ehhh honestly this is still a bit misogynistic of a take, for me. The choice for Sydney is probably a lot closer to “accept sexualization as a part of your brand, or blacklisted/replaced from your own career”. They would have always found another girl to sell her sex for them, if not her. There would have always been some woman for you to be mad at here, even though it’s really because of the creeps in Hollywood, the crux of the problem, a systemic issue which the author apparently feels “goes without saying”. Which is odd because isn’t that what the whole piece should be about, instead of some prudish issue with a fucking SOAP. yawn
I see what you are saying that the industry will further itself anyway replacing any woman for branding and to sell sex. But this actually further supports Morgan's point of how impersonal the contemporary brand of "accepting sexualization and profiting as irony" because the vehicle: the participant or who it is actually doesn't really matter. The impact of this branding is simultaneously widespread enough that it affect more than that participating individual. Misogyny is the problem, and anyone including woman, can be a participant. so YES "there could always be some woman for you to be mad at here". And I agree, it is a systemic issue and creeps in Hollywood create this problem too.
I don't find it misogynistic at all that someone cares for the community of women so much that they will actually write about it to hold individuals accountable in what may be dangerous to all women. if everyone did as you to just yawn about an objectifying advertisement for soap and names calling it out as "prudish", I fear we will continuously miss the point of its impact on everyone including the most vulnerable and less protected. it is not a playful, embracing or voyeuristic expression of sexuality, it's rehearsed ad and for a weirdo audience
Fair point, I don’t really get how a celebrity having an [im]personal brand relates to the point, I read it as more of a diss on Sweeney’s choice to do the ad in the first place. But y’all are right : she’s just as much an active participant in it as she is a victim of this exploitation, because she’s rich and white and could have easily chosen to not do this. I guess i just find it strange to put all the responsibility of fighting misogyny on women whose lives are actively entrenched in it, and then think incels don’t even warrant mentioning. Trust me THEY DO.
If y’all can stomach it there’s a great book called Men Who Hate Women, the author went undercover on incel forums to expose how they talk to each other and it shows how it goes so much deeper and widespread than we think
But stuff like this is perpetuating and enabling the creeps that’s the point !! If women just stopped, the creeps would not be fed this stuff and would move on.
but the creeps can also choose to stop buying this all on their own… women aren’t forcing you to sexualize them or consume their stuff, merely by existing. Now you’re really ticking me off, because you are literally saying that women shouldn’t get in the way of men’s journey to empathy, without putting any pressure on men to STOP SUPPORTING THUS STUFF! Do you realize you are literally parroting the exact conservative “stumbling block” logic that tells girls not to dress/act a certain way, because that encourages bad male behavior. In other words, the most prudish and anti-feminist argument there is, that has existed for hundreds of years.
I’m sorry but I disagree with ‘women aren’t forcing you to sexualise them’ if they’re acting the way this girl is … how can men not sexualise her if she’s literally putting her body out there to be sexualised by hundreds of men? It’s not quite a ‘talent’ to be taken seriously is it?
If a man did the same thing he is also sexualising himself - that’s very simple to understand.
It's not even original as belle delphine already did it all, and without collaborating with a soap company 🤭 there's an angle of "they're going to objectify her anyway, she might as well get the bag" but essentially we need to still demand and expect a higher standard from men. And if she embraces it, then they're going to think it's okay.
I feel like this is lowkey giving “I’m having my cake and eating it too” in a way. Like she talks about how she finds it dehumanizing when men sexualize her but also creates things/portrays things for the male gaze.
i feel like women who do things like this believe that(aside from getting that coin) men cannot change, and don’t factor in that they’re also perpetuating the stereotypes women have fought so hard against.
god i was just looking for an article about how onlyfans and the like aren’t “empowering” or “reclaiming sexuality” bc sexuality still doesn’t belong to women who do it :( this was such a good read morgan
I’m actuaclly VERY disappointed in her. Never saw her as this type of woman, who would lower her morals for easy money. And is just like you said: these women that profit off their body images make the world more dangerous for the rest of us, bc it creates this idea that all women like being hyper sexualized by strange man (uck).
