This Abercrombie Debacle...Opinions?

crazedACD

Active Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2012
Messages
3,048
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
West Missouri
#1
Judging by the comments on the articles, this is a controversial subject, so...be nice. :p

http://elitedaily.com/news/world/abercrombie-fitch-ceo-explains-why-he-hates-fat-chicks/
Anyone who’s been to Abercrombie & Fitch in the last few years has probably noticed that they don’t carry XL or XXL sizes of women’s clothing because they don’t want overweight women wearing their brand.

According to this popular teen clothing retailer, fat chicks will just never be a part of the “in†crowd.

They take a big risk with this tactic because two of Abercrombie’s biggest competitors, H&M and American Eagle, both offer XXL sizes for men and women.

The largest women’s pants available at Abercrombie are a size 10, while H&M goes up to 16 and American Eagle goes even farther to 18.
Abercrombie’s attitude towards plus-sized women derives from CEO Mike Jeffries. Robin Lewis, author of The New Rules of Retail, spoke to Business Insider about the kind of people Jeffries wants advertising his brand.

“He doesn’t want larger people shopping in his store, he wants thin and beautiful people,†Lewis said. “He doesn’t want his core customers to see people who aren’t as hot as them wearing his clothing. People who wear his clothing should feel like they’re one of the ‘cool kids.’â€
Lewis said that the only reason Abercrombie offers XL and XXL in men’s sizes is to appeal to large athletes.

In a 2006 interview with Salon, Jeffries confirmed that the communication between hot people is his primary marketing tactic.

“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,†he said.

Jeffries also told Salon that he wasn’t bothered by excluding fat people. In fact, he said that not limiting his ideal demographic would make his clothing less desirable.

“In every school there are the cool and popular kids, and then there are the not-so-cool kids,†he told the site. “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,†he told Salon.
One might wonder why Mike Jeffries only wants to be in the company of good-looking people. That curiosity will end after seeing what this freak looks like.

After seeing a picture of Mike Jeffries, it can only be concluded that he was never around good-looking people as a kid and is now making up for the glamorous youth he wishes he had.
And then this guy's response, I :rofl1:
[YOUTUBE]O95DBxnXiSo[/YOUTUBE]
 

GoingNowhere

Active Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
1,793
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
USA
#2
I think the CEO is a douchebag. And I'm a young, petite woman who could fit into their clothes if I wanted to. Can't say I want to anymore. Unfortunately, their products tend to be more marketed to the middle school/high school age group, which means my boycotting won't change my behavior too much anyway, but seriously? It's one thing to hire only "good looking" models (after all, sex sells) - but to deliberately discriminate about who buys your clothes and be so up front/rude about it? Yeah, no thanks.

PS - best video ever! Made me laugh.
 

Fran101

Resident fainting goat
Joined
Oct 12, 2008
Messages
12,546
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Boston
#3
As someone who has worked there.. abercrombie is and likely forever will be, a shady sh*t brand of clothing.

They didn't have to prove it to me with this message, EVERYONE KNEW where abercrombie's stance was on "unattractive" people. How could we not have known? Look at their ads, look at their sizing, look who they market to!

- They burn clothes that don't sell when they change seasons (instead of donating them because ew poor people)
- They only hire a certain "kind" of people to work in front of the store. As someone who was a perfectly healthy 16 year old who was paid to stand out front or wander around while employees who could've used lighter duty...we had a pregnant woman and a man who hurt his knee were told day after day to do labor in the back)
- From management telling you to be on the look out for potential people to hire who fit the "look"
- Firing pregnant people/people who gained weight was certainly not unheard of

I think giving clothes to the homeless is a nice gesture, I mean hey, people are helping.
As for what it is going to do in the long run other than give people a moment of HAHA and make people fit a bit better...
I'm sure this is how the CEO of Abercrombie is reacting honestly

I say it's a nice gesture and it does feel good but frankly, you could buy a lot more clothes for them that aren't A&F and I honestly doubt it will make an impact.

