I can’t wait for the worshippers of the deity of private property to start whining, oh, and the defenders of “artistic� expression.

yeah that billboard has been at the major intersection near my house in LA for weeks now.

typical american apparel fare. if you guys don't know anything about this company, i suggest you do some googling--the clothes are sweatshop-free, which is awesome, but the retail side is messed up. they've been sued for sexual harassment multiple times and the founder, dov, is a total sleazbag.

because I am tired, (you would have thought I could go to bed after the red sox went up 13-1, but no) I have to say that I am amused to no end that this is titled "bad-ass" edition. It is, indeed, a bad use of ass.

I think it's implying that the wholesale objectification leads men to feel entitled to women.

Well, I don't think American Apparel is responsible for rape. I think such an over-the-top declaration takes away from the larger issue of using women's bodies to sell stuff. This isn't a violent picture or even a particularly provocative picture, so I don't know why anyone would claim that this picture would promote rape.

I love American Apparel's clothes (I'm wearing one of their shirts right now). They're sweat-free and made in America. I'm not a big fan of their ads, but I'd rather buy stuff from them than from a company that claims to be wholesome but at the same time is responsible for human rights violations (i.e., practically every other clothing company on earth). Besides, American Apparel models aren't professionals. They don't get their models from agencies, so I don't think there's as much pressure to, say, go topless for an ad. Many of their models already work for them. If they approach one of their workers and ask if they want to model, they can always say "No thanks."

Stupid me. I didn't see the written graffiti and just thought the big green line was the graffiti. I thought, "How are people getting meaning out of that? Is it a stripe? Huh?"

It makes it worse that advertisements like this not only objectify women's bodies but almost always cut off their heads or take the focus from their face, which REALLY objectifies them even more. Stop taking the face away from women's bodies.

Tara K., the model isn't wearing a shirt. If she turned around to show her face, nobody would be looking at it.

Well, I don't think American Apparel is responsible for rape. I think such an over-the-top declaration takes away from the larger issue of using women's bodies to sell stuff. This isn't a violent picture or even a particularly provocative picture, so I don't know why anyone would claim that this picture would promote rape.

(I'm making this comment under the assumption that the graffiti is blaming AA for objectifying women. That was my first reaction, though I can see how the other interpretation would work, too.)

I don't think that it's a question of "promoting rape," per se. In fact, I think the fact that you said this picture wasn't violent or particularly heinous, as if that makes it less harmful, is a great example of how desensitized our culture has become to daily (hourly) images of nude or partially nude women in all manner of poses and scenarios, to the point where a particular image has to be really heinous to be seen as "bad." There are other types of bad and harmful advertising involving women than just the violent or truly pornographic ones.

I think the harm is really in the fact that putting a woman's naked ass on a billboard to sell clothes buys into the cultural paradigm of female sexual availability, which IS part and parcel of a rape culture. So I can see the argument that AA is "promoting rape" with this billboard. And regardless of whether it's an active promotion of rape, it's certainly not doing anything to hinder the progression of a rape culture.

This billboard is not selling a product. If you took the "American Apperal" text away, would you know what it was selling? I'm guessing its the tights on the woman. Though American Apperal is not saying, "Go rape women," I think their advertising campaigns certainly promote objectification of women and people of color (their ads often announce the racial heritage of the "models" to present them as an exotic other)
While I agree with the whole sweatshop free thing, I don't think they should get a free pass from getting called out on their horribly sexist marketing campaigns.

I know this isn't new, but I loves me some The Onion: http://www.theonion.com/content/news/14_american_apparel_models_freed

Am I the only one who can't tell which "side" the graffiti tagger is on?

He might be saying "women get raped because they're so hot and dress so sluttily; men can't help it."

Or he might be saying "rape is a product of the objectification of women."

Which is it?
(Of course the graffiti tagger could have been a woman, too.)

Oh wait, what I just said was also said in the post. Sorry for missing that and being redundant here.

FEMily – if they work for the company and the company wants racey adverts with topless shots, are they really more free to say no than a model who's freelancing for them?