I think this can go even deeper into marketing for men for these (formerly in the case of Dr. Squatch) internet companies. Where the entire point is to make the message 'If you don't use our product you are a child', and funnily enough it was used as a bit in it's early start up days. The issue is that between cross promotional with Star Wars and the Monster Verse (Godzilla, King Kong, etc) you run back into the issues you've had before which is pandering to a crowd via marketing without having a decent product to back you up.
Let's not forget about the old GoDaddy Superbowl commercials where they said that a famous female personality (celebrity or actress) was going to have their nudes on the site to drive traffic to the site.
I'm not saying that Sydney Sweeney isn't at fault and if it wasn't her it would be another similar popularity celebrity (Sabrina Carpenter or an OF model) to do it so the hate should be pushed towards to middle aged white dudes that footed the bill for the campaign (and will probably foot the bill for the 'false-advertising' when people realize that there isn't actually any actual 'bath-water' in the product. Because let's face it, people are freaks).
This isn't meant to take away from your article, I do agree with this take whole-heartedly. But, I figured I'd give a deeper look into the darker side of 'male marketing' which can be a dark hole to go down.
“they don’t realize that they are making the world more dangerous for us, the women who walk on the streets with no security or paparazzi. i don’t care that they are “getting their bag” or “embracing their sexuality” by profiting off of misogyny” — so well said!!
Something about what you wrote just feels so off. You say Sydney is hurting women, but yet you writing an article..... bashing women? At the end of the day, the incels are winning here. Can't we just take this more light-hearted? So the woman is doing something funny selling her 'bathwater' in soap! It's funny & sexy. Lord nothing is funny and sexy anymore
Okay BUT! Policing women’s sexuality in the name of feminism can become a subtle form of patriarchy in disguise.
Some might even argue that by leaning into the absurdity, like selling bathwater, teasing incels, etc, she is holding up a mirror to the culture itself.
is Sydney Sweeney endorsing misogyny, or mocking it?
But also. we expect too much ideological responsibility from women in the spotlight. Sweeney is an actress, not a politician or activist. Should she be a role model? Maybe. But it’s also fair to say that a young woman playing with sex appeal is not what’s making streets unsafe. Misogyny is. Incels are. Systems are.
The tension between sexual empowerment and social consequence is real, but feminism should avoid turning into another mechanism for telling women how to behave. Lastly, I can say that I also agree with everything you said. You said it well! Ahh, nuance. I hate holding the tension of opposing viewpoints but it’s how I was built.
I would argue that mocking misogyny without overtly rejecting it and then choosing to capitalise off that is not necessarily doing anything great for feminism as a whole. There’s no point policing women’s sexuality but we can certainly acknowledge when the boundary between expression and exploitation has been crossed.
Though I will say I am a fan of Sydney Sweeney, I think your title is genius! I don’t know if this was intentional, but it’s kind of like a spin-off of the popular TikTok song, Mad At Disney
Usually enjoy your writing but this feels like slut shaming and condemning other women as the cause of misogyny not forces of patriarchy & capitalism. This is misogyny dressed up as feminism pure & simple.
I think blaming the women instead of the thousands of misogynist men who are objectifying them is falling into the trope of pitting women against each other. It reminds me of women blaming other women when they are cat called because of the “revealing” clothing they were wearing. I understand and sympathize with the feeling that certain women are regressing the women’s lib movement because of their choices, but this rhetoric doesn’t help either!
I get what you’re saying but I think this ad is very obviously tongue-in-cheek. It’s mocking people saying they wanted her bath water and it’s a joke. She’s making some money, teasing men, and doing it with a wink. I reallllllllllly don’t think her selling her bath water soap is going to lead to violence in the street against women. Obviously, violence against women is horrible but it was happening before Sydney Sweeney made bath water soap.