The best thing people can do I believe is just realize that
1. There is nothing attractive about wearing clothing that is plastered with a logo. So on a purely vanity front, why are you PAYING to be a billboard for this place
2. The quality is iffy at best, especially for the price you can do MUCH BETTER
3. Stop supporting the brand, because obviously the place is full of douchebaggery
4. Take a moment and realize that A&F is a store for 16 year old teenagers trying to be cool. Go to a grown up store :rofl1:
and sadly
5. understand while he is the first CEO to say it maybe, this is an incredibly common part of the clothing industry. The kind of "marketing towards the thin"... way to fix it? If a store doesn't offer clothing in your size, don't shop there. Don't go digging through racks in hope of finding something, if there aren't your sizes READILY AVAILABLE and out... leave. Find awesome stores that cater to your bodytype and who you are. There are plenty.

The only way to fix this problem is stop supporting these places and instead of flashing so much hate towards A&F (because yay publicity) give some love to a store you believe in! Wear their clothes, wear them proudly, show them off and support them. Write articles about CEO's including models of all body types and races, of there being no tiny ridiculous "plus size section" and instead the store being all inclusive, of pricing being fair.

From what I've seen on teens these days, the days of A&F being cool are a bit at a close anyway. Which is a welcome relief.
 
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
6,405
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Minnesota
#4
Well here's my thing... the dude can think "fat chicks" are ugly if he wants to. Tastes vary, nobody finds the same things attractive, and that's ok. Plenty of people think fat chicks are attractive. And it's HIS company, so he can do whatever he wants. I've waffled about a hundred times between whether I think he's just real dumb or he's a marketing genius with all the publicity he's getting out of this. Plenty of people hate fat chicks, too, so for every person who is outraged and boycotting there is probably someone else who is silently fist pumping and making a trip to Abercrombie.

And honestly I'm not completely sure why people are so outraged. It's not like our society doesn't basically silently endorse and embrace the myth of the objective standard of beauty. Anyone who is too fat (or too skinny or too short or too tall or too anything, for that matter) is well aware of society's position on fat chicks. He's just saying it out loud. Again, not sure if he's a marketing genius or a marketing moron. But the whole thing just gets a big "meh" from me.
 

milos_mommy

Active Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2006
Messages
15,349
Likes
0
Points
36
#5
I didn't shop in Abercrombie as a teen, because I didn't want to be associated with the kind of people who DID shop there...and I think I was in 9th grade when I found out about the racism and discrimination that went on within the company. There have been plenty of lawsuits against them, and I don't know why all of a sudden this is blowing up?

I'd be pretty horrified if the company didn't go under over this, and the CEO actually knows what he's doing by saying such douche-y things. But I guess Sass is right...for everyone who gives a **** about people's rights and equality and not being a huge creep, there's another person who thinks everyone should look like them and that they're superior, and who will spend money on a label that shows it.
 

~Jessie~

Chihuahua Power!
Joined
Oct 3, 2006
Messages
19,665
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Central Florida
#6
I worked for Abercrombie (manager at Hollister) for 2 weeks. They basically have this program that if you have a college degree, you can train to be a manager if you fit "the look."

It was the worst 2 weeks of a job I have EVER had.

I had to go recruiting one day at UCF for employees (look for people with "the look" and ask them if they're interested in an Abercrombie career lol). The 2 other male managers I went with from other stores were just terrible people. They'd make comments like "we're not talking to her, she looks like a T-Rex."

The other managers at my store would make fun of customers and people interviewing. Anyone who "kind of but not fully" fit "the look" were hired for the back. The position in the front of the stores and on the registers were called "models."

Abercrombie has always been a sleazy company. They've been in lawsuits for discrimination, they've ridden the fine line between advertising and porn (keep in mind their core demographic is 14-22), etc, etc. At this point, I'd expect the CEO to be nothing but a douche canoe.