I've tangled with one of their PRs in an internet discussion before and they're all about "hey! it's free expression of our sexuality!". Which to my mind throws up a bunch more questions about objectification and clothing ads.

I think it's implying that the wholesale objectification leads men to feel entitled to women.

---Cola (and also to Kaichester)...I would hope that the point was that women get raped because things like objectification of women contribute to rape culture, and such... however, whether or not that was the intent, I don't know if most people would see into it that way.
All of us on here might look that far into it..but the average Joe might look at it and be like "hurr hurr that's true, womens r sluts".

I'm not sure how anyone can support this company. There are plenty of other t shirts that are sweatshop free that don't exploit women or have CEOs that sexually harasses his employees/models, openly fucks them, or masturbates in front of journalists.

FEMily, and anyone else who supports Dov C. through their dollars, I highly suggest you check out alternative apparel. Sweatshop AND sleaze free.

People should stop buying this shit, for real. I was really, really disappointed with Bitch when I found out their merch is printed on american apparel - not only are they sexist and gross, they are not size inclusive at all - the only defense of this Bitch gave was "unless you like your t shirts on beefy hanes - we're sticking with AA." Ok, so we're feminists but we'll support one of THE most openly sexist CEOs just because their shirts are cool?

I'll take substance over style any day, thank you.

FEMily, the models aren't professionals--generally they get to model for AA by having sex with dov. the pressure to go topless is probably even more pervasive.

I think the saying is wrong. Its like theyre giving an exscuse to men who rape. If they wanted to write a social message about the objectification of women, great! However, this does not convey that.

Judging by the way the graffiti is phrased, I'd wager the "artist" is blaming the women who "get raped." The graffiti doesn't wonder why "men rape women" but why the women are getting raped - which sounds very much like blaming the victim.

I agree with moraith. I wonder if the graffiti might mean something even more depressing than "women are rape-inducing sluts": we mens are constantly aroused by hotttt ads like these, so what can we do but go out and rape women?

It's a stupid ad anyway. A clothing company puts up a billboard showing... someone NOT wearing their clothes. WTF?

Leslie, you have a point, but somehow i doubt that was the original intent of the graffiti. it seems more likely to be a case of "women r slutz if u dress sexy u must be askin 4 it." maybe i'm just a cynic.

I agree with Gopher. It sounds to me like the author is trying to lay blame on AA and popular media for rape, but that takes the individual accountability out of it. I certainly don't think it's at all victim-blaming, and I suspect it is intended to call AA out objectifying women, but it doesn't do it well.

Leslie, you have a point, but somehow i doubt that was the original intent of the graffiti. it seems more likely to be a case of "women r slutz if u dress sexy u must be askin 4 it." maybe i'm just a cynic.

I immediately saw it as an indictment of American Apparel. But I can definitely see the other side, now. Moriath makes a very good point. At the same time, though, we're assuming that an indictment of AA for objectifying women would only be written by a hardcore feminist who would be familiar with our preferred choice of phrasing. That's not necessarily the case, and "get raped" is a horrible term, but one that is incredibly comment, incredibly mainstream and one that women -- even badass graffiti artists -- often internalize.

I kind of wish that the artist would step forward and state his or her intent. And in any case, with such an ambiguity, I feel like the only responsible thing is to remove the ad altogether. Not that the company would have likely left it up, anyway.

I get the feeling that the grafitti-ist was pointing out the objectification, not blaming women for the way they dress. I mean, it is an advertisement, not some girl walking down the street.

Go grafitti person! (If I am right.)

Off on a slight tangent, but some research on impressions of sexual advertisements came up on my university homepage today:

http://www.comsdev.canterbury.ac.nz/news/2007/071025b.shtml

Where I enter the subway near Lex & 42nd, there is a display of oh about 10 posters for Jordache Jeans showing a purty lady in said jeans but topless, yes, but get this-- she has no nipples. Isn't that tasteful?

