VIDEO: What's wrong with the Sydney Sweeney ad?

Walt was not far enough away from civilization (?) to avoid the controversy over this ad for American Eagle jeans. "Some people" (you know who I mean) are criticizing the ad for being "provocative", "divisive" and even... wait for it... "racist"! Well, let's have a look.

 

I'd say 1000s of real women are running down to their local clothing emporium, even as we speak, to buy a pair or three. And hundreds of thousands of real men are buying a pair (or three) for their significant others. 

Why not? Well, the wokesters at The Body Optimist will tell you why this ad offends them, in an article headed: "It's even racist!": Sydney Sweeney criticized for an ad deemed provocative", by Léa Michel (note the pretentious spelling of the name) posted today. No need to follow the link. Walt is going to turn on the bullshit meter and analyze the whole steaming load. The woke BS is in pink and my comments are in brackets.  

Now American Eagle's latest campaign featuring actress Sydney Sweeney has set social media ablaze. With the slogan "Sydney Sweeney has great jeans," the brand aimed for "a stylish homage to denim classics." Except the message wasn't received the same way by everyone. Accused of reviving sexist stereotypes and even flirting with racist codes, the ad campaign has sparked a lively debate about the boundaries between marketing provocation, gendered representation, and latent cultural racism. [Who "sparked" the debate? I didn't hear anyone complaining.]

In the most talked-about clip of recent days, Sydney Sweeney, who rose to fame in the series "Euphoria" and "The White Lotus," repairs a vintage car—a Mustang GT350—wearing a fitted tank top and skinny jeans from the brand. [The video above is not the offending clip. This is the hot one!]  

The whole thing is a mix of modernized pin-up aesthetics and a tribute to the codes of male auto mechanics. [See, for the wokesters, nothing offensive is ever said directly. You have to know the "code" to get the sexist, racist, yada yada message.] She is then seen wiping her hands on her jeans before getting into the vehicle. The slogan, in turn, refers to the cut of the jeans and, according to the brand, the "confidence each person can have when wearing them." 

What could have been a slightly retro and sexy campaign quickly drew the ire of several internet users. Some people saw it as an "anti-woke" or even supremacist message. Others denounced the staging as reducing a woman to her appearance, in a pose that flirts with the most persistent clichés of 1990s marketing. [Some people saw it like that? Were they looking through pink- or mauve-coloured glasses?]

A gendered and racial reading of the message The phrase "superb jeans" has been accused of playing on a double meaning: jeans (pants) and genes (genetics). A potentially problematic pun, according to critics, who point out that in English, the pronunciation is identical (jeans / genes). 

[Wait. It gets worse.] On the X network (formerly Twitter), some voices saw in this choice an allusion to the supposed "purity" of the actress's origins - young, white, blonde, thin - often elevated to a Western aesthetic fantasy. [You bet! I've been trying for years to construct a real fantasy out of a fake reality.]

Criticism also focuses on the actress's posture, her sexualization, and the fact that the campaign once again exploits a hyper-standardized image of femininity: a slim body, a soft gaze, suggested but controlled sexuality, all in a setting that recalls the appropriation of a so-called masculine universe (mechanics) to divert it for aesthetic purposes. An approach deemed dated by some commentators, who denounce a vision still largely dominated by the male gaze. [That's a lot. Pass me the barf bag.]

Faced with the controversy, American Eagle quickly took to its Instagram account to speak out. Refusing to apologize [Good on `em!], the brand insists that the slogan refers only to jeans, the ones worn by the actress, and in no way to anything else. It writes: "The slogan 'Sydney Sweeney has great jeans' is and always will be about jeans. Her jeans. Her story." 

She [sic] also says she wants to "continue to celebrate the way each person wears their AE jeans with confidence, in their own way," emphasizing a desire for inclusivity. [Oops, got some weasel words in there, at the last minute.] The brand therefore seems to be taking ownership of its approach, focusing on a visually strong editorial line, even if it means shaking things up. [Shaking what things up? Do they mean the woke narrative that anything that appeals to men and their "toxic masculinit" is baaddd?]

Notably, the White House itself intervened. Steven Cheung, the presidential communications director, posted a message on X declaring: "Cancel culture has no limits. Liberal ideology is twisted, stupid, and blocked, which is a big reason why Americans voted the way they did in 2024." [Right on, Steven!]

This unexpected support, in particularly virulent language, reinforced the idea that this campaign is now being co-opted in an ultra-polarized political climate, both in the United States and elsewhere. [Co-opted by whom? Steven Cheung is a Chinese-American. Is he working for the white supremacists? LOL]

The fact that American Eagle's stock jumped nearly 10% [Forget the jeans. Buy the stock.] after the campaign aired is no coincidence: commercial provocation still pays off, especially in a context of growing rejection of political correctness in certain circles. [Are you in the same circle as Walt?!]