I understand that certain companies want you to have "the look" as an employee. It's why waitresses at Hooters wear those tight white t-shirts and little shorts, why Disney has auditions for their "face" characters, etc. However, we're talking about shunning a huge potential CUSTOMER base. Not just with size restrictions (which to me isn't a big deal considering there are stores that only sell larger sizes like Layne Bryant, Big and Tall, and vice versa), but with picking and choosing who is "cool" and "hip."

It's like a marketing version of bullying. If you wear our clothes, you're cool- but only if WE decide you are allowed to wear them. This quote sums this up:

“In every school there are the cool and popular kids, and then there are the not-so-cool kids,†he told the site. “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,†he told Salon.
Alienating people and making them feel terrible about themselves is the basis of discrimination. I don't think you're cool so you can't wear our clothes. Bullying.

Honestly, though- I don't even think kids think Abercrombie is "cool" anymore. They've had to cut their prices WAY down, run sales (they were a company who used to hardly run them), and I hardly ever see anyone wearing their clothing anymore.

I think it's AWESOME that people are passing out their clothes to the homeless population. GOOD. Did the CEO really think that the backlash wouldn't be stronger than the support?
 

Dizzy

Sit! Good dog.
Joined
Sep 14, 2005
Messages
17,761
Likes
1
Points
38
Location
Wales
#7
I can't say publicly what I would do to him if I met him on the street :)

I hate that attitude.

He's obviously had serious bullying issues as a child, and wants to be a cool kid.
 
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
6,405
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Minnesota
#8
Did the CEO really think that the backlash wouldn't be stronger than the support?
Is it, though? We live in a society that tacitly embraces his opinion. But it's not like people who agree with him are going to hold a rally giving out free clothes to conventionally attractive people or shout YEA PREACH IT BRO all over FB... they're going to quietly murmur among themselves and shop at his stores. Probably while he pats himself on the back for all the free advertising he's getting.
 

~Jessie~

Chihuahua Power!
Joined
Oct 3, 2006
Messages
19,665
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Central Florida
#9
Here is a sampling of their many lawsuits over the years:

Abercrombie and Fitch Model Says He Was Forced to Masturbate On Set, Now He’s Suing for $1 Million
http://fashionista.com/2012/06/an-a...turbate-on-set-and-is-now-suing-for-1million/

Lawsuit: Abercrombie CEO’s Creepy Private Jet Requires Pantless Staff, Phil Collins Music
http://nymag.com/thecut/2012/10/lawsuit-abercrombie-jet-requires-pantless-staff.html

Abercrombie and Fitch has been fined $115,264 for discrimination, four years after employees at the Mall of America store refused to allow a family member to accompany an autistic girl into a fitting room.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/09/09/abercrombie-and-fitch-discrimination-suit

Clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch (ANF) hires a disproportionately white sales force, puts minorities in less-visible jobs and cultivates a virtually all-white image in its catalogs and elsewhere, a lawsuit charges.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2003-06-17-abercrombie_x.htm
 

~Dixie's_Mom~

♥Chloe & Violet♥
Joined
Aug 22, 2006
Messages
8,159
Likes
1
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Tennessee
#10
I never get upset or worked up over things like this, but I find it sick and messed up and think the company should be destroyed. I don't think kids these days should be hearing things like this, or having these ideas. Maybe it's "silently" endorsed elsewhere, but when someone comes out and SAYS that. No. Just no. It's disgusting and horrible and no one should support this company ever again and if people actually do, I have lost hope for mankind. I don't care if you like their clothes. After what was said, anyone wearing it will be basically symbolizing their superiority to others, whether it's intentional or not. And that's wrong.
 

~Dixie's_Mom~

♥Chloe & Violet♥
Joined
Aug 22, 2006
Messages
8,159
Likes
1
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Tennessee
#11
I didn't shop in Abercrombie as a teen, because I didn't want to be associated with the kind of people who DID shop there...and I think I was in 9th grade when I found out about the racism and discrimination that went on within the company. There have been plenty of lawsuits against them, and I don't know why all of a sudden this is blowing up?
This. And I think it's blowing up because this is this first time a lot of people are hearing about this. I think a lot of kids shop there because its cool and have no clue about the awful part of it. Shopping there just because its cool even though its a **** t-shirt for $50 is messed up in itself, but is a separate (but related) issue.
 