I sometimes shop at American Apparel (I love longish solid tees, something they're good at) but I can not get over how big of a scumbag the founder is. Have any of you read that Jane article about him? He actually whipped out his dick during the interview (the writer, by the way, laughed it off--so typical of Jane).

yes, the graffiti could be interpreted in different ways (in terms of if it's victim-blaming or feminist.) if anything though, it's provocative... and that's a good thing.

i'd like also note that this billboard (at allen and houston) is right where the asshole who raped me used to live/work. how ironic. i hope he fucking sees it. and i want to know who wrote this because i've been wanting to graffitibomb that area with anti-violence epithets for a long, long time. thank you to them, whoever they are.

When I first saw it I thought it was saying that the use of women's bodies in advertising was what was causing the rape, not that the artist was blaming women themselves, but I can see both sides of the story. The model is sticking her ass out, almost in a rutting like fashion which can kind of be a "come and get it" pose, and can be interpreted as if all women are/should be this open sexually. There isn't a lover in the photo that specifies who she might be trying to entice, so her ass is presented to all the world for enticing.

Where I enter the subway near Lex & 42nd, there is a display of oh about 10 posters for Jordache Jeans showing a purty lady in said jeans but topless, yes, but get this-- she has no nipples. Isn't that tasteful?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: it's not the breast that's the problem, it's the nipple.

You can show as much of a women's breast as you possibly can as long as the nipple isn't showing. For some reason women's nipples are considered "indecent" while the fatty tissue around it is perfectly fine. I do not and probably will never understand the reasoning behind this. That poster would probably freak out a lot of kids (and adults) who know at least a little bit about anatomy and it really seems tasteless, as well as pointless.

FEMily-- how can you say this picture isn't provocative? It's a half-naked woman, in tights that perfectly show her ass, bending over slightly just waiting to get taken from behind. As some others mentioned, the fact that this doesn't seem that sexual to you only shows how desensitized we become to these images which are everywhere.

As for American Apparel... I've only been in their stores once or twice, and I was disgusted by them, honesty. The ads all along the walls honestly looked like low-budget soft-porn. It was almost as bad as Abercrombie & Fitch (whose ads I find disgusting-- I was in a dressing room of theirs once, trying on jeans, and I swear the ads in the stall was a shot of a man's crotch in jeans, with an erection. I walked out and have never set foot in their stores again.)

AA and A&F both go great distances to give men body image issues too: A&F has shirtless sculpted male models wandering around and AA t-shirts only fit men who are rail-thin or heroin chic.

I think the graffiti artist was trying to call American Apparel out for objectifying women but the message wasn't quote clear enough.

Huh, The Message did a little ripping on AA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P06zQ9js9mY

My first (and only!) thought was that the graffiti artist was blaming American Apparel for the objectification of women leading to men's sense of entitlement to them. It honestly surprised me to hear that other people interpreted it differently. Gosh, I hope I'm right. Otherwise... sad.

I think the harm is really in the fact that putting a woman's naked ass on a billboard to sell clothes buys into the cultural paradigm of female sexual availability, which IS part and parcel of a rape culture. So I can see the argument that AA is "promoting rape" with this billboard.

Strettttttttch! I can't believe nobody else called this out. Am I the only person in here who thinks that printing ads with naked models is NOT equivalent to promoting rape? I see this argument so often. If you were right, literarycritic, wouldn't you agree that rape prevalence should currently be exploding due to proliferation of racier and racier ads? In fact, most reports show that the incidence of (reported) rape has fortunately been decreasing since the early 90's, or at worst is flat. I think a more REASONABLE criticism is that these types of advertisements are responsible for the (truly) rocketing incidence of bulimia and body image disorders in young women and men.

Hmm. I do wonder how many arseholes will interpret it as being "women are sluts".

I don't know what the graffiti was meant to say, but I really fail to see how a picture of a woman PAID to be objectified is a good example of anything being women's fault.

I dunno, my initial reaction was that it was blaming commodification of women for rape, not women or AA

I read this immediately as a comment on advertising in general and AA's advertising in particular.

In Manhattan, I'm guessing that most people who "re-purpose" big billboards are in it for the subversion, rather than a large-scale declaration of misogyny.