[Last words to the woke.] Ultimately, this campaign highlights a growing tension in contemporary society: how can we speak to the greatest number of people, in an era saturated with images, without offending? Should we please or disturb in order to sell? And at what cost? 

The Sydney Sweeney case also illustrates the tension between female injunctions to emancipation and those that continue to sell a standardized, desirable, and performative femininity. By choosing a renowned pop icon with an image that was both glamorous and accessible, American Eagle knew it wasn't speaking into a vacuum. However, the reception shows how diverse, sometimes contradictory, and deeply politicized contemporary interpretations are. [Last word to Walt: If these ads are divisive, it's only because "certain people" want them to be so, as the culture wars continue.]

Pragmatism trumps progressivism in Ontario election

Ed. here. Walt has sent us this report from somewhere north of the longer of America's undefended borders. 

As Ed. told you yesterday, the politics of the Canadian province4 of Ontario has been dominated for most of the post-WWII 20th century by a party with the oxymoronical name of "Progressive Conservative". A 42-year dynasty began just three days after Walt was born, ending only in June of 1985. 

The Liberals had their longest run from 2003 until 2018, when the government of proudly lesbian Kathleen Wynne was defeated by a political novice named Doug Ford, the little big [hardly! Ed.] brother of former Toronto mayor Rob Ford. The Liberals finished third, losing official party status. 

The question to be answered in yesterday's provincial election was: could Doug Ford, in spite of struggles with a faltering economy and the Covid "crisis", hang onto power? Here's the answer.

The "Ontario PCs" (the monker preferred by Mr Ford) won a second majority government, with twice as many seats as all the other parties combined! But wait, there's more.... The crushing victory forced the resignation of the leaders of the parties of the left and more-left. The Greens' Mike Schreiner held onto his own seat, and his position as "leader" of a party of one.

Andrea Horwath, leader of the socialistic "New" Democratic Party, was re-elected, but is stepping down as leader despite the party regaining Official Opposition status. Liberal Leader Steven Del Duca failed to regain the Vaughan-Woodbridge riding, and announced his immediate retirement. Although the Liberals won one (1) more seat than last time, they didn't meet the threshold for official party status in the Onterio legislature.

So what happened to the "progressive" parties who were touted by the lickspittle media as likely to reduce the Ford "Conservatives" to a minority? Goodness knows they pulled out all the stops in their efforts to bribe Ontario taxpayers with their own  money.

The Liberals, who occupy a place on the political spectrum roughly equivalent to that of the American Dumbocrats, offered a lengthy shopping list, free of any concern about cost, because of course the rich would pay "their fair share", and "efficiencies" would make up any shortfall. Their promises included: 

- a "buck-a-ride" for mass transit anywhere in the million-square-km province

- billions for "affordable" housing (especially for Indigenous people, to make reparations for the misdeeds of the evil colonizers)

- more billions for "assisted-living" and "social and community" housing (like council flats in the UK or "projects" in the USA)

- and still more for elder care, home care and hospital care.

But wait (as Vince Offer used to say), there's even more! Rent controls for anyone not covered by all the new housing; cheaper food; cheaper gasoline; cheaper daycare; new and better schools; a "dementia care" network to help people like Sleepy Joe Biden (if he moves to Canada after his long overdue retirement); more nurses, more surgeries, more mental health workers; more money for seniors, a possible four-day work week and "living wage" for all. All this would be paid for by, errr, someone else.

The NDP offered similar slices of pie in the sky, while saying that they thought of it first, and that they were the only party with a chance of defeating the "Conservatives". (Ms Horwath didn't specify the odds of that happening, which were about 100-1.)

For his part, Doug Ford, simply promised to get things done:

- build a new superhighway to make it easier to go around rather than through Toronto (a pretty good idea!)

- train more future workers, particularly skilled tradesmen [tradespersons? Ed.]

- make it easier for educated immigrants (with degrees) to practise their professions (there are enough "refugee" Uber drivers already)

- build more hospitals and expand the capacity of the province's health-care system.

The beauty of the PC plan -- if you could call "more of the same" a plan -- was that it consists primarily of things that are already budgeted for and in progress. Mr Ford promised no radical changes in policy or priorities. That's not who he is. He's uninterested in policy, and certainly not ideology. He's a politician of the "extreme centre", a middle-of-the-road guy, the epitome of pragmatism. And that, it seems, is exactly what the people of Ontario want.

There are lessons for both liberals and conservatives in Mr Ford's crushing of the leftist ideologues. Canada's federal Liberals and their NDP hangers-on should learn that large numbers of voters are fed up with ideology-driven tax-and-spend policies that benefit every minority and pressure group in sight, but not the silent majority who (along with their children and grandchildren) must pay the bills.

There are implications for the federal Conservatives too, as they search for a new leader. The current front-runner is Pierre Poilievre, who holds himself out as a real conservative, although "social conservatives" snort when they hear that. Mr Poilievre is the attack dog type, snarling and going for the throats of the feckless liberals, not a folksy retail politician like Doug Ford. 

