Abercrombie & Fitch drops T-shirts that sparked 'girlcott'

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05308/600954.stm

Abercrombie & Fitch has agreed to stop selling T-shirts that some groups have found objectionable, including an Allegheny County girls group that launched a "girlcott" last Sunday that triggered a national firestorm against the Ohio company.

The edgy apparel store reached an amicable agreement with the Women's & Girls Foundation of Southwest Pennsylvania, according to a joint statement announced late today, to stop selling the T-shirts.

"We recognize that the shirts in question, while meant to be humorous, might be troubling to some,'' according to the statement by Abercrombie & Fitch. "We are pleased with this resolution.''

Among the "attitude T-shirts" assailed by the group of two dozen girls were those that read: "Who needs brains when you have these?" and "Blondes Are Adored, Brunettes are Ignored."

[Bunny]

1. Good for those girls!

:thumbsup:

[ET Awful]

2. Right on girls!

Well done!

:)

[MadisonProgressive]

3. What responsible adult would allow those shirts to be

representative of their company?

[JoFerret]

4. Good

...go girrrrlz. How many years before the Third Wave? (We need it now.)

[coffeenap]

5. Yes--my 11 year old cheered for them! nt

[Pirate Smile]

6. Good!

[madaboutharry]

7. This company has obviously been taken over

by greedy idiots. Many years ago, going decades back, this was a really fine sporting goods and apparel store. It is a crying shame that it is reduced to this.

[Tanuki]

8. History of bigotry

Abercrombie & Fitch must think free negative publicity is good for them. Only a few years ago they were the object of boycotts over racist t-shirts, and they have had other tasteless and offensive offerings in recent years. From 2002:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/04/18/MN109646.DTL

<snip>Days after hitting store shelves, new Abercrombie & Fitch T-shirts featuring caricatured faces with slanted eyes and rice-paddy hats had Asian Americans in the Bay Area and beyond demanding a public apology from the retailer.

The Midwestern clothier, which targets the young, affluent and active, said it was surprised by the mounting controversy over the T-shirt designs.

One has a slogan that says, "Wong Brothers Laundry Service -- Two Wongs Can Make It White." Beside the prominent lettering are two smiling figures in conical hats harking back to 1900s popular-culture depictions of Chinese men.

"We personally thought Asians would love this T-shirt," said Hampton Carney <snip>

[AspenRose]

60. Abercrombie & Fitch Class Action Lawsuit settled

http://www.afjustice.com/

These bastards are known for being racist. Doesn't surprise me they're sexist, too.

[Aimah]

75. A&F is worse than Wal-Mart

I worked for a competitor for 5 years. I don't say this because they were competition. I hired a lot of good A&F workers that were fired for lame reasons. One was fired because a Regional came to have a look over of the store and told the managers that she was not attractive enough for A&F. They've been sued before but no one has ever hit them for what can be clearly proven against them. Their practice of only hiring managers who are either in College or with College degrees. There is nothing that entails with a clothing store mgt position that calls for a college degree

[Iris]

9. "the edgy apparel store"

what a bunch of bull shit. Catering to tweens and teens is not "edgy".

[ismnotwasm]

12. I agree

"Edgy" they are not. Boring yes. Kind of dully mainstream when they're not being misogynist assholes as in this case. I guess they feel the need to shake up their indifferent apparel by being completely offensive once in a while.

[Cha]

10. Flamebait tee shirts and

good for the girlcotts..they got results.

[MercutioATC]

11. I've gotta start shopping at A&F...

With all of the "limited production" clothing they've been making, you know one or two of them are going to be collectible.

[mzteris]

13. nooooooooooooooooooo........

don't ever shop there.

Their catalogs are like pornography.

I refuse to shop there or buy anything by Calvin Klein (pedophile).

Or Victoria's Secret.

Women are more than their "sex" and scantily clad body.

[MercutioATC]

29. Yeah, and.....?

;)

I actually get my cargo shorts there that I use when I shoot gigs. It's kinda strange being in a store where some of the PARENTS are younger than me, but there's no beating those shorts for what I do.

As far as the whole "using sex to sell" thing, it's been done that way for ages. It's cheap and superficial, but it does sell merchandise. It works as a business tool. I brought my son up differently. He doesn't want the newest and coolest stuff, he knows what he likes and the label doesn't matter to him. (He's scandalized that I shop at A&F...I'm too "old" to do that).