AA's appropriation of "sex-positive" culture and iconography has always resided on the spectrum between bizarre and offensive. Example, cited briefly by others above: their recent strategy of plastering their stores with 1970's porn shots, which they claim is "authentic," harking back to a pre-airbrush, pre-implant time of real tans and real women - as if it were simple to declare that we all need to return to the mores of Hustler circa 1976 and everything would be great.

Not to mention their louche, lazy style of newspaper ads whose shots' crummy quality is supposed to be edgy or unusual or remind us of Nan Goldin or something cool like that, but pretty much reminds me of a hipster serial killer's private photo album.

I have a hard time reconciling the images the company puts into circulation and the public behavior of Dov Charney with a clothing line that IS positive. Being really sweatshop-free is something unusual and worthy. Additionally, the fact that the store has so, so many different styles tends to make it creative, fairly egalitarian and, frankly, feminist - while a lot of the cuts are geared towards waifs, just about anyone can find something there that looks good on their body. I can't say that about most American chains.

I don't think that it's a question of "promoting rape," per se. In fact, I think the fact that you said this picture wasn't violent or particularly heinous, as if that makes it less harmful, is a great example of how desensitized our culture has become to daily (hourly) images of nude or partially nude women in all manner of poses and scenarios, to the point where a particular image has to be really heinous to be seen as "bad." There are other types of bad and harmful advertising involving women than just the violent or truly pornographic ones.
That doesn't prove that I'm or anyone else is desensitized. Are you going to tell me that a woman wearing tights is on the same level of violence and pornography as the Tom Ford cologne ads? Come on. Would I like the ad better if she were fully clothed and giving a thumbs up under the slogan "American Apparel: Our Clothes Aren't Made By Little Slave Kids"? But what are you going to do? The woman in this ad isn't doing anything perverse, in my opinion. She could be leaning up against a sink brushing her teeth, and she took her shirtdress off because she didn't want to get toothpaste on it. I've done it before. I think people are just trying to find something wrong with the ad.

if they work for the company and the company wants racey adverts with topless shots, are they really more free to say no than a model who's freelancing for them?
The models still choose whether or not they want to model. Many of the models already work for AA, or anyone can send in photos if they're interested in modeling.

the models aren't professionals--generally they get to model for AA by having sex with dov. the pressure to go topless is probably even more pervasive.
And do people not have minds of their own? They're not professionals. They're regular people. A regular person can say no. They don't owe anybody anything. They're modeling on their own. They don't have agents that have to get paid. They don't have portfolios to enhance. What happened to saying no?

how can you say this picture isn't provocative? It's a half-naked woman, in tights that perfectly show her ass, bending over slightly just waiting to get taken from behind.
Is that what she's doing? Sounds like you're seeing what you want to see. I don't see that at all.

As for not buying clothes because the founder is a dickhead, are you all running around naked? Are you eating? Do you live in a house? You obviously have Internet access and computers. You think the owners of those companies are saints? Give me a break. You can't spend a penny in this country without lining the pockets of jerkoffs. So anyone who is going to judge me for wearing AA clothing because the CEO is sexist (something I didn't know but isn't going to keep me from buying their stuff) is a hypocrite.

arcticwoman & badnfluence don't make me feel like an a-hole. Thank you.

Maybe she is brushing her teeth, but what you see is not her body and her doing a fairly normal activity...you see her ass.....no one is saying that she is wearing tights is the problem...the problem is that you can't see her face or anything other than her ass...has anyone ever slapped yoru ass or made a comment when you bent over at the waist. Hell even friends had a comment when the guys were playing twister and one of the girls was bent over with her ass in the air about the sexual position....I always try to approach each post with an objective attitude and not jump on the "they're evil" bandwagon but this ad is blatantly sexist...no face...ass up...it's not about the tights it's about grabbing people attention with sex and trying to put the name in teir head

