The Real Problem with the Sydney Sweeney Outrage

American Eagle has officially moved on from the Sydney Sweeney backlash. NFL star Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs (yes, Taylor Swift’s boyfriend) is now headlining the brand’s latest campaign. The Sydney Sweeney ad outrage? Already fading into the background. But before we all pretend it never happened, maybe it’s time we stop chasing easy villains — and actually reflect. Because the problem was never really the ad. It’s us.

A few weeks ago, I broke down the whole Sydney Sweeney “great genes” situation — and why the outrage made zero sense to me. In that first piece, I talked about how the reaction — calling it “eugenics” or even “Nazi propaganda” — felt way too extreme. I explained what eugenics actually is, where the term comes from, and why calling a jeans ad something that serious doesn’t make much sense.

But the more I saw people talking about it online, the more something else started to bother me.

The outrage felt over-the-top. But it also felt kind of fake — or at least very selective. Because the truth is, the kinds of thinking people say they’re against in that ad? They show up in regular life all the time. And nobody seems to care as much.

That’s why I’m writing this second part. Not just to keep talking about the ad, but to talk about us — about how we react, what we ignore, and how sometimes we only get angry when it’s easy or popular to be angry — not when it actually matters.

The “Good Genes” Phrase: A Cultural Staple

The phrase “good genes” has been around forever and is used across every culture and race. It’s common to hear people talk about having “great genetics” from their family when complimenting someone’s looks, health, or talent. Most of the time, it’s completely innocent.

The American Eagle ad’s pun on “jeans/genes” was just that — a pun. Yes, Sydney Sweeney fits a Eurocentric beauty standard, which understandably made some people sensitive to the language. But to leap from a jeans commercial to Nazi propaganda? That’s a huge stretch.

Eugenics-Like Thinking Is Everywhere —We Just Don’t Call It That

Here’s something people don’t talk about enough: all races and cultures have some form of selective thinking when it comes to looks, traits, and even who’s considered a “good match.”

In some families and communities, there are quiet expectations around marrying someone lighter, taller, or more “refined.” Some people talk about “fixing the race,” or improving it through marriage and children. These ideas often go unchallenged — even though they are very close to eugenic thinking.

This isn’t state-sponsored sterilization or anything like that. But it’s still based on the idea that some traits are better than others — and that those traits should be passed on.

You can hear this kind of thinking in everyday conversations like:

• “They’d make beautiful babies.”

Said when two attractive people are dating — like beauty should be passed down the family line, as if it’s genetic currency.

• “I want my kids to have your eyes.”

A romantic comment, sure — but it also shows how physical traits get turned into something to “preserve.”

• “Don’t marry too dark — think about the kids.”

A quiet warning sometimes heard in families where lighter skin is still considered more desirable. It’s not always said out loud, but the message is clear.

• “Their whole family is tall and athletic — strong genes.”

A compliment that turns a body type into a kind of breeding value — as if people are a set of traits to combine strategically.

• “Maybe your partner can fix that nose/skin tone/hair.”

Jokes like this happen in some communities, often about someone’s insecurities — suggesting the next generation can be “improved.”

These kinds of comments are so common that we barely notice them. Nobody posts angry think pieces about them. But if we’re being honest, they reflect the same mindset — that some features are more valuable than others, and that our relationships and children should reflect that.

What About Pride and Superiority?

Take “Black excellence” as an example. It’s meant to uplift — and it should. It’s about pride, resilience, and celebrating success in a world that often pushes Black people down. But even phrases like that can, sometimes, cross into territory where people start to believe one group is naturally stronger, smarter, better looking, or more talented.

It’s not just Black pride — this kind of thinking shows up everywhere. National pride, cultural pride, even family pride can easily shift from “we’ve overcome” into “we’re built better.” That’s when it starts to sound a lot like genetic superiority — even if it’s coming from a good place.

Again, I’m not saying any of this is the same as historical eugenics. But we need to admit these ideas still exist in softer, quieter ways.

Why This Still Matters

The Sydney Sweeney/American Eagle backlash is a good example of how the internet often reacts fast and loud to surface-level things — especially when there’s a trending word involved. People hear “eugenics” and run with it, even if they don’t really understand what it means.

And here’s what really bugs me: even if someone sees that ad and thinks it’s pushing a narrow beauty ideal (which is fair to question), that message is still less obvious than what we see and hear in real life all the time.

Let’s be honest:

• How many people get praised for having “strong genes” just for being tall and athletic?

• How often do families steer kids away from dating certain people because of how the children might look?

• How much beauty marketing quietly pushes the same kind of faces, bodies, and features over and over?

• How often do people swipe left on dating apps based on skin tone, weight, or facial features?

All of that is tolerated. Barely questioned. So why does the American Eagle ad get treated like it crossed some huge line? Why this reaction — and why now?

Final Thoughts

I’m not writing this to excuse harmful or careless messaging. We should care. But we also need to be honest with ourselves. If we say we’re against eugenics, then we should also question the everyday ways we support ideas that sound like it.

Because the real issue isn’t what we saw in that ad. It’s what we keep ignoring in our own lives.