I'm not a label whore. I don't care if it comes from Sears or Gucci as long as it gives me what I want (although I'll admit a liking for Canali suits). A&F makes the cargo shorts I like. Victoria's Secret has some great lingerie (not for personal use, but I appreciate it on women).

A company has to be pretty bad for me to refuse to shop there...it's just me, but marketing doesn't have much to do with my decision.


I completely understand where you're coming from, though...

[mzteris]

41. thanks

for clearing this up......

**Victoria's Secret has some great lingerie (not for personal use, **

:rofl:

I needed the laugh, believe me. :)

[Chicago Democrat]

21. Im going tommorrow, those will be worth money...

maybe?

[SharonRB]

14. Great!

[Thangalin]

15. Humour

Nice to know people's senses of humour are going down the tubes.

[alarimer]

17. There was nothing humorous

in the messages on these shirts. Unless you find treating women as sex objects funny. Obviously these girls didn't and neither did I.

[alcibiades_mystery]

24. Why do you hate consumer freedom?

I mean really, now. Aren't people free to find a shirt that blares "Love those Tig Bitties" NOT funny? And, if they find them NOT funny, aren't they free NOT to buy them, and to URGE OTHERS not to buy them?

What's your beef with freedom?

[opiate69]

26. Who hates consumer freedom?

Which side in this issue has succeeded in abolishing consumer feedom by forcing a store to remove a product from its shelves? Shall I get you a mirror?

[alcibiades_mystery]

35. The store can sell them or not

They weren't "forced" to do anything. They decided, based on the reactions of the market, that the shirts were more trouble than they were worth, and were negatively affecting their brand and bottom line. There was no government intervention. There was nobody forcing anyone to do anything. The only reason the other consumers "lost" the freedom to buy the shirts was because Abercrombie & Fitch CHOSE to stop selling them. Love the free market? That's how the free market works, skippy.

[opiate69]

50. Wrong, Junior...

They decided, due to overbearing complaints frm a very vocal minority to stop selling these products. Mark one up for the self-righteous nannies.

[alcibiades_mystery]

54. They can make the decision

The fact that you don't like the decision doesn't make it anymore "wrong." Nobody forced them to do anything, and if the vocal minority is so minor, they should have written them off as you do. You want to take away people's right to oppose products, and that IS restrictive. Businesses are free to ignore the "nannies" if they choose. To bad you don't like free speech.

[opiate69]

57. When did I say I wanted to take away

people's rights to oppose products? Do you know what mature, rational, intelligent people like myself do when I oppose a product? I don't fucking buy it. But I would never presume to tell you that you can't. Now, which one of us has a problem with free speech? The one who thinks this store should still be able to sell these shirts, even though they may be offensive, or the one who supports the store's decision to cave in to presswure from a vocal minority? Again, I think you need to look in the mirror, sweetie.

[alcibiades_mystery]

58. Nobody's presuming to tell anyone else they CAN'T

This is the point you seem to be missing with your supposed intelligent rationality. They7're telling other people that they SHOULDN'T, which is a perfectly good argument to make. Now, whether other people agree with that argument is up to them. Al they're doing is saying "We're not buying this product, and we think you SHOULDN'T either." You pretend that this is some violation of other people's freedom. It is not. It is an assertion of an argument, and an assertion of a set of values. If the store doesn't want to risk losing business on that basis, then I guess the stronger values won on the free market.

Suppose it was a truly racist shirt, that said something like "Niggers are Lazy." If people boycotted any store that sold that shirt, would they be violating the rights of the people who want it? Clearly not. They would simply be saying to the store: "We're not buying ANYTHING from you as long as you sell that shirt." You fail to explain how such a posture violates anything at all. Are people not free to express their ethical preferences? Are they not free to persuade others that such-and-such is ethically wrong? Are stores not free to continue selling a product, despite said protests? Your argument makes no sense. There's no violation of freedom either in spirit or letter when it comes to a boycott: far from it - there's the exercise of freedom. Yet you choose to focus on the people who suddenly "lost" their freedom to buy a shirt? What laughable horseshit you spread around.

[opiate69]

59. Wrong again..

"Al (sic) they're doing is saying "We're not buying this product, and we think you SHOULDN'T either."

What they're saying (and you are defending) is "We're not buying this product, and we think the store should pull it so you can't either."

[alcibiades_mystery]

69. First of all

Pointing out obvious typos on internet posts is a super weak move, and unworthy of you. You have a better argument than that, and should not stoop to inanities.