"Maybe she is brushing her teeth, but what you see is not her body and her doing a fairly normal activity." Um, if she is brushing her teeth, isn't that a fairly normal activity? I'm sorry, that just made me giggle a little. My point is that the ad is not explicit (that's the word I was looking for all day), meaning you can interpret it in any way you want. Therefore, your interpretation is all on you, not what's necessarily portrayed. Someone said the woman in the ad is waiting to have anal sex. Your buddies made gross comments during a game of Twister. Some people get their ass smacked when they bend over (to answer your question, that's never happened to me). Who is at fault in those situations? Who is escribing explicity and inappropriate sexuality in those cases? Since when is bending over automatically an invite to sex and taunting? I thought that was the sort of thing readers of Feministing wanted to change. And like I said before, she's not wearing a shirt. If she turned around, nobody'd be looking at her face, and I'd be just as outraged over it as most of the people here seem to be. Or is the fact that she's not wearing a shirt bother people? But she's not showing any private parts, so what's the issue? This is all confusing me.

As for using sex to grab people's attention, no duh. Sex does sell. What shouldn't sell is violence against women, which is also portrayed as sexy. This ad isn't violent. It's just sexy. And it's not even overtly sexy or portraying an unrealistic ideal of what sexy is. It's just a woman wearing some tights (whether she's brushing her teeth or doing pilates or getting ready to have anal sex is up to the beholder). It might make me want to buy some tights, because tights are sexy and I like to look and feel sexy. I don't see anything wrong with that.

well, MAYBE the CEO's of the companies I buy from are "jerk-offs" but did they ACTUALLY jerk off in front of their employees and journalists? because Dov Charney ACTUALLY jerks off in front of people.

It's ok, you want to look cute and wear hipster t shirts, I get it. That doesn't change that it's a company run by a misogynist asshole.

A little about the sexual harassment suits: "In their sexual harassment suits, two of the women accuse Charney of exposing himself to them. One claims he invited her to masturbate with him and that he ran business meetings at his Los Angeles home wearing close to nothing. Another says he asked her to hire young women with whom he could have sex, Asians preferred. All describe him using foul language in their presence, much of it demeaning to women."

Racist AND sexist.

Not to get off subject, but what are some sweat shop free - yet non exploitive alternatives to AA?

"I think it's implying that the wholesale objectification leads men to feel entitled to women."

Agreed.

MirandaJay, you and anyone else can't claim that "wearing hipster shirts" (I'm not quite sure a slate gray 3/4 sleeve boatneck is hipster, but it sure looks hot on me) somehow means that I condone sexual harrassment, and you judging people by the way they dress hurts your position (and makes you sound like a giant asshole, but that goes without saying). I would love for you to provide a list of the businesses you patronize so we can all jump on you about it. Or maybe it would be easier for you to get off your moral high horse and shut your fucking face. Yes, I like that much better.

Well I don't know about you all, but I've never seen anyone brush their teeth with their legs spread like that.

badnfluence: I think the issue is not so much that ads like AA's are responsible for rape, but rather that they are part of a larger "rape culture". Women have been objectified long before explicit ads -probably long before photography. That kind of "mentality" -that women are objects, to be used /does/ enable rape, in the sense that rape is not always seen as some horrible abomination. Rather, we get the whole "boys will be boys" and an assumption that men viewing women a certain way and doing ridiculous things just for sex, with or without respect for the woman, is "natural".

FEMily!, I get it, you like your clothes, and you don't want someone shaming you for buying them. But take a breath. Every one of your posts (not on this thread) has been articulate, and even if impassioned, they have been poised, clever, astute... I really enjoy reading your posts, and even when I disagree with you, I like that there are people here, like you, who can engage in discussion, and a real critique of what they see in front of them.

But can't you see how the level of upset you've reached might not match the posts responding to yours? I think you feel a little bit bad, guilty, something about wanting to continue to buy clothes when you know that the company doesn't totally align with what are probably your values. I bought a Regina Spektor hoodie last month, and it was American Apparel. I adore her, I hate AA, I was torn, and I bought it anyway. I feel bad that I chose that, but the money's spent, whatever.

If, for you, the sweatshop free part of the company outweighs the sexist stuff, the stuff that, if not promoting rape, certainly promotes a sense of entitlement to women's bodies, then that's, well, whatever, it's what it is. It doesn't make you a bad person, a bad feminist. I think everyone here has had to make choices like that. We do it every day. Do I go for the environmentally friendly brand, or the brand that gives money to women's shelters, or the one that keeps women in Saipan from having forced abortions. There are trade-offs. I'm not going to judge you.

