American Apparel’s “plus-sized” model search is a total farce
So many awful puns, so little time.
I have never loved anything like I love ripping on American Apparel, and they make it so easy. Their latest? A “plus-sized” line that consists of a size 12/14—a straight size in most retailers—and which is available in a whopping 20 styles. How gracious of them!
Given American Apparel’s previously stated stance on plus-sized clothing (it’s “not their demographic”) and their current financial state (dire, to say the least), this is certainly just a money grab. Of course, American Apparel can never leave bad enough alone, so they’ve gone the way of their “Best Butt” contest and concocted yet another ridiculous Internet beauty pageant to promote their new “line.”
The contest is called The Next BIG Thing—get it? Big? Like a size 12/14 is so big?—and encourages “bootyful” women to submit their photos in hopes of becoming American Apparel’s newest model. Not only does this contest’s copy seems to be written by a 12 year old, the whole concept is tired and outdated. Women in direct competition while their bodies are judged by the masses? For a company that wants so badly to be cutting-edge, American Apparel sure doesn’t trouble itself with innovative marketing.
I’ll tell you what, though: the woman in first place as of this writing is amazing. Nancy Upton’s photos show her in varying states of undress in sensual positions with food, a send-up of the absurdity of the contest. She writes on her blog: “My good friend Shannon Skloss came over to take some ‘booty-full’ photos of me…but I just couldn’t stop eating.”
Nancy’s photos make obvious the way contests like this one turn women’s bodies into objects of consumption. I hope she stays in first place and wins this contest; maybe then American Apparel will be forced to step back and re-evaluate the way they approach their customers. Or maybe not—but at least we’ll all have a(nother) good laugh at their expense.
–Melissa
American Apparel CEO’s endless douchebaggery gets him sued (again)
Dov Charney and American Apparel continue the downward spiral as more lawsuits pile up.
Your stretch floral lace unitards can’t save you now, Charney (yes, these are actual items for sale on the American Apparel web site. Are you surprised?).
Irene Morales, Alyssa Ferguson, and Tessa Lubans-Dehaven are suing the American Apparel CEO, his company, and the brand’s photographer, Kyung Chung, for intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy and impersonation online.
Really going for the gold in all-around grossness, aren’t ya Dov? Continue reading
Dov Charney, American Apparel face sexual harassment lawsuits
American Apparel founder Dov Charney continues to sink to new lows.
Warning: This post may be triggering for those sensitive to issues surrounding sexual assault.
Why am I still writing about Dov Charney?
In the past three weeks, five former employees have filed two sexual harassment lawsuits against Dov, the founder of American Apparel.
The young women accuse him of engaging in a variety of inappropriate behaviors, from sending repeated sexually explicit text messages to physical assault.
The youngest plaintiff, Irene Morales, holds that when she was 17 and working for a New York City American Apparel, Dov frequently sent her explicit text messages and photos.
After she turned 18, she says, Dov held her captive in his apartment and forced her to perform sexual acts on him.
This continued for 8 months until she had a breakdown, quit her job, and sought counseling.
“I thought this was just what happened to people who worked in fashion,” she said on the Today Show.
Kimbra Lo, another former employee, says that she had gone to Dov’s house to be interviewed for a modeling position: “As soon as he answered the door, he attacked me. I was very clear for him to stop. I told him ‘no, don’t touch me,’ and he became more aggressive. Honestly, I didn’t feel there was a way for me to leave safely. I was terrified.”
American Apparel has released a (highly professional, as always) statement claiming that they have “’smoking gun’ photographs undermining [Lo’s] false accusation of unwanted harassment.” They have said the same about Morales, and, always a shining beacon of respect for consent, the company has leaked said photographs to Gawker [no nudity at the link, but it’s probably not safe for work].
For someone complaining about being the victim of a trial by media, Dov sure seems excited to smear his accusers as publicly as possible using whatever means necessary.
There are a lot of things to realize about the release of these photographs and their bearing on the lawsuits. First of all, the photos of Morales look pretty much exactly like American Apparel advertisements, so to use them as proof of consent is patently ridiculous. AA solicits similar photographs from employees and customers alike on its website; does that mean everyone who sends AA a photo is consenting to having sex with Dov Charney? Continue reading
Gallery of Offenders: An Appalling (lack of) Apparel
Questions to Consider:
Source: Billboard on Divisadero and Oak, San Francisco
* What product is this ad selling?
* Why would American Apparel use a semi-nude model to sell clothes?
* Who is this ad’s intended audience?
What We Think:
“Oh, hi! You caught me completely by surprise as I lay here topless, staring vacantly into the camera. But while we’re here, allow me to sell you this lacy undergarment.” Ah, American Apparel. You never fail us with your misogynistic, exploitative, pornographic, just-plain-nasty campaigns. Whether it’s a reclining model captured in a grainy, pseudo-spontaneous state of undress, or a one-woman representation of “classy black girls, with the nice hair,” American Apparel always impresses us with how low it will go. We’re especially astounded by the company’s open assaults on our senses. Their images aren’t just confined to magazines, but pop up all over public billboards, ready to be consumed by passers-by of all ages, genders, and levels of impressionability. But American Apparel does have something great going for it: its business may be going down the toilet any day now. (by Michelle Konstantinovsky)
Take Action! Contact:
Dov Charney, CEO
American Apparel Inc.