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
6,405
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Minnesota
#12
Maybe it's "silently" endorsed elsewhere, but when someone comes out and SAYS that. No. Just no.
I've been "too fat" for basically my whole adult life, and whether anyone just comes out and says it or not... honestly his position is nothing new. He's not the enemy, the objective standard of beauty is the enemy. He's just a symptom of it. So I guess it's just hard for me to drum up much outrage towards him in particular.

I'd rather see people feel brave and comfortable enough to overtly embrace their personal tastes in beauty regardless of how unconventional they are or whether they adhere to the objective standard than spend their energy on a guy like this. It's starting to slowly creep into advertising, TV shows, and movies. And I think THAT kind of stuff will do far more good than boycotting Abercrombie.
 

~Jessie~

Chihuahua Power!
Joined
Oct 3, 2006
Messages
19,665
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Central Florida
#13
Is it, though? We live in a society that tacitly embraces his opinion. But it's not like people who agree with him are going to hold a rally giving out free clothes to conventionally attractive people or shout YEA PREACH IT BRO all over FB... they're going to quietly murmur among themselves and shop at his stores. Probably while he pats himself on the back for all the free advertising he's getting.
I think so. Their sales have been consistently going down over the past few years, and they've really had to change their pricing. They've been losing their "cool" factor and I think this will sour the brand even more. More and more companies are leaning on the "ethical" side of things, and the younger generation really seems to like that. My sister is in high school, and Abercrombie is no longer the "cool" brand like it was when I was in high school 10 years ago. Brands like Toms (donates free shoes) and American Apparel (makes their clothes in the USA) are picking up steam.
 
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
6,405
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Minnesota
#14
American Apparel, lol. Advertising with (as far as I've seen, correct me if I'm wrong) exclusively thin people in skimpy clothing and provocative poses is more inclusive than Abercrombie because... ?

Which is exactly my point. It's not a problem with Abercrombie or this one guy, it's a societal problem. Even if Abercrombie goes under, the objective standard of beauty will still exist. It will just go back to being quiet.
 

Dizzy

Sit! Good dog.
Joined
Sep 14, 2005
Messages
17,761
Likes
1
Points
38
Location
Wales
#15
American Apparel, lol. Advertising with (as far as I've seen, correct me if I'm wrong) exclusively thin people in skimpy clothing and provocative poses is more inclusive than Abercrombie because... ?

Which is exactly my point. It's not a problem with Abercrombie or this one guy, it's a societal problem. Even if Abercrombie goes under, the objective standard of beauty will still exist. It will just go back to being quiet.
It's not society as a whole, as different cultures, different countries have different ideals of what is beautiful. Even within one country.

However it IS a problem that companies like Abercrombie are part of. They don't just go after markets they CREATE markets.

Marketing is evil.... Haven't you ever heard bill hicks rant about it? ;)

If advertising and marketing didn't exist then the 'society view' of beauty would be something completely different, and likely something a lot healthier.

They MAKE the market to sell and make money. They create what they think is beauty. Then they sell it to people.

And we all want to be liked right?

Never underestimate the power these people and companies have on making people believe that is something society believes. They all have a hand in manufacturing beauty and call it fashion.

And you better hope you conform.
 

Laurelin

I'm All Ears
Joined
Nov 2, 2006
Messages
30,963
Likes
3
Points
0
Age
37
Location
Oklahoma
#16
I think the guy's a douche. But it's his company I suppose and he can do what he wants. I don't really know if many people still shop there anyways. I bought one shirt from them as a teen then decided I didn't want to associate with th brand for various reasons.
 

~Jessie~

Chihuahua Power!
Joined
Oct 3, 2006
Messages
19,665
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Central Florida
#17
American Apparel, lol. Advertising with (as far as I've seen, correct me if I'm wrong) exclusively thin people in skimpy clothing and provocative poses is more inclusive than Abercrombie because... ?