I think it's a shitty company, and the $10 they got from Regina Spektor is all the money I'll be funneling to them. I think the ad is crappy. I don't think sex sells. I think women's bodies and their perceived availability sells. That's why that $10 is all they'll get from me. Ever. I'm doing my best to make my own clothes, or not buy anything new right now. Not everyone has that option or wants to make that choice. You do vote with your dollars, and you voted for women in Saipan.

But when you take a breath, can you see, at least a little bit, that the ad, at the very least, is not pro-woman, and neither is the company, in it's current form? Do you agree that the CEO is probably not a good person? And can you understand why, maybe, a young woman who desperately wants to be a model, who isn't a professional, who hasn't gotten an agency to sign her, might see taking her clothes off for this ad or for that CEO as her break? Yeah, it's still her choice. But it's a trade-off. He makes something easy-peasy for her. She's going to be on a billboard. She just has to take off her clothes, or give him a blowjob, or whatever. It's not as simple as saying it's her decision. If my boss threatens to fire me if I don't have sex with him, it is my choice, but the choice is between my livelihood, or my dream, or my reputation with the next employer based on this one's recommendation... you know what I mean? And that's not to say it's like that for every woman who models for AA or who works there. It's perfectly conceivable that she was so excited about that ad, that she thought she looked hot, and it was fun and a great way to break into the biz if she wants. But, again, can you see how it might not be that simple, given the reputation the CEO and the company has?

I see the grafetti as saying, "When you objectify women like this, is it any wonder that society doesn't treat them with more respect? Gee, are we surprised that men think they own women's bodies when this is considered good advertising?"

Reading the comments, I don't think anyone noticed the graffiti question mark between her legs. The use of the question mark, to me, seems to indicate that the graffiti artist is saying 'WTF?' as if questioning why the company would have her in that pose, with that lack of clothing. Also, the use of the word 'gee' seems to indicate a disgust for the advertisement. I think it's really a commentary on the society that advertises using sex appeal, making women seem to be all about sex, dehumanized, faceless, posed and made for pleasure. If this were a piece of erotic art, or nude art, it would be sexy, erotic, and a decent piece of art, but in this case, it brands the sex appeal, and highly objectifies the woman with a corporate message: sex sells, sex is what matters, and women like (and need) to look sexy to get male attention.

kissmypineapple, that was a wonderful post.

Since when is bending over automatically an invite to sex and taunting? I thought that was the sort of thing readers of Feministing wanted to change. And like I said before, she's not wearing a shirt. If she turned around, nobody'd be looking at her face, and I'd be just as outraged over it as most of the people here seem to be. Or is the fact that she's not wearing a shirt bother people? But she's not showing any private parts, so what's the issue? This is all confusing me.

It's about context.

AA has a history of putting out adverts that exploit women's bodies under the premise that "sex sells" when what they really mean is "images of partially nude women's bodies sell."

As for using sex to grab people's attention, no duh. Sex does sell.

Maybe. Unfortunately, that too often really means "women's bodies".

Women's bodies > Sex

Femily, I apologize for calling you a hipster. I'd certainly fly off the handle if someone called me a hipster, too.

But actually, I wasn't judging people based on the way they dress, I was judging a company based on the way their CEO conducts himself. I said I understood you wanted to look cute, I agree, their t shirts are nice looking, but that didn't change the company.

AND I never said you were a sexist or an asshole for wearing their clothes, I said you SUPPORTED a sexist and an asshole by wearing their clothes.

And I agree that personal attacks (like calling me an asshole and telling me to shut my fucking face) actually DO weaken an argument - that is, if one has an argument other than "it makes me look hot and you probably shop at places that suck, too."

And you are, from what I can tell, the only person who really defended AA and so people which included but was not limited to myself, told you a little bit about Dov Charney and the story behind the AA ads (which is, if you fuck Dov, you get to be in the ads).

