 |  |  |  |
Submitted by Mike McGregor on July 19, 2008 - 1:43pm.
Have you ever felt conflicted by the urge to support American Apparel's sweat-shop free practices and your reluctance to wear their gaudy clothes in public? I mean "Sweatshop-free" = good, and we always talk about voting with our dollars and supporting progressive companies right?
Well, don't worry about it. When you look a bit deeper, there's some pretty strong indications that American Apparel as a corporate entity isn't much more progressive then a rub-n-tug. By many accounts, AA's image is the fair labour and women's lib equivalent of a "Green Wash" (a "red wash" maybe?). Quite a few stories have popped up about allegations of American Apparel's union busting, degrading adds and the misogynist yuppie that runs it all... Google 'Dov Charney' and see what comes up. The guy is on his fifth sexual harassment lawsuit and his musing on domestic violence are interesting to say the least. -->
Don't take my word for it:
-30-
Mike.
"Debout les damnés de l'Université."
-=There is no Cabal, Long live the Cabal=-
My Photos
(4 votes)
Trackback URL for this post:
http://londoncommons.net/trackback/6157
- Mike McGregor's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Search
Upcoming events
- FOND OF TIGERS & THE RIDERLESS(Event)(6 hours)
- Post-Carbon London(Event)(3 days)
- THE VON BONDIES, THE PRIMARIES, THE JOB(Event)(7 days)
- Change Your Lifestyle, Save Your Life(Event)(10 days)
- London’s Take Back the Night(Event)(12 days)
- London Ontario Live Arts 2008(Event)(12 days)
- Red Tent Event for London Mothers(Event)(15 days)
User login
Recent Blogs
Who's online
There are currently 0 users and 72 guests online.
Recent comments
- shake appeal post from sept. 4 also unpublished
1 day 22 hours ago - Many of the points expressed
3 days 15 hours ago - clarifications
3 days 15 hours ago - Perhaps I should have made
3 days 22 hours ago - ok...
3 days 22 hours ago - A first-past-the-post, five-party system
3 days 23 hours ago - link
4 days 30 min ago - Outrageous, it is!
4 days 40 min ago - Liliana Segura posted a
4 days 22 hours ago - Another site
5 days 1 hour ago
Random image
Poll
Where do I see myself mostly fitting in as far as making it a better habitat in my region?
Agriculture and Food Security
11%
City Finances / Services
0%
Economy
0%
Environment
21%
Health
4%
Social
46%
Energy
0%
Security
0%
Transportation
7%
Small business / local business
11%
Total votes: 28
choice
i'm not sure that i understand your reasoning here. if you are forced into "choosing" (because poverty constricts choice) to work in a sweatshop it makes it "not bad at all"? so what do you think about child soldiers, who "choose" (because violence also constricts the choices we can make) to pick up a gun and kill, rather than die or be tortured, would you say that isn't bad at all? would you support that too? it seems more accurate, for me, to simply say that sometimes people are forced to make decisions to do things that aren't good at all, no matter how you shake it. i personally do not support sweatshops, or situations where poor people are trapped into making "choices" that keep them poor, or trying to justify systems which give people only two options, choosing starvation or slave labour. also when you argue for sweatshops to stay open, you are effectively arguing for the destruction of local economies, livlihoods and options beyond things like sweatshops. the same conditions that they, under your reasoning, would be escaping by "choosing" to work in a sweatshop. food insecurity issues are intimately connected with free economic policies which advocate for things like sweatshops to solve the problem of underdevelopment. but its not the kind of development that people want or have any sovereignty over. and it doesn't work. and it doesn't feed people or give them greater food security. i don't believe that sweatshops are the only choice, there are a thousand other choices, we just have to stop coercing people into making the choices that benefit us.
Coffee is a great power in my life...it chases away sleep...”
Honore De Blazac
"sweatshops aren't bad at all."
How do you come up with this stuff?
-30-
Mike.
"Debout les damnés de l'Université."
-=There is no Cabal, Long live the Cabal=-
My Photos
opps!
now that's abit overboard!
http://www.democracynow.org/
do you also support alternatives?
Just curious if you also support alternatives to sweat shops, like union made and locally produced goods. Do you have a preference?
chauvinist?