That said, you still fail to understand the operation. The boycotters have no power to prevent others from buying the shirts. They only have the power NOT to purchase anything at the store. What the store decides to do with that is up to the store.

You notably avoided responding to the hypothetical situation of the outright racist shirt. It goes to the heart of the matter, however. You present purchasing decisions as a private matter. If I don't like the product, I simply don't have to buy it. You exclude the possibility that a product could do a public harm. That's the essence of the case. If a person believes that a product does a public harm, that person can take their case to the public. The public need not assent to the argument, in which case, the product will probably continue to be sold. If a sufficient number do assent, then the seller would have to consider whether it is economically viable to continue selling the product. Potential buyers have no inherent right to a particular seller's product. The decision to sell is the seller's alone.

Let's say I have a small stand that sells tea, with milk, lemon, or honey. Let's say the PETA wackos decide to boycott me because the extraction of honey "cruelly smokes bees out of trees," or some such. What is wrong with them doing so? Nothing. They have a set of values that they would like to argue for in a public forum. There is nothing wrong with this. It's what people do. It's the same principle that prevents the selling of "Niggers are Lazy" t-shirts. Now, as tea seller extraordinaire, I have a decision to make. Will the PETA nuts' argument do damage to my business sufficient for me to stop selling tea with honey? I freely choose on that point. Now, you're arguing that fans of tea with honey are harmed in some way through this process. But they are not guaranteed the right to buy tea with honey from me in the first place!

What bothers you, it seems, is the moralism of it all. Why do they care what others wear? Well, that's the point. People argue for their particular value systems in public forums. Nothing guarantees that their values will win out in the public forum. I think anyone selling a "Niggers are Lazy" t-shirt makes profit by harming society. These young women obviously feel the same about these t-shirts. In the case of a boycott, all the decisions are freely made - by these women, and by the retailers. If those desiring the t-shirts can no longer buy them from Abercrombie & Fitch, that's Abercrombie & Fitch's responsibility. These folks didn't make good arguments in the public forum. Freedom never means that nobody loses.

[opiate69]

70. You have a very naive idea of what boycotts are for...

Or, more accurately, public boycotts. The only reason for people to organize public, high profile boycotts is to force business to change policy. Nothing more, nothing less..


As far as the hypothetical racist tshirt is concerned, since I believe in free speech, yes.. I think a business should be able to print said shrts, and people should be able to buy them.. at the same time, the person who decides to wear said shirt should be ready to accept the consequences of his/her actions. Also, just because the phrase "Niggers are Lazy" is, on it's surface, offensive and racist, there are conceivably instances where it wouldn't be (for example, I think P.Diddy wearing one onstage would be exceptionally ironic since his work ethic renders the statement ridiculous.)

[alcibiades_mystery]

76. I know precisely what boycotts are for

I also know that a business can choose to ignore them. That apparently doesn't dawn on you. If people have a belief that something is generally harmful to the public good, they are completely free to press that case through their buying power. Why this strikes you as an oppressive operation is a mystery. Why people shouldn't group together and say "We're not buying anything from the store selling 'Niggers are Lazy' t-shirts" is also a mystery. If the store changes their policy, that's the store's decision. You just don't like that people can exert their market power to change policy. And that's unacceptable in a free society. Besides, and again, there is no government intervention involved. If another market actor wants to come in and produce those shirts, or shirts like them, they're free to do so. They'll have to deal with the market response. At the end of the day, I really don't get your beef. Of course a boycott is meant to "force" the action of a seller. But that force is exerted precisely on the store's freedom to choose. The store can choose to listen to that force, or ignore it.

[NYC Liberal]

31. So what about people who WOULD like to buy them?

They are free not to buy them, but why should their dislike of the product prevent OTHERS from buying it if they so choose?

Isn't this was we rail about with religious conservatives who try to force their views on everyone else?

[superconnected]

32. Why don't they be funny without using minorities?

I suppose they could sell tees that make fun of blacks and claim the blacks just shouldn't buy them. Put blacks and guns and blacks and drugs on the shirt. Or how about white women holding welfare checks?

Oh wait, that would be racist.

Well how do you think the Asians FEEL?

[opiate69]

33. WTF are you babbling about?

The Asian shirts are not the issue here. Read the OP please.