Which is exactly my point. It's not a problem with Abercrombie or this one guy, it's a societal problem. Even if Abercrombie goes under, the objective standard of beauty will still exist. It will just go back to being quiet.
I'm not a fan of their clothing in the least bit but yeah, they are at least pretty ethical with how they do their manufacturing. They don't use sweatshops and they pay their employees over minimum wage. Abercrombie outsources and uses sweatshops.

American Apparel has been subject to seven public sexual harassment lawsuits, though to date, they have all been dismissed, "thrown out," remanded to arbitration, or in one case, settled but with "no monetary liability to the company."
As of 2008 the company employs more than 10,000 people and operates more than 200 retail locations in 20 countries.[10][102] The company pays its manufacturing employees an average of $12 per hour.[11] According to the San Francisco Chronicle the average factory worker at the company makes $80–120 per day, or roughly $500 per week compared to the $30–40 made daily at most other Los Angeles-based garment factories.[103] Employees also receive benefits such as paid time off, health care, company-subsidized lunches, bus passes, free English as an additional language classes, on-site massage therapists, free bicycles and on-site bike mechanics, free parking in addition to the proper lighting and ventilation.[104] Every floor of the factory includes free telephones where workers can make and receive long distance phone calls.
vs. Abercrombie:

In November 2009, Abercrombie & Fitch was added to the "Sweatshop Hall of Shame 2010" by the worker advocacy group International Labor Rights Forum.[
s early as 2001, American Apparel has been a vocal advocate for reform of U.S. immigration laws.[112] On May 1, 2002 American Apparel shut down its factory to allow the company's workers, many of whom are immigrants, to participate in a pro-immigration rally in downtown Los Angeles.
[132][133] In addition, they packaged and delivered 80,000 shirts to the relief effort in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast.[134] As an underwriter of Farm Aid, American Apparel donates the blank shirts that the organization prints and sells as merchandise.
vs. Abercrombie burning their unsold clothing.

After the passing of Prop 8 (which defines marriage in the state as one man and one woman) in California in November 2008, American Apparel launched the Legalize Gay campaign.[74] It is similar to the Legalize LA campaign, and shirts with "Legalize Gay" and "Repeal Prop 8" printed on them in the same style as the shirts of Legalize LA are sold by the company.

In June 2012 American Apparel partnered with the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation in releasing a new line of t-shirts to celebrate LGBT Pride Month.[75][76] Fifteen percent of the net sales of the shirts were donated to GLAAD.[75] Isis King modeled for this line, becoming American Apparel's first openly transgender model.[75]
vs. Abercrombie:

A&F agreed to pay $40 million by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") to all African American, Asian, and Latino applicants who were discriminated against by the company. The applicants argued that the company expected them to work only in low-visibility jobs in the back of the store. The EEOC required A&F to provide equal opportunity to everyone regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender.[73]
I've never seen their ads, but I just looked at them and yeah- I do agree that they're bad.

It's not just how Abercrombie does their advertising that makes them an extremely sleazy company- it's a combination of how they do everything.
 

AdrianneIsabel

Glutton for Crazy
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
8,893
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Portland, Oregon
#18
Well here's my thing... the dude can think "fat chicks" are ugly if he wants to. Tastes vary, nobody finds the same things attractive, and that's ok. Plenty of people think fat chicks are attractive. And it's HIS company, so he can do whatever he wants. I've waffled about a hundred times between whether I think he's just real dumb or he's a marketing genius with all the publicity he's getting out of this. Plenty of people hate fat chicks, too, so for every person who is outraged and boycotting there is probably someone else who is silently fist pumping and making a trip to Abercrombie.

And honestly I'm not completely sure why people are so outraged. It's not like our society doesn't basically silently endorse and embrace the myth of the objective standard of beauty. Anyone who is too fat (or too skinny or too short or too tall or too anything, for that matter) is well aware of society's position on fat chicks. He's just saying it out loud. Again, not sure if he's a marketing genius or a marketing moron. But the whole thing just gets a big "meh" from me.

