Abercrombie Is Against Large People, Which We Already Know

Posted on by
1

Abercrombie and Fitch doesn’t carry the sixes XL and XXL in their clothing store. They do carry those sizes in men’s clothing so that buff male athletes will also wear the brand.

Large people do not appeal to A&F’s marketing scheme. The CEO has made multiple public statements on the topic, including “It’s almost everything. That’s why we hire good-looking people in our stores. Because good-looking people attract other good-looking people, and we want to market to cool, good-looking people. We don’t market to anyone other than that.”

We know. We noticed that all of the preppy, popular kids in high school had wardrobes full of Abercrombie and Fitch apparel.

This marketing scheme makes logical sense. The popular teens see other beautiful teens wearing the brand and want to fit in. They see the advertisements full of impossibly beautiful people. Every year, the company comes out with a catalogue that has to be purchased from the store, chock full of pictures of naked, stereotypically attractive, predominately white people. Only people who deem themselves in the league of the attractiveness of the models should be wearing the clothes, as far as the brand is concerned.

Those less “attractive” may aspire to be one of the popular kids. They also shell out the money and don the clothing, on the off chance that this will make them as attactive and as cool as those they wish they were friends with.

Finally, there are those with larger body types who simply will not be able to fit into the clothing brand. This makes CEO Mike Jeffries very happy. Without his clothes being unobtainable by the truly “unattractive”, then his clothes would not be as cool. The core customers are to be stereotypically hot, youthful people.

For all of these reasons, the brand is able to overprice clothing that is marketed to teens. Teenagers are generally not able to pay the same clothing prices that adults do. Instead, they shop at cheaper outlets like Forever 21 and H&M. With this cool-ness branding, teenagers are willing to pay whatever it takes to make it. Massive amounts of buyers fly from Asian countries to large A&F stores in order to fulfill their client’s wishes and provide this elusive, cool clothing.

Not to mention that aspiring to these ideals can create eating disorders.

Legally, the brand must hire sales people as “models”. This way, they must be attractive and cool, personifying everything that Mike Jeffries wants. Potentially less attractive employees work in the back of the store, in the stock room.

I think that is a brilliant marketing scheme. I also think that it is disgusting.

Another CEO quote for your viewing pleasure:

“In every school there are the cool and popular kids, and then there are the not-so-cool kids. Candidly, we go after the cool kids. We go after the attractive all-American kid with a great attitude and a lot of friends. A lot of people don’t belong [in our clothes], and they can’t belong. Are we exclusionary? Absolutely. Those companies that are in trouble are trying to target everybody: young, old, fat, skinny. But then you become totally vanilla. You don’t alienate anybody, but you don’t excite anybody, either.”

Ugh. Makes sense, but no thank you. If purposeful discrimination is what it takes to be cool, then you get what you pay for.



You Might Also Like ...

Don’t Dumb Down Science Fiction For Women (Surprise! Women Are Smart)

Posted on by
Reply

Sometimes a television show or film will take an unorthodox narrative style. That’s standard. Sometimes the setting is surprising for the story or genre being depicted—an easily recognizable example would be Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy, which seems to largely shy away from admitting that it’s set in a version of the DC Universe. But a lot of people enjoyed that, so okay. That’s a stylistic choice.

But sometimes, a science fiction show is written more as a drama, focusing on “the human story,” not because of a genuine stylistic preference but because of, well, sexism. Courting a wider audience. Which translates to: “Courting a female audience.”

I will be honest: I have a vested interest in this topic, as I write fantasy (a broad umbrella term that includes science fiction). I would love to have some books made into television series. I would really love to micro-manage those shows (I’m a control-freak; it’s not an uncommon quality in writers).

But I’m also a viewer. I grew up watching a lot of science fiction (even when I was young enough that I would go and make LEGO reproductions of what I had seen). Stargate, Babylon 5, Farscape, and even Star Trek and Andromeda.

Sorry, Delenn from Babylon 5 can’t hear your preconceived misogynistic notions over the sound of what a terrifying badass female protagonist she is.