Sexiness in advertising and sex work will always happen. Porn is going to keep happening. I would rather women be owning the means of production with OF rather than some guy who owns a porn studio.
honestly sick of the "men will sexualize us anyway so might as well profit off of it" mentality
me too!!!!!
ehhh honestly this is still a bit misogynistic of a take, for me. The choice for Sydney is probably a lot closer to “accept sexualization as a part of your brand, or blacklisted/replaced from your own career”. They would have always found another girl to sell her sex for them, if not her. There would have always been some woman for you to be mad at here, even though it’s really because of the creeps in Hollywood, the crux of the problem, a systemic issue which the author apparently feels “goes without saying”. Which is odd because isn’t that what the whole piece should be about, instead of some prudish issue with a fucking SOAP. yawn
I see what you are saying that the industry will further itself anyway replacing any woman for branding and to sell sex. But this actually further supports Morgan's point of how impersonal the contemporary brand of "accepting sexualization and profiting as irony" because the vehicle: the participant or who it is actually doesn't really matter. The impact of this branding is simultaneously widespread enough that it affect more than that participating individual. Misogyny is the problem, and anyone including woman, can be a participant. so YES "there could always be some woman for you to be mad at here". And I agree, it is a systemic issue and creeps in Hollywood create this problem too.
I don't find it misogynistic at all that someone cares for the community of women so much that they will actually write about it to hold individuals accountable in what may be dangerous to all women. if everyone did as you to just yawn about an objectifying advertisement for soap and names calling it out as "prudish", I fear we will continuously miss the point of its impact on everyone including the most vulnerable and less protected. it is not a playful, embracing or voyeuristic expression of sexuality, it's rehearsed ad and for a weirdo audience
Great read, Morgan💌!
Fair point, I don’t really get how a celebrity having an [im]personal brand relates to the point, I read it as more of a diss on Sweeney’s choice to do the ad in the first place. But y’all are right : she’s just as much an active participant in it as she is a victim of this exploitation, because she’s rich and white and could have easily chosen to not do this. I guess i just find it strange to put all the responsibility of fighting misogyny on women whose lives are actively entrenched in it, and then think incels don’t even warrant mentioning. Trust me THEY DO.
If y’all can stomach it there’s a great book called Men Who Hate Women, the author went undercover on incel forums to expose how they talk to each other and it shows how it goes so much deeper and widespread than we think
omg, new book rec!! I’ll look on it thanks💌
But stuff like this is perpetuating and enabling the creeps that’s the point !! If women just stopped, the creeps would not be fed this stuff and would move on.
but the creeps can also choose to stop buying this all on their own… women aren’t forcing you to sexualize them or consume their stuff, merely by existing. Now you’re really ticking me off, because you are literally saying that women shouldn’t get in the way of men’s journey to empathy, without putting any pressure on men to STOP SUPPORTING THUS STUFF! Do you realize you are literally parroting the exact conservative “stumbling block” logic that tells girls not to dress/act a certain way, because that encourages bad male behavior. In other words, the most prudish and anti-feminist argument there is, that has existed for hundreds of years.
I’m sorry but I disagree with ‘women aren’t forcing you to sexualise them’ if they’re acting the way this girl is … how can men not sexualise her if she’s literally putting her body out there to be sexualised by hundreds of men? It’s not quite a ‘talent’ to be taken seriously is it?
If a man did the same thing he is also sexualising himself - that’s very simple to understand.
It’s completely missing the point isn’t it.
It's not even original as belle delphine already did it all, and without collaborating with a soap company 🤭 there's an angle of "they're going to objectify her anyway, she might as well get the bag" but essentially we need to still demand and expect a higher standard from men. And if she embraces it, then they're going to think it's okay.
exactly
I feel like this is lowkey giving “I’m having my cake and eating it too” in a way. Like she talks about how she finds it dehumanizing when men sexualize her but also creates things/portrays things for the male gaze.
absolutely
i feel like women who do things like this believe that(aside from getting that coin) men cannot change, and don’t factor in that they’re also perpetuating the stereotypes women have fought so hard against.
sooooo good. i'm so tired. so tired
god i was just looking for an article about how onlyfans and the like aren’t “empowering” or “reclaiming sexuality” bc sexuality still doesn’t belong to women who do it :( this was such a good read morgan
I’m actuaclly VERY disappointed in her. Never saw her as this type of woman, who would lower her morals for easy money. And is just like you said: these women that profit off their body images make the world more dangerous for the rest of us, bc it creates this idea that all women like being hyper sexualized by strange man (uck).