[regnaD kciN]

39. But the Asian shirts were brought up earlier in this thread...

...so they're fair game as well. And it strikes me that the latest offensive campaign is almost an echo of that one.

It's almost as if they're trying to show how "edgy" they are by ridiculing those who are outside their target market (teens -- especially males -- and college students from affluent families), and then claiming credit for "not being 'Politically Correct'." :eyes:

And it seems to me that the latest women's shirt that includes the slogan "Who needs brains when you have these?" is a pretty accurate reflection of the attitude of those who run A&F, as well as those who buy their clothing.

[alcibiades_mystery]

36. Free market, baby

They weren't "forced" to do anything. They decided, based on the reactions of the market, that the shirts were more trouble than they were worth, and were negatively affecting their brand and bottom line. There was no government intervention. There was nobody forcing anyone to do anything. The only reason the other consumers "lost" the freedom to buy the shirts was because Abercrombie & Fitch CHOSE to stop selling them. Love the free market? That's how the free market works, skippy.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kalibex]

78. Um...why are you dumping on the above poster...?

He/she was just answering those who didn't like that consumers had successfully used their own influence on the market to help A&F see the error of their ways...

[DainBramaged]

79. For this quote, and if you didn't understand what I wrote

it's pointless to debate you too.

Aren't people free to find a shirt that blares "Love those Tig Bitties" NOT funny? And, if they find them NOT funny, aren't they free NOT to buy them, and to URGE OTHERS not to buy them?

CHILDREN should NOT be given those decisions to make THAT"\'S WHY I dumped on him.

[kalibex]

80. No, I got your point....

...thing is, that particular poster was defending the public's right to boycott a store that was selling shirts many would consider inappropriate for the target market (which includes pre-teens, etc)...

Geeze...I really think you two are on the same page.

[LostinVA]

81. They are on the same page --

[alcibiades_mystery]

85. Only difference is I don't go around calling people assholes

That job devolves to the "good parents" of the board, apparently.

:eyes:

[LostinVA]

86. Hehehehehehe....

You can call me one, if it makes you feel better...

[alcibiades_mystery]

87. I feel fine as it is

I'm not the one who made a fool of myself, after all.

:toast:

[cally]

43. Fine, buy a plain T-shirt and a fabric pen

and write whatever slogan you want on it. Noone is stopping you from wearing what you want. Consumers are using their economic power and a company is making an economic decision.

If you wore a T-shirt with an original slogan, at least you would be showing some creativity and economic sense. Why pay $50 to put on some slogan that an advertising marketeer thought was good business?+

[alcibiades_mystery]

44. Of course

These people who pretend that anyone's freedom has been violated by this boycott don't understand basic concepts.

[LostinVA]

45. This was a boycott, not censorship

A&F can do whatever they want, as can consumers.

Personally, I don't know why anybody would want to buy their cheaply made, way overpriced crap.

[Yupster]

16. I guess I must be really old

but I don't have any idea what all this is about.

[laureloak]

18. LOL! Seriously, do you think it's a good thing for girls to

wear t-shirs that say...
"Who needs brains when you have these?" or
"Blondes Are Adored, Brunettes are Ignored."

[LoZoccolo]

22. self-deleted

oops

[adigal]

53. They had a t-shirt that said

Who needs brains when you have these (breasts implied.)

AND

Spitting is quitting (implying oral sex)

A group of girls started a boycott of them, and they have been pulled.

[AX10]

19. A & F is pure horseshit!

I would never spend a penny at their stores.

[mongo]

20. How empowering

A few girls backed by a national talk show can bully a company into dropping a product.

I wonder if Bill O'Reily and Sean Hannity have picked up on this. I wonder what they can accomplish with their armies of dimwits.

[greyl]

62. Repub Senator Steve Rauschenberger backed them too.

Rauschenberger introduced a resolution in the Illinois State Senate on Thursday (SR 517), in support of the group of teenage girls in Allegheny, Pennsylvania, who had launched a “girlcott” earlier in the week, calling on Abercrombie & Fitch to withdraw the offensive t-shirts or face an organized boycott of their 14 store locations in Illinois.

Yesterday, in response to mounting pressure from families in Illinois and around the nation, Abercrombie & Fitch released the following statement, "A & F has reached an amicable agreement with the Women’s & Girls Foundation of the Southwest Pennsylvania under which we will stop selling several t-shirts in our stores."