There is a lot less science fiction on television right now (especially now that Clone Wars has come to an end after five magnificent seasons). What little there is tends to be these sorts of terrestrial dramas. Campy science fiction like Eureka or Warehouse 13 combined with Battlestar Galactica to, well, kind of destroy science fiction. Wacky adventures with a relatively low-budget or gripping dramas that mostly capitalize on being upsetting aren’t what I want out of any television show. But people are letting networks get away with it.

And to networks? Well, shows that “tell stories about people” (most shows do; I only worry when they repeat that line again and again when advertising a new show) are really saying: “We don’t think that women will watch more traditional science fiction. Research says that women dominate certain markets of television viewership. We want to attract women. Women don’t like science. They like romance.”

Which is, um, incredibly insulting to women.

I’ll admit that any Star Trek series can be weird and episodic and so hit-and-miss that it’s usually easier to watch select episodes that are particularly good or deal with certain story-arcs than it is to watch the Overly Didactic Episodes (TM). But Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis? They told excellent stories with a small group of really interesting characters.

And Babylon 5? Guys, if Game of Thrones were set in space and dealt with alien races instead of human noble houses, it would just be called Babylon 5. Same kinds of excellent story-arcs. Same kinds of characters.

If you want people to watch your show or your films, make a good story. Make a great one. Give it a wonderful setting and execute it properly. Hire the right actors and make sure that your writing is airtight.

Don’t change your story angle because you think that if you use smaller words, girls, who like romantic comedies and princesses, will come flocking to watch your show. They’ll probably see it for being garbage and stop watching and be just as disappointed as your male viewers.

And then girls will actually have a thing against science fiction.

 

PS: Yes, this means you, SeeFee (“SyFy”) Channel. A few years ago, you suddenly forgot that your name was spelled “SciFi” and your programming turned into garbage. I mean, it’s great if you want to watch ghosthunters or professional wrestling. But, as it stands, the SeeFee Channel is an insult to everything that it used to be. Kind of like how Stargate Universe was a big, stupid slap in the face to the previous two Stargate series.



You Might Also Like ...

Unsolicited Grooming Advice: A Two-Way Street

Posted on by
Reply

The typical caricature of a feminist includes a man-hating woman who is offended by conventional beauty and by a number of typically feminine grooming habits. Most of us have seen this. A woman who refuses to wear makeup—not because she happens to choose to not wear it, but because she is intentionally rejecting “the patriarchy’s insane demands that women paint themselves to please men.”

This is a caricature, and, like most caricatures, it’s a wildly inaccurate one. If a woman shaves her legs or underarms or privates purely to please a current or potential man, then she’s welcome to do that. I would argue that it’s better if she does it for herself. Honestly, though, I tell myself that my own grooming is “just for me,” and that’s mostly true (I lived alone for a summer in an apartment above a shop and I kept showering and shaving and actually lost a lot of weight), but I’ve caught myself shaving my face and doing some mild manscaping ahead of my normal schedule simply because I’m going to a party that night and, well, fortune favors the prepared.

Mostly for me, a little bit for other people. I hope that that’s the case for most people.

Every November, there are a group of “people” (I’m using the term loosely) who grow facial hair for No-Shave November. I don’t know if it’s some sort of insecure display of the fact that these young men continue to produce testosterone, or just a flimsy excuse to avoid shaving for a few weeks.

There was a statement going around last November (and perhaps in previous Novembers?): “Girls who participate in No-Shave November will also be participating in No-D December.” The letter D, here, is a euphemism for penis, and the only people who use it sincerely are the same little meatbags who use the word “swag” with a straight face.

That kind of statement is inevitably followed by people railing against guys for telling women what to do with their bodies.

For the record, I am opposed to telling women what to do with their bodies . . . aside from the occasional: “Work it, girl.”

That said, ladies, men can have input on your grooming habits. Guys can say that they like you with your hair down or up. They can say that they like when you wear glasses or they can identify which blouse you wear they think really brings out your eyes. Oh, and they can say if they’d prefer that you shaved your arms, legs, and/or privates.