I think this can go even deeper into marketing for men for these (formerly in the case of Dr. Squatch) internet companies. Where the entire point is to make the message 'If you don't use our product you are a child', and funnily enough it was used as a bit in it's early start up days. The issue is that between cross promotional with Star Wars and the Monster Verse (Godzilla, King Kong, etc) you run back into the issues you've had before which is pandering to a crowd via marketing without having a decent product to back you up.
Let's not forget about the old GoDaddy Superbowl commercials where they said that a famous female personality (celebrity or actress) was going to have their nudes on the site to drive traffic to the site.
I'm not saying that Sydney Sweeney isn't at fault and if it wasn't her it would be another similar popularity celebrity (Sabrina Carpenter or an OF model) to do it so the hate should be pushed towards to middle aged white dudes that footed the bill for the campaign (and will probably foot the bill for the 'false-advertising' when people realize that there isn't actually any actual 'bath-water' in the product. Because let's face it, people are freaks).
This isn't meant to take away from your article, I do agree with this take whole-heartedly. But, I figured I'd give a deeper look into the darker side of 'male marketing' which can be a dark hole to go down.
“they don’t realize that they are making the world more dangerous for us, the women who walk on the streets with no security or paparazzi. i don’t care that they are “getting their bag” or “embracing their sexuality” by profiting off of misogyny” — so well said!!
Well said. I found your argument fascinating and grounded...
Something about what you wrote just feels so off. You say Sydney is hurting women, but yet you writing an article..... bashing women? At the end of the day, the incels are winning here. Can't we just take this more light-hearted? So the woman is doing something funny selling her 'bathwater' in soap! It's funny & sexy. Lord nothing is funny and sexy anymore
Okay BUT! Policing women’s sexuality in the name of feminism can become a subtle form of patriarchy in disguise.
Some might even argue that by leaning into the absurdity, like selling bathwater, teasing incels, etc, she is holding up a mirror to the culture itself.
is Sydney Sweeney endorsing misogyny, or mocking it?
But also. we expect too much ideological responsibility from women in the spotlight. Sweeney is an actress, not a politician or activist. Should she be a role model? Maybe. But it’s also fair to say that a young woman playing with sex appeal is not what’s making streets unsafe. Misogyny is. Incels are. Systems are.
The tension between sexual empowerment and social consequence is real, but feminism should avoid turning into another mechanism for telling women how to behave. Lastly, I can say that I also agree with everything you said. You said it well! Ahh, nuance. I hate holding the tension of opposing viewpoints but it’s how I was built.
I would argue that mocking misogyny without overtly rejecting it and then choosing to capitalise off that is not necessarily doing anything great for feminism as a whole. There’s no point policing women’s sexuality but we can certainly acknowledge when the boundary between expression and exploitation has been crossed.
Though I will say I am a fan of Sydney Sweeney, I think your title is genius! I don’t know if this was intentional, but it’s kind of like a spin-off of the popular TikTok song, Mad At Disney
hahah thank you! i’m not familiar with that
Usually enjoy your writing but this feels like slut shaming and condemning other women as the cause of misogyny not forces of patriarchy & capitalism. This is misogyny dressed up as feminism pure & simple.
I think blaming the women instead of the thousands of misogynist men who are objectifying them is falling into the trope of pitting women against each other. It reminds me of women blaming other women when they are cat called because of the “revealing” clothing they were wearing. I understand and sympathize with the feeling that certain women are regressing the women’s lib movement because of their choices, but this rhetoric doesn’t help either!
I get what you’re saying but I think this ad is very obviously tongue-in-cheek. It’s mocking people saying they wanted her bath water and it’s a joke. She’s making some money, teasing men, and doing it with a wink. I reallllllllllly don’t think her selling her bath water soap is going to lead to violence in the street against women. Obviously, violence against women is horrible but it was happening before Sydney Sweeney made bath water soap.
Sexiness in advertising and sex work will always happen. Porn is going to keep happening. I would rather women be owning the means of production with OF rather than some guy who owns a porn studio.
It’s okay to relax, tease people, and make money.