“I’m happy Abercrombie & Fitch has done the responsible thing and removed the t-shirts,” said Rauschenberger. “Those girls in Pennsylvania deserve a lot of credit for standing up to irresponsible corporate behavior.I was glad to join them in this call to action. I hope this episode serves as an example to young people that their voices count.”
http://votesteve2006.com/default.asp?categoryID=59

The way I see it, Rauschenberger is glad this boycott keeps people distracted from more important "irresponsible corporate behavior" issues.

What will they attack next, a cartoon character?

[greyl]

65. Rauschenberger (R) backed the girlcott, not A&F.

My title wasn't clear.

[LoZoccolo]

23. The Onion: Fun Toy Banned Because Of Three Stupid Dead Kids

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28331

[LoZoccolo]

25. Anyone who objects to these t-shirts doesn't get them.

It's this fad to wear t-shirts that look like they're old ironically. If anything, they're making fun of what's on the shirt. It's part of a larger fad.

Or do you honestly think they seriously think t-shirts that say things like "K IS FOR KARATE CHOP" are cool?

[RazzleDazzle]

48. A nice Orwellian argument -- too bad you don't work for A&F, eh?

But seriously, is that the best you can come up with to defend sexism?

[LoZoccolo]

71. You can believe whatever you want.

Kids of the age A&F target generally understand the trend. I will say this about A&F though:

- They underestimated the capacity of a lot of people for irony.
- They also underestimated how readily people involved with identity politics will interpret things in an effort to seek attention.

[truthisfreedom]

27. "girlcott." i love that term.

[MercutioATC]

30. It IS a great buzzword.

Amazing it's not been used before.

[Robb]

34. It's not my favorite. (warning: unpopular speech enclosed)

The term "boycott" comes from a person - Charles C. Boycott - who was the subject of history's first, er, boycott. At least the mildly-cloying "herstory" makes a little sense -- histor meaning a wise man.

On topic: I'm unimpressed by the use of philanthropic funds by a bunch of teenage girls here. A&F are just a big, easy, feel-good target. What about thousands of bike shops that sell the "if you can read this, the bitch fell off" shirts?

If solving the problem were the actual plan, a broader solution -- rather than a cheap opportunity to make the AP wire -- would have been presented.

Further, I agree with the poster upstream who noted now someone who might want to buy one, can't. Change the message to say "Bush is a poopy pants," have a conservative group complain it's insensitive, and these threads look quite different.

Off topic: heya! :hi:

[alcibiades_mystery]

37. They wouldn't look different to me

If the conservatives have enough market sway to convince a company to pull those shirts, more power to 'em. People who oppose that move could then counter-protest, and the company would have a decision to make. I see nothing wrong with this. Moreover, your quest for some sort of universal solution seems misplaced. These young women were reacting to a specific issue that they felt affected them. They acted locally on that issue, and got something done. I can hardly now fault them for not having solved misogyny tout court, and that criticism seems a bit vapid to me. Act where you can act. That's the principle of social action. You don't do nothing simply because you can't do everything. Now, to go back to your example - which I think proves this point: which product is more likely to affect and high school and junior high school girls - the "if you can read this..." shirt sold primarily to male bikers (I would guess usually 25+), or these A&F shirts sold primarily to junior high school, high school, and college aged women? They acted on a specific issue that affected them. And I say bravo there.

As for those who would like to buy these shirts, they can take up their issue with Abercrombie & Fitch. It was the company that made the calculation that the "girlcott" was more damaging than any counter-movement by people pining for this product. Any loss of freedom they experience can be attributed to the company's calculation. I'm sure some people want to wear t-shirts emblazoned with outright racist images, too. They can take up their beefs with the clothesmakers who refuse to print such garbage.

[Robb]

56. You're right

It's certainly no blow to anyone's freedom, and was definitely a market decision.

And you're right, I'm not looking for a "solve it all or don't bother" approach; but I'm still unconvinced this is a move that will actually help anyone these girls think is being victimized. It is, however, an excellent thing to put on one's college application, which I would never fault anyone for.

[Iris]

51. If an adult wants to buy a shirt saying "If you can read this, the bitch

fell off" - great. I hope his bitch is happy with him.

What is appalling about this is that they are directed at teenagers - teenage girls, in particular and it's revolting.

