On The Sydney Sweeney Of It All
When even the pinnacle of Eurocentric, patriarchal beauty standards can't meet them, maybe it's time to ask some questions
This weekend, Sydney Sweeney went viral on X. Candid images of her, taken by paparazzi — presumably without her knowledge or consent — were widely shared. Thousands of men were horrified, shaken to their cores, over pictures of Sweeney looking… stunningly beautiful in a bikini.
Their main complaints accused Sweeney of being a "catfish," with one post saying, “All women are catfishes. The question is, to what degree.” It has over four thousand likes. Many comments labeled her as fat and ugly, dissecting every part of her body in the images. One user wrote, “Armpits are weird. 3/10.” Her humanness seemed to stump many of them. “Why does she have red marks all over her sides and stomach?” asked one man who has seemingly never laid on a sun lounger before.
It is her humanness that offends them. Sweeney has become the poster woman of Eurocentric beauty ideals, with many dubbing her the most beautiful woman in the world. Her advert with Dr. Squatch, although apparently ironic, delighted thousands of men who believe women should exist to please and serve them. Comments on the YouTube video range from, “Nah, the ‘Boing-oing’ sound effects with some purposeful yet tasteful bounce is exactly what the world needs,” to, “I’m a simple man. A hot blonde tells me to buy something, I buy it.” They love Sweeney when she appeases them—when she is marketed to them or playing a love interest they 'understand.’ Whether or not she leans into this is another topic. She has become a point of fascination for men, her body something they celebrate or critique. The only consistent factor is the misogyny.
The backlash against these images is a reminder of just how dehumanised women are amongst these swathes of men (I am not using the word incel intentionally because, although some of them may fall into that category, many do not). Even when you are their number-one darling, like Sweeney, you are not human. It is a stark reminder to the women who try to "win" patriarchy by touting misogyny or becoming a mouthpiece for patriarchal systems: yes, even you will not be granted a free pass. Yes, even you will still be a victim of misogyny.
Women are objects to discuss; bodies to zoom in on and critique; extensions of porn, whether or not consent is given. These men say they would or would not have sex with Sydney Sweeney, despite her never expressing any interest in them, never knowing their names, never even knowing they exist. Yet they still feel entitled to her body. There is no irony in their messages—they truly believe that, if they met Sydney Sweeney, it would be their choice whether or not to reject her. She has no agency in these imagined scenarios. And why would she? To them, women are not human. Women are not autonomous beings. Women are pictures on a screen, manipulated by AI or torn apart for having blemishes.
One X user compared an image of Sweeney on the red carpet to one of her relaxing, unaware of the cameras, writing: “This should be illegal. This is what causes misogyny.”
Many people have responded to these comments, asking these men if they are gay. While I understand the sentiment, there is more going on here than just a lack of sexual attraction. It is a lack of respect on a deep, integral level. There’s an extract from Marilyn Frye’s The Politics of Reality: Essays in Feminist Theory that always comes to mind during conversations like this:
“To say that straight men are heterosexual is only to say that they engage in sex (fucking exclusively with the other sex, i.e., women). All or almost all of that which pertains to love, most straight men reserve exclusively for other men. The people whom they admire, respect, adore, revere, honour, whom they imitate, idolise, and form profound attachments to, whom they are willing to teach and from whom they are willing to learn, and whose respect, admiration, recognition, honour, reverence and love they desire… those are, overwhelmingly, other men. In their relations with women, what passes for respect is kindness, generosity or paternalism; what passes for honour is removal to the pedestal. From women, they want devotion, service, and sex.”
As Frye writes, “all or almost all of that which pertains to love, most straight men reserve exclusively for other men.”
I totally agree with you, awesome essay. Patriarchy persists no matter the gender a man is attracted to. Trying to “dunk” on misogynists by calling them gay misses the mark. Like, what? Is misogyny okay or expected if it comes from the mouth of a gay man? Just because someone is not attracted to women, or a specific woman, does not give them license to belittle and degrade them. I also feel using “gay” as an insult (and let's be real -- that’s how it’s being used) is baiting a homophobic response. We gain nothing from this type of behavior. I’m going to recommend this video: Gen Z’s “Repackaged Bigotry” by Not Even Emily on YouTube. It goes into the plausible deniability of bigotry when using "neutral" words.