There’s an upside to this—you can have input on their grooming habits. Some boys don’t shower regularly. Some boys let their beard grow in uneven patches that are so not the same thing as “sexy stubble.” Some guys grow hair on their backs. Some guys shower but somehow fail to properly clean their groins, leading to a horrible smell that makes you want to keep your face away. Some guys think: “Hey, I have a feeling that maybe I should grow a mustache”

Respond with the Pitch Perfect quote: “Well… sometimes I have the feeling I can do crystal meth, but then I think, mmm… better not. ”

Because no, it is never cool if you grow a mustache. Honestly, a mustache is about as unattractive of a characteristic as an addiction to crystal meth.

Anyway, I’m not saying that you should make demands of boys in retaliation for them suggesting that your genitals are more aesthetically pleasing when they don’t look like . . . whatever female genitals look like when they still have hair on them (I certainly don’t know what they look like—it’s 2013. How would I? I know that some women still have pubic hair, but I’ve never seen any at any naked parties, or in those traumatic naked women who show up in banners when I’m just trying to innocently pirate episodes of a television show that I just watched legally on cable but now want to take screenshots from).

Telling guys which grooming habits they should have isn’t revenge, but may let them know what it sounds like when other people give you input on your own body. It might also shape them to be more to your liking. We all give each other feedback, and where we grow hair on our bodies is a fine place to give polite, respectful input.

 

PS: By the way, if anything, you have more of a right to tell a guy to shave his beard than he does to tell you what to do with your . . . Eye of Sauron (is that an inoffensive euphemism for female genitalia? Yes. Yes it is). We live in a society in which we have to see other people’s faces all of the time but usually only see other people’s groins when we elect to do so. Facial hair is definitely more in-your-face (ugh pun so unintended) than any other body hair.

PPS: Okay, there are certain scenarios in which other body hair is more in-your-face, literally speaking, than facial hair. Work out your respective list of grooming demands with your partner or partners if you disagree over these sorts of maintenance issues.



You Might Also Like ...

Abstinence Only? Screw that!

Posted on by
Reply



Elizabeth Smart was kidnapped when she was fourteen and held for nine months. Now, she’s an activist and an ABC News contributor. I have a few issues with Elizabeth Smart, namely that she really capitalized on her trauma. Immediately there was an interview, a movie, and a book all with her help and participation. Pretty sure she’s the only trauma victim that did that in under a month. Also, the part of her story in which she said she was out with her captors, went up to someone and said, “I’m Elizabeth Smart” and when they just kind of shrugged, not recognizing her name she went back to her rapists.
However, I’ll give credit where credit is due and Smart is speaking on behalf of victims and “abstinence only” education. She was at Johns Hopkins discussing human trafficking and sexual violence and said:

“she “felt so dirty and so filthy” after she was raped by her captor, and she understands why someone wouldn’t run “because of that alone.”
Smart spoke at a Johns Hopkins human trafficking forum, saying she was raised in a religious household and recalled a school teacher who spoke once about abstinence and compared sex to chewing gum.
“I thought, ‘Oh, my gosh, I’m that chewed up piece of gum, nobody re-chews a piece of gum, you throw it away.’ And that’s how easy it is to feel like you no longer have worth, you no longer have value,” Smart said. “Why would it even be worth screaming out? Why would it even make a difference if you are rescued? Your life still has no value.”

Psychologists and sexual abuse counselors have all said that a comprehensive sex education can help prevent sex crimes. I don’t understand why in 2013 we are still teaching “just say no” when it comes to sex. Teach kids to be responsible about their bodies. Give them the tools they need. Right now we’re sending them into the woods at night without a flashlight and saying, “don’t trip or get hurt!” GIVE THEM A GOD DAMN FLASHLIGHT!
It’s backwards thinking and it makes sex dirty and our bodies bad. It causes shame, body issues, secrets, and self-destructive behavior. I would for once like someone to do something that would actually benefit the education of our children. But no, they won’t. They’ll keep banning Anne Frank, Red Riding Hood, and teaching us how to multiply fractions (I have NEVER needed to know how to do that in my life and excuse me that’s what a calculator and Google is for) but they will not teach anything that has any type of practical use.



You Might Also Like ...