If Canadian Conservatives are interested in beating the Trudeau Liberals, rather than just scoring debating points, they might look again at Jean Charest, l'homme d'hier. He's the type who would appeal to the mushy middle, and those are the people who gave Mr Ford two massive victories in a row, the second even greater than the first. 

The trouble is that if M Charest were to become prime minister, the people of Canada would be only marginally better off than they are now, through not having endure any more Trudeau virtue-signalling. What should you do if you're a conservative Canuck? Is a dilemma....

Quote of the day: "The premier’s guiding philosophy of Ford Nation combines populist rhetoric and conservative principles. It’s a concoction of lower taxes, reducing government interference, supporting individual rights and freedoms — and giving more power back to the people. These are ideas that many Ontarians, both conservative and non-conservative in ideology, strongly believe in and support." Michael Taube, in the National Post, 3/6/22.

Further reading: "Lessons from the Ontario election", by Warren Kinsella, Toronto Sun, 3/6/22. Subhead: Doug Ford won -- and won for his party and team -- because he is a HOAG: A Hell Of A Guy.

40 Republicans call on POTUS to remove "gay protection" from USMCA

Negotiations to rewrite the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), dragged on for well over a year before culminating this fall in a new US-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement (USMCA). The problem was the insistence of Canada's progressive, feminist Prime Minister Just In Trudeau, that any new agreement be a model of liberal ideology, putting social justice and the progressive agenda ahead of business and prosperity.

Mr Socks sent his lead negotiator, a former journalist named Chrystia Freeland, to the meetings with a shopping list of "non-negotiable demands" including new policies on climate change, gender equity, indigenous rights and other issues largely irrelevant to free trade, including (of course) measures to advance the liberal pro-queer agenda and protect "gay rights".

The USA and Mexico finally tired of being nagged about these non-issues and concluded an agreement on their own. See "Payback for the Lady in Red - Trump set to stick it to Canada", WWW 28/8/18.

Faced with the prospect of being cut loose, the Canucks caved on a couple of the real issues -- the auto sector and supply management in their dairy industry -- and the new USMCA (aka NAFTA v2) was hastily signed. Cue sighs of relief in Ottawa and a certain amount of behind-the-hand snickering in Washington and Mexico City.

As a sop to the Canadian snowflakes, the new agreement includes a pledge that all three countries will support "policies that protect workers against employment discrimination on the basis of sex, including with regard to pregnancy, sexual harassment, sexual orientation, gender identity." Now that they've gotten around to reading the fine print, dozens of Republican lawmakers have noticed this clause and, on Friday, pronounced themselves unhappy with it.

According to POLITICO, 40 conservative congresspeople [Ed., is that what we're supposed to call them now?] have signed their names to a letter to President Trump urging him not to sign the agreement unless that language is removed.

Among the signatories are House Freedom Caucus chairman Mark Meadows, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) and Rep. Diane Black (R-TN), a member of the Ways and Means Committee. The coalition said the United States "has the right to decide when, whether and how to tackle issues of civil rights, protected classes and workplace rights" as a sovereign nation.

"A trade agreement is no place for the adoption of social policy," the letter continues. "It is especially inappropriate and insulting to our sovereignty to needlessly submit to social policies which the United States Congress has so far explicitly refused to accept."

Another signatory, Republican Doug Lamborn, has expressed concern congressional approval for USMCA could set a precedent “for activist courts” and he said in a statement Friday that Trump needed to remove the “troubling language … adopted behind the scenes.”

Before it can be put into effect, the new deal must be approved by Congress, but Friday's letter suggests POTUS could lose some Republican support for the agreement unless changes are made. In an interview with POLITICO, Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) referred to "troubling language...adopoted behind the scenes" and said "This is language that is going to cause a lot of people to reconsider their support of the trade agreement, and to the point that it may endanger the passage of the trade agreement unless something is done."

Walt agrees completely. The mere suggestion that America should base its labour and related policies on the liberal model lwhich is failing spectatularly in Sweden, the United Kingdom and, yes, Canada is nothing short of ridiculous. Let Americans -- and only Americans -- decide how to run the US of A. If Canada (and Mexico) want to play in the American league, they're going to have to play by American league rules!

Further reading (and viewing): "CBC stunned by American prof's criticism of Chrystia Freeland", WWW 9/9/18. Includes video.

VIDEO: Jordan Peterson: "What could possibly go wrong?"

Dr Jordan Peterson, "the only extant right-wing psychologist" (his own little joke on himself) answers a question posed by a Canadian student following his address to the Oxford Union in June of 2018. To Canadian Prime Minister Just In Trudeau and other well-meaning liberals, he poses the question: Have you considered the possibility that your well-meaning intervention might have unforeseen negative consequences? Under 7 minutes and well worth every second.