Woke-Bashing of the Week: Sydney Sweeney, ‘woke’ hypocrisy and the right’s very selective feminism

Telegraph columnist Michael Deacon has attempted to turn the backlash over Sydney Sweeney’s latest nude advert on its head, presenting it as evidence of the supposed hypocrisy of the “woke Left.”

In a recent column, Deacon points to criticism of Sweeney’s sports-betting advert, in which she appears nude alongside strategically placed sporting equipment.

“What happened to ‘my body, my choice’?” Deacon asks.

According to author, progressives have spent years insisting that whatever a woman chooses to do with her body is her own business. So, he argues, that principle should mean nobody can criticise Sweeney for appearing naked in an advert.

He makes a similar leap with the feminist slogan “sex work is work,” arguing that if sex work should not be stigmatised, neither should naked modelling.

Then comes his third supposed gotcha: if the left believes in “body positivity” it should be applauding Sweeney for confidently displaying her body.

Dear oh dear, Deacon is obviously failing to understand some basic principles of feminism.

“My body, my choice” is about bodily autonomy, particularly reproductive rights, consent and the right to make decisions about one’s own body. It does not mean that every decision involving a woman’s body, particularly an advertising campaign, is automatically immune from criticism.

Likewise, “sex work is work” is primarily an argument for recognising the rights, dignity and legal protections of people engaged in sex work. It doesn’t mean that every commercial use of nudity is equivalent to sex work, nor does it demand that nobody can question how women’s bodies are represented or commodified.

And “body positivity” is not a commandment that people must applaud every image of a naked woman. The movement developed from campaigns challenging narrow beauty standards and demanding dignity, visibility and equal treatment for bodies that have historically been marginalised, such as trans, plus sizes, visible differences, and racially diverse bodies.
None of this requires anyone to tell Sweeney what she can or cannot do with her body.

That is the point Deacon misses.

A woman can have complete autonomy over her body while other people remain free to criticise the way a company chooses to market it. Those positions are not contradictory.

Indeed, the current backlash is not simply about Sweeney being naked. Critics, including female athletes, have argued that the advert sexualises women in sport at a time when female athletes have spent years demanding to be recognised for their sporting ability rather than their appearance.

And there is another awkward omission in Deacon’s attempt to portray Sweeney’s critics as hypocrites.

When Sweeney appeared in an American Eagle jeans campaign last year featuring the pun “great jeans,” critics questioned its apparent references to inherited physical traits and perceived racial and eugenic undertones. The controversy intensified after it emerged that Sweeney was registered as a Republican voter.

Donald Trump then publicly praised the advert after learning of Sweeney’s Republican affiliation, calling it the “HOTTEST” ad and contrasting it with supposedly “woke” advertising.

The irony is that a column attacking the supposed hypocrisy of the “woke Left” ends up confirming how selectively the right can embrace “my body, my choice” when it serves a culture-war argument. Sweeney can make the advert. But that does not mean everyone else has to applaud it.