I won't give you a list of the companies I shop at, because that's pretty silly - the thread has not been about the ethics of corporations but the ethics of a single CEO who runs a single corporation - we're being specific on this thread, so lets stay on topic.

But yeah, if I find out that a company is doing a lot of horrible shit that I just can't ignore for the sake of style then I won't go there anymore. I think Michael Kors makes pretty cute purses but he uses dog fur in his clothing, so I'm not going to buy from Michael Kors.

If you can live with continuing to spend your money at AA regardless of how the company advertises and how the CEO conducts itself, well ok then. I agree with kissmypineapple - the money is already spent. No need to burn the stuff you have already, just think about finding an alternative that won't make you freak out and get defensive on people who were not rude to you in the first place.

TRISSTESSA: In my very first post I suggested to FEMily and everyone else that they check out Alternative Apparel - same kind of style of clothes without the grossness and sexism of Dov Charney.

kissmypineapple: Your post was incredible. You said everything I wanted to say but in a more articulate way. Brava.

kissmypineapple: I have to add to the love and say that post was excellence. Well spoken.

I was going to say the graffiti was a reference to the way women dress, but it's seems to "activist" to be that...

I have to say, I am a designer, a woman and a social worker. I even did union organizing work. As such I am conflicted with American Apparel everyday. However at the same time, it is because of this company, and the people who really do the work (ie. the people who make the clothes, the female sales woman I converse with at least 2-5 times a week) who provide a service - that has allowed for me, a woman, who is actually socially conscious to have a business. I have searched for a American Made, non sweatshop preferably union made product that is, frankly fashionable enough that yes, women will wear. I have yet to find that.

To the person who posted this
"I'm not sure how anyone can support this company. There are plenty of other t shirts that are sweatshop free that don't exploit women or have CEOs that sexually harasses his employees/models, openly fucks them, or masturbates in front of journalists.

FEMily, and anyone else who supports Dov C. through their dollars, I highly suggest you check out alternative apparel. Sweatshop AND sleaze free."

I think there needs to be some thought as to the fact that you can not simply believe everything you read. I do not defend Dov. C. nor do I know him. I have sent him letters of complaint etc. I do not condone their ads. (Although look around Manhattan their ads are no different than Calvin Klein, Jordache etc etc. They all disgust me). However, I have also taken great efforts to find other American Made blanks, that are affordable and truly made here. The garment world is shady one. They are quite non-existent. Don't let Alternative Apparel fool you. They are a good company, their product is not up to par with AA. But that aside, they CLAIM to be sweat shop free and compliant with international employment laws. Do you actually know what that means? When I write to them to gain more specific information, they do not answer. To say they comply with international employment laws, means that what ever is standard in China, is what they comply with. Guess what? That sometimes equals sweatshops and child labor. Unfortunately commerce has turned into having to weigh various evils. Not always of course and there are choices. But if you saw a t-shirt in a store that cost $45- by the time the manufacturer, a designer, a rep and then the store made a profit - would you buy it? Most likely, no. I believe that Dov is probably a scum bag - but I also know, that to manufactor items in this country is rare and difficult and conflicting.

A fact is, that even feminists and socially conscious people like a "bargain." As such, to use an American Made product costs big dollars, that people are not willing to pay. It is a global issue as well as a feminist issue. The point is, there is not a ton of choice as the above person suggests. If I could get the same product, from another company I would. I have friends who work for the Unions and I have tried to find other blanks that work. You suggest substance over style. I'm not making excuses for AA, or for myself even, but it is not as simple as suggested by some posts.

It's one thing to do one's best to make conscientious choices and try to share the benefit of one's accumlated knowledge.

It's entirely another thing to point the shame finger at like-minded people who, for some reason or another, do not share one's every commitment. That borders dangerously on sanctimony.