Is it, though? We live in a society that tacitly embraces his opinion. But it's not like people who agree with him are going to hold a rally giving out free clothes to conventionally attractive people or shout YEA PREACH IT BRO all over FB... they're going to quietly murmur among themselves and shop at his stores. Probably while he pats himself on the back for all the free advertising he's getting.
I've been "too fat" for basically my whole adult life, and whether anyone just comes out and says it or not... honestly his position is nothing new. He's not the enemy, the objective standard of beauty is the enemy. He's just a symptom of it. So I guess it's just hard for me to drum up much outrage towards him in particular.

I'd rather see people feel brave and comfortable enough to overtly embrace their personal tastes in beauty regardless of how unconventional they are or whether they adhere to the objective standard than spend their energy on a guy like this. It's starting to slowly creep into advertising, TV shows, and movies. And I think THAT kind of stuff will do far more good than boycotting Abercrombie.
I agree with these posts. (We really need to argue soon. Lets talk cold, I hate the cold.)

I think so. Their sales have been consistently going down over the past few years, and they've really had to change their pricing. They've been losing their "cool" factor and I think this will sour the brand even more. More and more companies are leaning on the "ethical" side of things, and the younger generation really seems to like that. My sister is in high school, and Abercrombie is no longer the "cool" brand like it was when I was in high school 10 years ago. Brands like Toms (donates free shoes) and American Apparel (makes their clothes in the USA) are picking up steam.
They haven't been a skyrocketing company for a long time, unless I am misremembering, and I am having a hard time believing this is why. It's a shift in whats cool and to be totally honest I think it has far less to do with being a "fat kid hater" than we'd like to believe.

Toms are cool, I sadly do not believe they are cool because they donate shoes.

I guess I don't share the communal faith in teen morality.
 
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
6,405
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Minnesota
#20
It's not society as a whole, as different cultures, different countries have different ideals of what is beautiful. Even within one country.

However it IS a problem that companies like Abercrombie are part of. They don't just go after markets they CREATE markets.

Marketing is evil.... Haven't you ever heard bill hicks rant about it? ;)

If advertising and marketing didn't exist then the 'society view' of beauty would be something completely different, and likely something a lot healthier.

They MAKE the market to sell and make money. They create what they think is beauty. Then they sell it to people.

And we all want to be liked right?

Never underestimate the power these people and companies have on making people believe that is something society believes. They all have a hand in manufacturing beauty and call it fashion.

And you better hope you conform.
Yes... as I said in an earlier post, what I would rather see is people feel more comfortable with expressing their varying tastes and that I'm pleased to see that starting to creep into advertising and TV shows. And I think that's far more important than taking down a single guy and a single company who is free to have his own tastes and express them.

My only point, which I thought I was making fairly clear in my earlier posts, is that THIS company and THIS guy are not my enemies - the objective standard is my enemy. So it's hard for me to waste my energy lighting my torch and pitchfork and going after him/his company in particular. He's free to have his tastes and market to them. But this debacle is a symptom of the problem. Supporting companies that are more inclusive in their advertising, being vocal about unconventional tastes... things like that are more productive IMO.

What bothers me about focusing the anger on a single man or company is that I get a feeling that if Abercrombie goes down, then... "YAY WE WON" when really... no, Abercrombie is just a small fish in a big ocean.

I'm not a fan of their clothing in the least bit but yeah, they are at least pretty ethical with how they do their manufacturing. They don't use sweatshops and they pay their employees over minimum wage. Abercrombie outsources and uses sweatshops.

I've never seen their ads, but I just looked at them and yeah- I do agree that they're bad.

It's not just how Abercrombie does their advertising that makes them an extremely sleazy company- it's a combination of how they do everything.
Yes, but THIS debacle and the outrage surrounding it is about the dude's rant about fat chicks. So in this context I'm not sure how something like American Apparel is better. Swapping supporting one non-inclusive company for another non-inclusive company doesn't really address the root of the "fat chicks" outrage/problem at all.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Top