If you think it's all in fun, check out this Frontline report about how companies traget teenagers and their pocketbooks:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cool/etc/hunting.html


On a personal note, I can't tell you how much unwanted attention I got as a teenager. I can't imagine what kind of attention a teenaged girl wearing a t-shirt with "Who needs brains when they've got these" would get - and not just from the boys in her class but by creepy grown men who DON'T "get it" as the poster up the thread suggested we don't.

[Robb]

55. Are you actually asking "Won't someone think of the children?"

...Because that's what it sounds like. :shrug:

Of course it's directed at teenage girls. As someone with one currently under his roof, I can tell you that's mild compared with what they bring home.

[Iris]

72. I'm saying that I think it's sick for corporate America to prey on young

women this way. A few years ago, some teenagers were begging company's to make them some jeans that fit. This isn't the 1950s when mom's sewed clothing for their kids; these young women are a the mercy of "the market" and it's disgusting.

[twin_peaks_nikki]

28. If people want to wear t-shirts like "I am with stupid "or

"I am the guy your parents warned you about" or "Buck Fush" or whatever, people should just live with it. Some one needs to get these young ladies to focus on more important issues and explain what free speech means.

[alcibiades_mystery]

38. Don't they have their own right to free speech?

They exercised their own right to free speech. It went like this: "We are not buying a product from your store as long as you sell these t-shirts, and we're telling our friends to do the same." That's all. That was their free speech. Abercrombie & Fitch was also free: to continue selling the shirts or pull them. They pulled them. Freely. Perhaps somebody should explain to YOU what free speech means?

[Shallah Kali]

66. Exactly. Freedom of speech means those girls can say the shirts stink

They didn't use violence. They didn't try to get a law passed against such shirts. The A & F didn't have to stop selling them. I remember many years ago a rap group was getting banned because of sexists and sexual lyrics (2 live crew). I saw them on some talk show and when an audiance member said she didn't like their lyrics and found them offensive one of the group went ballistic saying something like "You can't say that! You are taking away my freedom of speech!". Heh. He was trying to take hers away by telling her to shut up. She didn't say she agreed with the ban just said their lyrics stunk.

[LostinVA]

46. This is not a First Amendment issue

The government didn't force A&F to do anything, and neither did these girls: A&F decided to pull the shirts. Why? Betcha they did a quick focus group and found out the cool PR they were getting had changed from cool to damaging. Or/and too many shareholders started bitching.

Trust me, if they could make $$$ off of the shirts, they would have kept them. Most companies do what is best for the bottom line and shareholders. Companies very, very rarely do "teh right thing" just because.

[LostinVA]

82. IMO, they did focus on an important issue

The disturbing sexualization and degradation of young girls that Corporate America has helped introduce into our society the last few years. Kids ARE sexual creatures, that si not any point I'm debating... but they are kids, and are literally being trained to dress and act a certain way.

My niece is almost 15, a cheerleader, a smart girl, lives in a OK.... but she doesn't dress like some advertisement for underage sex because she thinks it;'s embarrassing and disgusting (also, her parents would never let her). Why does she buy clothes that are stylish, but not disgusting? LL Bean, Eddie Bauer, etc. WAY too much money, but she feels comfortable in those clothes.

She also has some hair-raising stories about other stuff, but that's for another thread.

My point is, the "girlcott" girls aren't prudes -- they are affirming themselves, and that is the most important thing they can do at their age. GRRL Power!!!

[Voltaire99]

40. I am virtually a seamless underwire in my support for the chicks

Don't take bullshit demeaning tees from pig white male capitalists whose culture would rather have you dancing on a bar than sitting in the boardroom.

But you already know that. :-)

[Iris]

52. Very nicely put, Votaire99!

A well thought out and un-patronizing post. Bravo for you!

[Mad_Dem_X]

42. Way to go, girls!!!

Good job, girlcotters! :yourock:

[Ian David]

47. I was a big fan of, "Will you Show me you Penis When I turn 18 Next Week?"

Okay, I made that one up myself.

I'll be busy working on my CafePress store now...

[Bark Bark Bark]

49. Be Sure To Watch Adult Swim!

After feeding to the "white people are stupid" crowd with "The Boondocks," AS will roll over for the Klan with "Minoriteam." Those are some interesting people you're in bed with, Aaron McGruder.

*waits for excuses about how racist garbage is "fighting political correctness"*

[wordpix2]

61. Way to go girls, you brought Abercrummy down in only one week-now

on to the boardroom, Congress and the presidency!