Dov doesn't own the company anymore. and the photographer is a female. just some facts for you all.

kissmypineapple, first off, I don't believe the ad is sexist. It's not pro-woman, but I don't think it's anti-woman either. Like I said, this ad isn't explicit and it's not promoting an unrealistic ideal for women, so whatever anyone gets from the ad is completely on them. Secondly, I think my outrage is appropriate. I don't get emotional too often, so when I do, it's appropriate. I'm not going to let someone judge me for where I shop when they don't know me at all. I spend plenty of time reading clothing manufacturer's policies on workplace fairness. If they don't have one on their website, I ask them what they're policies on sweatshops and labor are (some don't answer, some don't know!) MirandaJay pointed people who like American Apparel to Alternative Apparel. I went to their website and discovered that while their clothes look exactly like American Apparel's, they cost twice as much! I buy sweat-free as often as I can, and I can spend a few extra bucks on a sweat-free shirt because I know the money's going to paying a fair wage to the workers. But am I going to spend twice as much for the same clothes because their models wear more clothes? Absolutely not. Where do they get off charging twice as much for the same clothes? They might not be exploiting the models, but they're exploiting their customers' consciences. Thirdly, I don't feel guilty about buying AA stuff. Why should I? Because the CEO is a douchebag? Like I said, show me one who isn't. MirandaJay makes it like buying something from a shitty CEO is a crime, when everyone knows it's impossible not to. Therefore, she's being a giant hypocrite, and I don't like hypocrisy. And that's all I have to say.

Femily, I apologize for calling you a hipster. I'd certainly fly off the handle if someone called me a hipster, too.
That's not why I got mad, but I'll humor you since you seem to like to think you're right about everything.
And I agree that personal attacks (like calling me an asshole and telling me to shut my fucking face) actually DO weaken an argument - that is, if one has an argument other than "it makes me look hot and you probably shop at places that suck, too."
Not probably. You do shop at places that suck. Everyone does. You making it like you don't while dissing people who do makes you a hypocrite. Pointing out the fact that you're a hypocrite shows that your argument has no basis. Being a hypocrite on the issue you're arguing means you're not entitled to argue. And I didn't call you an asshole, I said you sounded like one. And I didn't tell you to shut up, I merely suggested it.
And you are, from what I can tell, the only person who really defended AA and so people which included but was not limited to myself, told you a little bit about Dov Charney and the story behind the AA ads (which is, if you fuck Dov, you get to be in the ads).
But I didn't have as big a problem with the ad as everyone else to begin with. I had a bigger problem with the graffiti artist making such an outrageous statement that it takes away from the broader issue of objectifying women in ads (and I wasn't the only one who thought that).
I won't give you a list of the companies I shop at, because that's pretty silly - the thread has not been about the ethics of corporations but the ethics of a single CEO who runs a single corporation - we're being specific on this thread, so lets stay on topic.
No, you judged those who shop at AA as people who support the CEOs practices. I just want to know who and what you support. But the thing is, you don't know, so you have no room to judge. I don't judge people who shop at Wal-Mart, even though I don't like their practices. I assume that the people who shop there do so because Wal-Mart monopolizes everything or that they're too poor or too busy to shop elsewhere. That's the difference between you and me.
But yeah, if I find out that a company is doing a lot of horrible shit that I just can't ignore for the sake of style then I won't go there anymore. I think Michael Kors makes pretty cute purses but he uses dog fur in his clothing, so I'm not going to buy from Michael Kors.
So this moral superiority complex begins and ends at clothing. No wonder you cast so many stones!
If you can live with continuing to spend your money at AA regardless of how the company advertises and how the CEO conducts itself, well ok then. I agree with kissmypineapple - the money is already spent. No need to burn the stuff you have already, just think about finding an alternative that won't make you freak out and get defensive on people who were not rude to you in the first place
You weren't rude? You're the most judmental person here! But as long as I don't have to burn the clothes that I bought from AA, I won't force you to regurgitate the fruit you ate that an illegal immigrant picked for free. That's a deal.

There's always thrift and recycled clothes. Maybe they were originally made in a sweat shop but at least you aren't contributing to MORE being made, spending money to line the pockets of a disgusting racist and sexist company, and things you can afford.

Just like I don't know you, you don't know me, and you don't know where I spend my money or how I live my life - and I don't think that's any of your business really and if you don't want to have someone express their opinion about what you do maybe you should think twice before you lay that all out on a message board.

I wasn't rude to you, get a hold of yourself.