there is a no politics rule, and I am trying to respect that while still having a discussion that is currently heavily steeped in politics, but just have it from a feminist perspective and not a political one. If this post either crosses the line, or does not fit here, please feel free to remove it. 

Below is a description of one of the ads. Some ads are different and in my opinion less pointed though also not great imho (the boob one), but I think this is the one that most people take the most issue with: The video pans up her body as she is laying down buttoning jeans while saying "Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality and even eye color. My jeans are blue." The ad ends with "Sydney Sweeney has great jeans."

Admittedly, if I saw this ad apropos of nothing, I would think it was incredibly tone deaf, but I don't think that I would take to the Internet about it. It's part of the discourse now, so I might as well.

My take in general is that women were and still are sexualized and I will not fault them for profiting off that, but this isn't just about her being attractive, it's explicitly referring to her genetic makeup and how great it is. At a time when women are being stripped of their rights (I think feminism is pro choice so I hope that's not coming across as political) and being told they have forgotten their place, talking about people in terms of their genetics feels like a dog whistle harkening back to a time and place where women were viewed as broodmares for men with "superior genes". Do I think she's a racist or is that AE is filled with racists? Potentially not, but I think this is an overall indicator of the current culture and its backlash against badly positivity and inclusivity.

I'm going to date myself, but I remember when aerie (a brand under American eagle) refused to photoshop its ads. This feels silly to type out and like something an anti feminist would make up to make fun of someone for, but I remember stopping and staring in front of one of their ads. I'd not seen someone with my features so naturally displayed in an ad before. It's making me tear up a little because I remember feeling like I could actually be seen as beautiful despite my "flaw". The girl in the ad was smiling and clearly just so pretty and I thought, if she can be then maybe I can too. It left such a huge impact on me. I won't get further into it, but I have a feeling that no one that looks like me will be featured in this ad campaign. I'm "conventionally attractive" and even I feel this way. If they had released a slew of ads at the same time with different people saying they have great jeans it maybe would be different (all blue jeans because imho it'd be a bad look to have people talk about black jeans though I've seen people suggest that), but this as a stand alone ad is not it.

I was hoping as a society we would be moving towards the whole "content of their character" thing, and to have a clothing ad tell us that personality is determined by genes, a thought that was used to suggest that certain races were culturally inferior, is honestly not where we should be. My feminism is intersectional, and this ad is certainly not. Any further part of this ad campaign, even if it were to include more diversity will be tainted by them having fanned the flames of racism in order to... sell more pants. It's frustrating to realize that they want us to be upset because it keeps them relevant. It feels like they would incite race riots if it'd increase sales and I think that makes them bad jeans.

I actually wear AE jeans and have since aerie didn't photoshop their ads. I will not be buying more. I don't want to support a brand that spends my money advertising like this, so I guess this is also a jean recommendation thread?

Thoughts on Sydney Sweeney in general: I obviously don't know her, and I want to stress that women should feel comfortable and confident in their bodies and with their sexuality, but ever since the selling soap with her bathwater in it stunt, I got bad vibes. This post is already pretty long, but imho selling her bathwater feeds into misogyny. It normalizes "gooner culture" in a way that's insulting to men (this idea that all men are sex crazed to the point of wanting to clean themselves with a woman's dirty bathwater), and degrading to women (this idea that a well known celebrity is willing to fulfill this desire to be so explicitly a sex object - not sex symbol sex object - makes it seem like a thing normal women should want or accept). I think sex work is real work, and people are individuals responsible for their own actions, but part of feminism is understanding where you are in the current hierarchy and using that position to uplift others and influence the culture. This does not seem to uplift men out of the "men are base sexual creatures" stereotype or uplift women out of the "here to serve your desires" stereotype. It's not her job to be feminist but she could use her job to be a vocal feminist and she has not done so, if anything she is working against feminist causes.