747 Warehouse St.
Los Angeles, CA 90021
(213) 488-0226
Feedback form on American Apparel’s web site: americanapparel.net/AboutUs/Contact.html
American Apparel’s Classy-Vintage-Chic-Late ’80s-Early ’90s-Racist-Sexist-High end brand
What appears to be AA's only model of color shows off her "trashy" and "classy" poses.
We’ve talked about American Apparel before. You all know how we feel about the company’s creeptacular history and about how AA ads constantly and consistently make women’s bodies into objects for public consumption.
Just when I thought they couldn’t get worse, something new and insidious surfaced.
Gawker wrote recently about AA’s looks-based hiring policies, leaking internal documents that discuss AA’s “New Standard”: “Classy-Vintage-Chic-Late 80s-Early 90s- Ralph Lauren-Vogue-Nautical-High end brand.” Their employees are the front line of the brand’s new image, and should represent the company 
accordingly.
So who are they looking for to help represent the new look? The more important question is (and always should be in cases like this), who aren’t they looking for?
“None of those trashy [black girls],” said one e-mail from corporate. “We’re not trying to sell our clothes to them. Try to find some of those classy black girls, with the nice hair, you know?”
Let me just repeat that for you for a second: “some of those classy black girls with the nice hair.”
Women of color have long been victims of a white beauty standard that others them. Black women in particular are generally represented as animalistic and hypersexualized. AA’s policy plays directly into those stereotypes, defining black women as either “trashy” (good) or “classy” (bad) based on outer appearance, as though a woman’s hair reveals all about her personality, politics, and ability to be a fashionable employee. Continue reading
An Afternoon with Dov Charney: now with video!
So we know we’ve been talking about this action a LOT. Like, a lot a lot. But we’re just so proud! And we’ve really just been building up to this post. So here it is, the moment you’ve been waiting for:
An Afternoon with Dov Charney, live on video!
Enjoy, and leave your thoughts in the comments!
An Afternoon with Dov Charney: recap and updates!
Hey, About-Facers! Remember that action we were planning against American Apparel’s sexist advertising campaigns? Well we did it, and it was awesome.
We assembled and performed our street theater on loop outside of the Haight St. American Apparel location for about an hour on Saturday. The police eventually came to ask us to leave (it’s not a real protest ’til someone calls the cops, you know?), but not before we handed out piles of fliers and got the American Apparel employees all riled up. Overall, it was a success!
Here’s a teaser; check out more photos after the jump! (All photos here are thanks to the awesome Anita over at Feminist Frequency!)
Our reporter asks "Dov" hard-hitting questions as his "model" looks on
About-Face protests American Apparel: An Afternoon with Dov Charney
By now, you know how much we despise American Apparel’s advertising. Well, here’s your chance to make your voice heard TOMORROW, whether you’re in San Francisco or supporting from afar:
An Afternoon with Dov Charney
Saturday, May 1 at 1:00pm
Haight St. (at Clayton), San Francisco (and online)
Using street theater and performance art, this parody interview with American Apparel CEO and President Dov Charney will give “Mr. Charney” (i.e. a friend of About-Face playing the CEO) a ribbing for the company’s treatment of its female models in its advertising.
When you arrive, there will be a way for you to be a part of the action immediately.
Can’t make it in person? Here are some other ways to support “An Afternoon with Dov Charney”
Follow us on Twitter @aboutfacesf.
“Like” the Facebook group for this action, “That’s Enough, American Apparel”
Sign the online petition “End American Apparel’s sexist advertising”. We have a goal of 1,000 signatures!
Producing this action cost about $5,000. Donate to About-Face in support of the action!
We hope to see you there, in person or in spirit!
That’s enough, American Apparel.
Someone in Portland, OR gets me, man. Photo via flickr.
In a move that comes as a surprise to absolutely nobody, American Apparel has set a new standard for sexually objectifying women everywhere via their “World’s Best Bottom” contest. You’ve probably heard about it: CEO Dov Charney and company encouraged American Apparel customers around the world to send in photos of their butts clad in American Apparel underwear. Visitors to American Apparel’s web site would then vote for their favorite behinds, and the winner would become the new “face” of the company’s latest advertising campaign. The winners were announced recently, which means it’s time to do one of my favorite things: rage against Dov Charney’s machine.
Let’s run through what we already definitely know about American Apparel: their advertising is demeaning, at times straight-up pornographic, and often has undertones of sexual violence. [We linked so we don't assault you with these ads. Click to see them.-Ed.] Their hipster following and too-cool-for-school aesthetic shroud American Apparel’s objectification of women in a language of sexual choice and freedom: these girls want to take off their clothes, right? So who cares? No one was forced to enter this contest, so whatever, and those of us who have a problem with it are just uber-PC party crashers out to ruin everyone’s fun!
In a pre-emptive response to those objections, I say this: I’m not out to shame anyone who submitted a photo to this contest. I’m not saying women shouldn’t think their butts are fly, or that we shouldn’t find bodies (or even specific body parts) attractive. What I am saying is that objectification is objectification with or without the consent of those being objectified, and that when one woman’s body is objectified in the media at large, it becomes much, much easier for other women’s bodies to be objectified in a similar manner. Continue reading
How do we draw the line between sexual exploitation and harmless presentation of children?
Do these American Apparel models convey similar messages despite their age difference?
When it comes to children, it can be very difficult to distinguish what is exploitative from what is innocent. If a certain pose signifies sexual provocation amongst adults, must that pose have the same meaning when created by a child? And how does this increasingly blurry territory affect how the judicial system defines child pornography? Continue reading