I laugh at behavoir, such as Dov's, because otherwise I would find it hard to wake up in the mourning. The abuse of power in this world is quite severe at times and I have to find ways to shake it off. I'm sorry if that sounds hurtful but it is the truth. I despise men such as him, if I read all the public data of his behaviour (the charges against him, etc.) correctly.
And as for my choice of words, let me explain: to me, this man is obviously what I would call a slut, or as a definition (provided just below) from urbandictionary.com would have it, a "player".
Of course, I'm not satisfied with a definition such as this. I also wasn't simply referring to Dov's (legally apparent) abuse of women, in my statement, but his taste in scantily designed clothes, or at least, his efforts to sport women and men in said attire.
Looking further into the history of the word "slut" to help explain what I mean I find a lot ambiguity unfortunately. The origin of this word and the present context of its use remains obscure, at least according to Etymology's explanation:
I won't pretend that I don't realize how loaded or offensive this word is to women since it has typically/historically been used towards women negatively and chauvinistically. However, I would say that I do enjoy using these derogatory terms towards men who abuse power in this way. Assuming we agree that this is indeed what Dov does for a living, we could say that this is a man who revels in being a skank and probably relishes in the thought of a world where women served his every hedonistic impulse. In contemporary context, that's how I see his clothes, or the clothes his designers make. Clothes for the carefree, progressive hedonist.
And this is where it all gets complicated. Call progressives what you will, like myself, many have engaged in experimental interpersonal behavior that has often led to hurtful or unexpected consequences when consent or other mutual boundaries were not or could not be established. Polyamory, a contreversial part of the progressive scene, still remains an open question for many like myself. But for Dov, I suspect, this is the niche (market) or simply the image he intends to exploit for his business - which, according to what I can perceive is not really progressive but typically corporate.
Regardless, I mean no harm to women by using such a word. Of course, if you (my friend) would prefer I'd not use derogatory terms like this in the hopes of satirically labeling chauvinists such as Dov, or his company's design decisions, than I'll gladly just call him a chauvinist pig.
Didn't know about this
But as Dan has already said, its unsurprising. I think it was Steve D'Arcy who wrote on here that every answer to the problems we face today - whether it be climate change, poverty, or sexism - has to involve a non-corporate solution in order to be truly effective. That certainly seems to be the case here (contrary to my naive praise for AA elsewhere on this site).
I'm currently in the process of 'updating' my wardrobe and I've been thinking about ordering some stuff from Just Shirts (http://www.justshirts.ca/). The site sells fair trade clothes made by a women's cooperative in El Salvador, which is wonderfully appropriate since this time last year I witnessed firsthand the sweatshops that litter the highways of San Salvador. The clothes definitely have more miles on them than anything made in North America but they're nonetheless fair trade and independent. Worth checking out.
Progressive sexism
Good point Mike.
When AA was hiring in London they had an ad stating they were a 'Progressive company'. I am not surprised anymore to find 'progressive' companies (as if a corporation could be progressive!) and even social/environmental groups not viewing sexism as a problem. It's as if considering yourself 'progressive' makes you unable to be sexist. We must always call such practices out, especially amongst ourselves, and confront them.
Fuck American Apparel - Not Progressive at all!
http://www.democracynow.org/
mike
i love you.
slut(ty)
Ya,
I've read about the guy before - quite eccentric and almost humerous in a way. I usually say I can't judge a person much without knowing them personally but what I can talk about is the design of his merchandise: slutty.
deconstruction time?
Yeah Lauren is right. Slut(ty) is one major loaded word.
Deconstruction time!
http://www.democracynow.org/
what is slutty.
in your opinion. just curious. choice of words. think think think.
also i find it interesting that you would say 'quite eccentric and almost humorous".
it's kinda of a privilege to be able to laugh the kind of behaviour the 'dov' exhibits.
as a femie its hard to laugh off your body being capitalized upon.
here here...
