Abercrombie Is Against Large People, Which We Already Know

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 ...

Abstinence Only? Screw that!



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 ...

Slut-shaming Versus Owning Your Sexuality

Considering the sexuality of women, there are a myriad of terms that ring negatively. From whore, slut, skank and the like to prude and frigid, a woman’s level of sexuality is up for debate.

There really is no comparison to words like these for men. The closest I can come up with would be “man-whore” (which hosts a positive connotation for many men) or something that refers to a man being impotent. Life hosts a myriad of double standards, none of which that we can seemingly avoid.

This is all common knowledge.

What needs to happen now is a cultural change of perspective. America has seen it’s share of changes in public opinion. Why not give the sluts a second chance, with an adoption of non-judgement? Take it from Jenna Marbles: being a slut is a choice. What is also a choice: letting other consenting adults make their own decisions without fear of judgement.

Being open minded doesn’t prevent you from having your own opinions. The difference is an opportunity for change. Choices that you make are not forced upon others. Their choices also may not be for your palette. Even allowing others to make (what you view as) mistakes does not translate to your condoning of their actions.

Europe has a much more successful rate of condom usage than America. In this nation, we host a general feeling of disgust about sex. We allude to it, we joke about it, and we stream more porn than the Vatican. What is lacking are honest discussions concerning sexuality from a young age. Being educated makes individuals feel more secure, knowledgable, and confident in whatever decisions they may deign to make.

Everyone has a vice or two. Pick yours. Don’t hurt yourself or others. If it calls for it, condom up.



You Might Also Like ...

Spring Breakers: Unconventional Feminism?

Normally, hot, young, bikini-clad women doing drugs are not sources for discussion of feminism. A modern feminist such as myself is not supposed to support the blatant sexualization of young starlets who are role models for other young women.

Still, a viewing of the new movie Spring Breakers left me feeling bewildered. Am I offended?  Was this a good movie? Was this a good or bad thing for womankind? The ridiculousness is unending and unnerving.

The movie features four college aged girls who trek down to Florida for Spring Break. To afford this trip, they hold up a diner at squirtgun-gunpoint. Once in Florida, they are arrested for partying too hard. James Franco’s grangsta/ rapper character bails the girls out of jail and woos them with his stuff, such as guns and blue kool-aide.

Selena Gomez’s character Faith is the moral compass of the group. Albeit whiney and attempting to “find herself” on Spring Break, Faith is strong and shows that she alone is in control of her own decisions. A girl will do anything for her best friends, but must still stand up for herself.

Vanessa Hudgens’ and Ashley Benson’s characters are the more hardcore of the group, breaking both laws and female stereotypes. They are not the topless, silent girls on the rapper’s arm. They are the girls that make the rapper’s jaw drop as they defy everything he has seen in women. Shooting up Florida in their bikinis and pink unicorn ski masks certainly defies everything I’d previously seen. Sure, the obligatory threesome occurs, but it is all under their control and not just about pleasing the man.

Rachel Korine’s (who?) character is in full control of her sexuality. She tells the men explicitly when they can or cannot do the dirty. This scene made me expect that she was about to be raped. Perhaps there is something wrong with a movie when it makes you surprised that no one was raped.

None of these characters or scenes are typical of female empowerment, and yet I can’t help arguing in their favor. A walk outside of the cliché and into the questionable is sometimes necessary. Spring Breakers has women who speak their mind, make their own decisions, and do nothing because a man wants them to. Please ignore the gun fetishism.



You Might Also Like ...