American Apparel: A Cotton T-Shirt Made of Misogyny!

This is probably NSFW






Today I found myself in a shopping mall. I was there to help my partner pick out new eyeglasses. As I was walking by rows of stores, including several cosmetic stores that reeked of toxic fumes, I came by an American Apparel store. Now, it is very likely that I have discussed my utter distaste for American Apparel and its creator Dov Charney. For anyone who needs a run down, it goes like this: American Apparel is a store that promises "sweatshop free" clothing and fancies themselves a leader in basic cotton and brightly coloured t-shirts. The brand frequently associates itself with the so-called Hipster subculture. When marketing his products, Dov Charney uses pseudo-amateur and ironic photography to preserve the "hip" persona of the brand. Charney, CEO/Photographic Artiste, endlessly photographs very young-looking models gnarling their bodies on lawn furniture in full-body, neon leotards to inspire people to buy shit from his stores. In addition to his pornsick, hebephilic advertisements Dov also fancied masturbating in front of a female reporter for a magazine interview. The Charney-train doesn't stop there! His work enviornment fails on all levels, particularly for women- he  hires female employees based on their appearance; he uses employees as his soft-core porn models (then posts photos of them online without their consent) and sexually harasses and assaults his workers. 


But I digress


Upon my realization that the mannequins in a tattered, yet ironic 80s t-shirt belonged to the AA display, I stopped in front of an ad in front of the store window. The ad was medium in size and featured a grainy black and white photo of a very young looking woman wearing a full body suit made of lace and spandex. The entire suit was translucent and would likely be considered "inappropriate" for most public outings. The model's pose, too, looked terribly uncomfortable as she was positioned in a way that had her butt jutting towards the ceiling, as to be the focal "part" of the photo.


This ad was highly visible to the mall-public despite it appearing to be some kind of amateur filmed-in-a-creep's-basement porno promo. Then I remembered how utterly desensitized and apathetic we have all become to such cultural products and misogyny-drenched depictions of women. 

Beyond the ads though, lies my curiosity as to how Dov Charney's misogynistic, exploitative and narcissistic practices remain ignored and how he stays on as CEO.


Just for some context, here are some advertisements from the American Apparel website*. While you're looking through these, notice the theme of visual infantilization.

This image shows a young woman (posed and dressed like a child) wearing diaper-like toddler underwear. 

                                                        
Notice the submissive posing and the purposeful attempts to contort the woman's body to accentuate her butt. Also, she successfully passes as a 14 year old in this photograph. The colour choice is also interesting. The so-called "nude" tone that is incredibly euro-centric and assumes "nude" is only white skin. The colours, like every other aspect of this photograph, has been carefully constructed. There are also many connotations regarding white panties in Western culture. The colour white in the euro-centric West is seen as "pure" or "clean" and is seen to be "virginal" when discussed in terms of sex. This is the same old dichotomy that I am not delving into at the moment. But the white paired with the diaper chic element is as creepy as it is carefully contrived.

Here's a perfect example of Charney's pursuit to make a photograph look "amateur" and careless. This is intended to add to the experience of purchasing and wearing American Apparel clothing - it's ironic, sexy and hip. The woman in this advertisement (although it's hard to say what it is selling) is positioned in a way that indicates a lack of power. Her legs are spread apart, indicating her supposed availability and the photographer's supposed entitlement. Another interesting choice made by the douchebag institute's think tank, is the portrayal of the woman's pubic hair, albeit a small amount. It is an attempt for more irony. In most parts of North America, pubic hair is seen as dirty, unattractive and undesirable and thus in a hip and quirky store ad, it becomes ironic. Also, the woman in the image is posed on a carpet - she is below, the photographer is above. Women are rarely told to pose in ways similar to men and vice versa, for example, men are always looking ahead and rarely touch themselves or lay on floors. Women are constantly shown appearing in contrast to men as a way to establish difference, submission and surrender.  

What remains confusing however, is how this CEO, this rich guy keeps his job. Could it be that women across the globe experience terrible, unequal, unfair, and unsafe work conditions. Could it be that these conditions are seen as natural? Yes, Yes, Yes! At American Apparel, female workers are mistreated from the day they apply when they are hired based on their appearance and "style" then many of them who have also been models for Dov found their photos posted online without their consent. Sexual harassment happens all the time because women are not seen as valuable in the workplace, at least not to the same extent as men. Women continue to face workplace discrimination and in American Apparel's case sexual exploitation, exhibitionism, assault and harassment. It seems that no matter how many lawsuits are filed against him, Charney still manages to fill his pockets. Western society rewards men like Dov Charney - they are put on the pimp pedestal, like they have with Charlie Sheen, Hugh Hefner and Joe Francis. They happily let it continue and so let me end this post by presenting a few more AA advertisements to further illustrate my points about how women are portrayed in AA ads and also, how these portrayals reflect the larger society's misrepresentation of women. 

Hope everyone has or is currently having a fantastic weekend and please, feel free to critique and analyse these ads, put it all down in a comment, or 5. 

Apparently licking some dude's toe (likely Charney's) is relevant to "sweat shop free" apparel...which, by the way is bullshit. 

Here are some of the 2012 ads released by AA that demonstrate intense misogyny. 

In this ad we only see a woman's legs and a man's arms and torso. The positioning of the woman's legs is purposeful and obviously intended to demonstrate a power dynamic, one that places her in a place of subordination. Since the male model is standing up and manipulating the woman's body, he is shown as taking a position of power. 

Again, this ad shows a seemingly decapitated pair of models. Once again the power dynamics are obvious -- the woman is shown as "passive" while the man is shown as "active." The woman is standing with her hands on her hips while the man's hands move up her dress. She is not portrayed as being actively engaged in what is taking place, rather, she is shown as a passive object that is being manipulated by an active subject. 

* this post was updated October 25, 2012, new images have been added