i agree with lauren that for men its a bit of a priviledge to just laugh off this kind of overtly chauvanistic fuckery, because for womyn theres a whole other set or level of emotions, concerns, worries that makes laughing off stuff like sexual harassment and objectification much more difficult. the stakes are higher for us. like i wish that i could just see patriarchy as this amusing or funny thing all the time, instead of being affected by it in a way that makes me feel sad or angry, but i don't always have the luxury of glossing over the hurt with euphamisms. i understand that reaction completely, but from my standpoint i just wanted to acknowledge that that's not always possible. there are moments for me, where turning hurtful language around, and directing it at those who inflict an emotional wound is empowering or funny, but i think that men should always be a bit hestitant or careful when they employ words like slutty, because even though it may be directed at some nasty chauvenist dude, it can still just jump out and feel like its directed at me, or at women negatively because that's how its used by men ALL THE TIME, even though you're a very conscious guy and i know you would never direct that at a woman. its wierd but i can still feel the sting a little. its just one of those things thats really hard to explain. it's so tricky isn't it, like there are lots of really problematic bits of language that i want to redirect to the powers that be, but that i don't really, or can't have ownership of in that way you know, because i'm white, i live in north america, etc, etc. so as lauren said we have to think think think about our choice of words, and i still have a long way to go with that too.
“Coffee is a great power in my life...it chases away sleep...”
Honore De Blazac
a general question (off on a tangent..)
It was my understanding that the task of reclaiming a word was/should be firmly in the hands of the historically oppressed or marginalized peoples.
Part of the reclaiming is to take the power out of the word by not using it in an oppressive way.. can that be done by someone who has never felt the effect of that word, or who is a part of the group that has historically been the oppressor?
Sometimes I feel like people feel entitled to use whatever words they feel like, without consideration..
(If I, a white woman, decided to 'reclaim' the word nigger, would that really be reclaiming? or would it just be ignorant?)
That has always been my feeling on it, but I would be interested in hearing peoples thoughts on that subject....
(p.s. this is not about Thomas or anyone else in this discussion, just something I have been thinking about for a while, and I thought all you more well spoken and well read women and men might have some interesting things to say about it.)
<3 r.
lovely thoughts rachel
i don't know where these mythical "more well spoken and well read women" are but i don't think anyone could have said it better. :)
excellent point.
Speaking as someone who's
Speaking as someone who's confronted violence in a relationship, on the streets, and back in high-school I often laugh off the explicit abuse I've received/experienced. I'm sorry if I offended anyone by laughing off this creep, but I must say that I have to find some sort of recourse for this type of behaviour, whether it's violence against women, Zapatistas or myself. I've chosen satire. There's a long history of satirical theatre, film and literature written and performed by both men and women on issues of abuse that aim to portray the absurdity of a person's feeling to violently assault another person in a position of weakness or oppression. Sometimes, this is the only means of which to enlighten others to the utter darkness of violence.
One of my favorite examples of the portrayal of racism is blackpeopleloveus.com. The website was produced by white people, white people interested in portraying the utter cruelty and discrimination that can hide in subtle suggestion or civil discourse within North America.
One of my favorite mythical characters of all time is the Native Trickster, who in stories often offers didactic messages through absolutely absurd (lewd, stupid, or violent) acts. The stories are often quite hilarious though and are intended to be that way.
I've dreamt of writing a story about a character such as Mr. Charney. He's the perfect example of the absurd power this society permits. Like an Arrested Development show, I think that a kafkaesque sitcom, where real desires and motives are expressed through freudian slips, would make for some serious didactics.
thanks rachel
i hope it was clear that i believe, as you articulately put it, "that the task of reclaiming a word was/should be firmly in the hands of the historically oppressed or marginalized peoples'. the entitlement to use words or reclaim them i think only comes from the struggle to survive oppression where it is felt, as a tool to seize power where it seems it isn't possible to do so. but i don't think that it can come out of a sense of guilt or repentence on the historical oppressors part. reclaimed language, when spoken by the voices of marginalized people, the tone i think is genuine, but spoken by those who marginalize or benefit from marginalizaiton i think the tone of the words feels ignorant or disengenous. also i'm not sure that beneficiaries of power and oppression have any business participating in the discussion about marginatlized groups and the words that they reclaim, or whether or not they should be used. it just seems like a continuation of feelings of superiority and entitlement. but i'm really curious to hear what other people think too because all i've got are experiences with gender and class. maybe there are other dimensions when oppression is felt based on race or disability??? i'd really love to hear from a diversity of standpoints. speak y'all!
“Coffee is a great power in my life...it chases away sleep...”
Honore De Blazac
"like i wish that i could
"like i wish that i could just see patriarchy as this amusing or funny
thing all the time, instead of being affected by it in a way that makes
me feel sad or angry, but i don't always have the luxury of glossing
over the hurt with euphamisms."
YES exactly!! I feel this way often but find it hard to express sometimes. Thanks for saying it.