By Kyle Patrick Smith, CEO of HRKyle Services

Something about the reaction to Sydney Sweeney’s latest ad bothers me.

And it isn’t the nudity.

It isn’t the sports betting.

It isn’t even whether I personally think the ad is good.

It’s the number of women who seem determined to tell another adult woman that the way she chooses to present herself is somehow setting women back.

And as someone who has spent nearly three decades working in HR and around workplace issues, I think there is a much bigger problem hiding underneath this controversy.

Because while this argument is happening on social media and in sports, the attitudes behind it don’t stay there.

They follow women into the workplace.

What Sydney Sweeney Actually Did

Sydney Sweeney is appearing in a provocative new advertising campaign for sports-prediction platform Novig. The campaign features her partially or apparently nude, with sports equipment strategically covering her body.

The reaction from a number of prominent female athletes has been fierce.

Four-time Olympic swimming champion Ariarne Titmus questioned why society is still “monetizing a woman’s body,” while British sprinter Amy Hunt contrasted the ad with the muscles, work and sacrifice of actual female athletes. Other female athletes have joined the criticism, arguing that the campaign sexualizes women in sports and undermines their efforts to be recognized for athletic accomplishment rather than appearance.

I understand their argument.

I just think there’s another one that deserves considerably more attention.

Because Sydney Sweeney wasn’t dragged onto that set.

She isn’t simply an actress who collected a check to read someone else’s lines, either.

According to Novig, Sweeney joined the company as a strategic partner and equity holder. Novig’s CEO has subsequently said that Sweeney approached the company and drove much of the campaign’s visuals and messaging.

In other words, a 29-year-old businesswoman appears to have made a deliberate decision about how she wanted to use her image, her sexuality, her celebrity and her business interests.

And apparently some women have a problem with the choice she made.

That’s where this gets interesting.

Haven’t Women Been Fighting for the Right to Choose for Themselves?

For decades, women have rightly fought against other people deciding what a woman should be.

Don’t tell her what career she should pursue.

Don’t tell her how ambitious she’s allowed to be.

Don’t tell her she should stay home with her children.

Don’t tell her she shouldn’t stay home with her children.

Don’t tell her what she should wear.

Don’t tell her how feminine she should be.

Don’t tell her she has to hide her sexuality to be taken seriously.

Don’t tell her what empowerment is supposed to look like.

Let women make their own choices.

Okay.

Then shouldn’t that include choices other women don’t like?

Because empowerment that requires somebody else’s approval isn’t really empowerment.

It’s just a different group of people making the rules.

That’s Where I See a Workplace Problem

Women already face a complicated collection of expectations at work.

Be confident, but don’t be arrogant.

Be assertive, but don’t be aggressive.

Be attractive, but don’t use your appearance too much.

Be feminine, but make sure you’re taken seriously.

Be ambitious, but don’t be cold.

Be a committed mother, but don’t let motherhood interfere with your career.

Dress professionally, but don’t dress too professionally.

Don’t be too quiet.

Don’t be too loud.

Don’t be too sexy.

Don’t be too plain.

Don’t be too emotional.

Don’t be too tough.

Good grief.

At some point, how about this:

Let the individual woman decide who she wants to be.

There is substantial research showing that prescriptive gender stereotypes—beliefs about how women should behave—can create professional penalties when women violate those expectations. Researchers have connected these stereotypes with biased judgments that can impede women’s career advancement.

That’s why I find the Sweeney controversy so relevant to work.

We should be trying to eliminate these boxes.

Instead, I worry we’re building new ones.

Women Can Participate in Workplace Bias, Too

This is probably the part that will make some people uncomfortable.

We frequently discuss gender bias as something men do to women.

Sometimes it is.

But women are human beings, too.

They have biases. They make judgments. They stereotype. They disagree with other women’s choices.

And they can participate in creating expectations about what a “professional woman” is supposed to look and act like.

A female executive can judge another woman’s clothing.

A female manager can question whether another woman is “executive enough.”

A female coworker can decide another woman is using her appearance to get ahead.

A woman can decide another woman isn’t sufficiently committed because she prioritizes her children.

Or she can judge another woman for being too career-focused and not prioritizing her children enough.

Women aren’t magically immune from stereotypes about women.

In fact, there’s an established workplace double bind surrounding motherhood. The EEOC has warned that assumptions about female caregivers can affect opportunities and even notes that supposedly well-intentioned decisions—such as withholding demanding assignments because an employer thinks it’s helping a woman balance family responsibilities—can constitute unlawful discrimination.

Notice what’s happening there.

Someone can believe they’re helping a woman while simultaneously limiting her.

Sound familiar?

“But She’s Sexualizing Women”

This is where I expect the strongest disagreement.

Critics aren’t necessarily saying Sydney Sweeney isn’t allowed to show her body.

They’re arguing that using a woman’s body this way—particularly in connection with sports—contributes to the sexualization of women and makes it harder for female athletes to be valued for their accomplishments.

That’s a legitimate argument, and female athletes have every right to make it.

But Sweeney gets a voice in this conversation too.

She appears comfortable using her sexuality as part of her brand.

She apparently participated substantially in creating the campaign.

She’s financially invested in the company.

Why is her conception of female empowerment inherently less legitimate than someone else’s?

And here’s where this gets particularly messy.

After the criticism, Sweeney shared images from ESPN’s famous Body Issue, which featured nude and semi-nude athletes. Critics argue there’s an important distinction: those images celebrated athletic bodies and accomplishment, whereas Sweeney’s campaign uses sexuality to sell a sports-related product.