[greyl]

63. lol. Yeah, this hurt their profits. Right. nt

[rocktivity]

64. They're "pleased with the resolution" all right.

A&F got EXACTLY what they wanted out of those T-shirts, and it wasn't profits.

They've been pulling this same stunt at the beginning of every school year since they released that soft-core catalog. They've tried selling T-shirts that said "It's All Relative In West Virginia" and "Wong Brothers Laundry Service--Two Wongs Make A White," and each time were "pressured" into withdrawing them. So why to they keep doing it? Because the controversy it generates saves them a fortune on placing ads. They count on the kids thinking they're cool simply because the grownups don't, the media jumps on it, and they apologize all the way to the bank--mission accomplished!

The boycott and the resulting media attention must have had A&F having orgasms. The way to fight them is to IGNORE them.

:headbang:
rocknation

[entanglement]

88. I agree, A & F is an attention hungry company n/t

[BiggJawn]

67. Plagarism.

Think they stole the idea from THIS one?


I think our ol' buddy likes it...

[DainBramaged]

68. It is not just Abercrombie, it's all of them

Gap, Target, Hot Topic, Wet Seal, Sears (yes Sears), Aeropostale, Hollister they ALL sell t-shirts that degrade females and the unfortunate part is girls BUY THEM. I go shopping with my Daughter and cannot believe the degrading shirts available. And the girls who buy them think they are funny, but as long as their parents do nothing, then the culture of humiliation will continue.


Fucking 2-bit Corrupt Conservative clothing buyers are at fault here. Anything to make a buck, and if it degrades girls so wat. $3 cost T-Shirts for $15, they'll sell 'em. They'd sell rags as fashion if they could.

Wait, they already do. Jeans I'd have thrown away are sold as "hot". Fucking scum clot buyers.

[Iris]

73. I agree. See my posts 51 & 72

[upi402]

74. A non-issue if our hair is on fire!

Which it is, of course.
Rightards love this stuff.
Where's that Aruba girl story?

[Iris]

83. Actually, I see it another way.

These are the girls who are going to be hurt most by this admin.'s new Supreme Court. I'm glad they are aware of how they are being exploited because they're going to need to keep this gumption up for the next 25-30 years while they fight for their reproductive AND employment rights.

[Bombero1956]

84. They degrade everybody

While I wholeheartedly agree with the actions the young women took they need to go further. From a CBS news story dated 9/22/2002.

Target Corp., Gap Inc. and five other U.S. retailers that buy clothing made on Saipan and 23 manufacturers on Thursday agreed to pay $11.25 million to settle a class-action lawsuit alleging factory sweatshop conditions.

In addition to Target and Gap, the new settlements involve J.C. Penney Co., Abercrombie & Fitch, Lane Bryant, The Limited and Talbots. One defendant, Levi Strauss & Co., has not agreed to the settlement but has stopped buying garments from Saipan.

and from an article dated 9/14/05


The remaining U.S. clothing retailers that buy garments manufactured on Saipan in the U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands, and twenty-three Saipan manufacturers have settled claims against them in a federal class-action lawsuit alleging violations of wage and hour laws and other workers rights.


The seven U.S. retailers - Abercrombie & Fitch, Target, Gap, Inc., J.C. Penney Company, Inc., Lane Bryant, Inc., The Limited, Inc., and Talbots, Inc. - join 19 other retailers that had previously settled. The agreement adopts a code of conduct and funds independent monitoring of factories on Saipan. The parties have agreed to explore using the International Labor Organization (ILO), an adjunct of the United Nations, as a monitoring body.

Each company will make a one-time contribution to a fund that will finance the monitoring program and compensate more than 30,000 garment workers, and cover administration costs and attorneys' fees. Today's agreement brings the total settlement fund to more than $20 million. $8.75 million will come from the previously settled retailers and the remainder, $11.25 million, will come from the remaining 23 manufacturers and 7 retailers. The settlement requires court approval and does not involve an admission of wrongdoing by the defendants. Lerach Coughlin attorneys agreed to waive all of its attorneys fees as part of the agreement.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of immigrant workers from nearby Asian countries who, the plaintiffs alleged, were drawn to Saipan with promises of high pay but then allegedly encountered a pattern of long hours, low pay and other objectionable working conditions. The Saipan garment factories produce more than one billion dollars worth of clothing sold annually in U.S. stores.

Source: http://www.lerachlaw.com/lcsr-cgi-bin/mil?templ=news/Saipan.html
»