Fair argument.

But it still leaves us with a fascinating question:

Who gets to establish the acceptable circumstances under which a woman may use her own sexuality?

Other women?

Female athletes?

Employers?

HR?

Society?

Or the woman herself?

Think About What This Looks Like at Work

Now take Sydney Sweeney out of the equation.

Imagine an exceptionally talented woman walking into an organization.

She’s attractive. She knows she’s attractive. She dresses in a way that emphasizes it while remaining within the company’s dress expectations.

Maybe she’s also brilliant.

Maybe she’s an exceptional salesperson.

Maybe she’s ambitious as hell.

Maybe she’s figured out that charisma, appearance, intelligence, relationships, communication ability and confidence are all assets she possesses—and she uses every one of them.

What happens?

Do we celebrate a woman confidently owning everything she brings to the table?

Or do coworkers start whispering?

“We know how she gets attention.”

“She knows exactly what she’s doing dressing like that.”

“People wouldn’t listen to her if she looked different.”

“She’s setting women back.”

And here’s the uncomfortable part:

Those comments don’t necessarily come from men.

That’s where this cultural conversation can become professionally destructive.

Because the woman being judged eventually needs recommendations.

Promotions.

Stretch assignments.

Leadership opportunities.

Mentors.

Sponsors.

People advocating for her when she isn’t in the room.

And the people making those decisions include women.

There’s Another Woman Who Makes Different Choices

Now put another woman beside her.

She dresses conservatively.

She doesn’t emphasize her appearance.

She hates attention.

She’s equally talented.

Great.

Let her be that woman.

She shouldn’t have to become Sydney Sweeney either.

That’s the whole point.

Equality isn’t replacing one approved version of womanhood with another.

It’s eliminating the requirement that there be an approved version at all.

One woman can use sexuality as part of her personal brand.

Another can reject that completely.

One woman can aggressively pursue the C-suite.

Another can decide she wants a less demanding career because her family is more important to her.

One can be outspoken.

One can be reserved.

One can wear high heels.

One can wear sneakers.

One can embrace traditional femininity.

Another can reject it.

None of those choices tells us whether she’s competent.

That’s what employers should care about.

We’ve Been Here Before

This is what makes the whole thing so ironic.

Women have spent generations trying to escape other people’s expectations.

And those expectations have had real professional consequences.

Research has found that motherhood itself can trigger assumptions about women’s competence, and the EEOC has repeatedly addressed employment decisions based on stereotypes about female caregivers.

We’ve spent years telling employers:

Stop assuming.

Stop generalizing.

Evaluate the individual.

Judge performance.

Judge qualifications.

Judge results.

Yet culturally, we continue creating standards for how women are supposed to behave if they want to be considered good representatives of women.

That’s moving in the wrong direction.

Supporting Women Doesn’t Mean Approving of Every Woman

This is where some nuance matters.

Female athletes don’t have to like Sydney Sweeney’s advertisement.

Women don’t have to approve of it.

They can think it’s tacky.

They can think it’s exploitative.

They can believe it sends a terrible message about women in sports.

They can say all of that.

Women disagreeing with women isn’t the problem.

Turning individual women’s choices into tests of whether they’re helping or hurting women collectively is where I start getting concerned.

Because women shouldn’t have to represent their entire sex every time they make a decision.

Sydney Sweeney shouldn’t have to make business decisions for 170 million American women.

Neither should the woman sitting three offices down from you.

Men are routinely allowed to be individuals.

Women deserve that same luxury.

The Workplace Doesn’t Need Another Set of Rules for Women

Last week, I wrote about the Lindsay Clancy case and asked whether some arguments made in support of women could inadvertently reinforce old workplace stereotypes about women’s agency and accountability.

This week, Sydney Sweeney has me looking at a different end of that same rope.

In one situation, the question is accountability.

In this one, it’s autonomy.

But underneath both is something I’ve spent my career believing strongly:

Judge people as individuals.

Women don’t need men deciding what women should be.

But women don’t need women deciding it either.

And employers certainly shouldn’t.

The workplace already has enough conscious and unconscious expectations surrounding women.

We don’t need to add another:

“You are free to be whatever kind of woman you want—as long as the rest of us approve.”

That’s not progress.

That’s conformity dressed up as empowerment.

Sydney Sweeney made a choice.

Other women are free to hate it.

But before we declare that another woman’s personal choices are somehow setting women back, maybe we should consider whether policing women’s choices is doing more damage than the choice itself.

Because every time we reinforce another rule about how women are supposed to look, behave, lead, parent, dress, speak or present themselves, that rule eventually finds its way into workplaces.

And once it’s there, somebody will inevitably decide that a woman doesn’t fit it.

Women have spent decades fighting to get out of boxes.

They shouldn’t be building new ones for each other.

About the Author

Kyle Patrick Smith is the CEO and Founder of HRKyle Services and a workplace strategist with 28 years of corporate HR leadership experience across multiple industries. He is the author of Recruiting is Easy and Get the Job You Love and host of World of Work Insights. Through HRKyle Services, Kyle helps organizations navigate hiring, leadership, workplace culture, workforce change, and the increasingly complicated intersection between people and work. His approach is straightforward: challenge conventional thinking, have the conversations others avoid, and create workplaces where people actually want to work.

Your Guide Through the World of Work.
HRKyle Services | HRKyle.com