The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Abercrombie and Fitch CEO and the subsequent Hashtag " Fitch The Homeless"
TheNomadicCircle
Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
I don't know how many of you have seen this news piece from Huffington Post and the subsequent rounds being made on facebook in support of this movement.
In short, because you can find it in the link, the CEO of A&F recently commented that he wants only a specific type of person to wear it, meaning Cool kids, and that his clothes aren't for the rest of the people who don't fit his definition of "cool". This was riding on the recent controversy that A&F has a regressive minority hiring policy with keeping them in specific locations thereby "hiding" them from normal view.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/14/abercrombie-and-fitch-homeless-brand-readjustment_n_3272498.html
While I have no problems with charity for the poor I think this raises a whole another issue that is apparent to me.
Is social class really dead anywhere?
I would say no it is not. It is no longer in a structure of peasant -> noble -> king relationship but the recent 99% vs 1% highlights this divide well. Capitalism also creates its own social structure by creating a new class the "middle class" which is better off than the poor but less richer than the rich.
So if the A&F CEO says that he only wants a select group of people wearing them according to his definition, regardless of how wrong or right he is, doesn't that become his incentive to cater to whom he wishes? I am sure that there are rich, overweight people, who have through their own actions and not of their genes kept them fat thus excluding them from buying A&F clothes. Why is it such it big deal to highlight that A&F doesn't deal with people whose sizes aren't available?
This is clearly a social class issues which has raised, in my opinion, a ruckus because people cannot tolerate being considered lower than they think of themselves. Through their own violation they have became unable to afford A&F clothing or find their sizes and thus this movement is created because they want "everyone" to be equal which is clearly a dream.
As well I disagree with the "Fitch the Homeless" movement. It is not a case of being against charity, which I fully support and consider anyone doing it good, but a case of pandering to the middle class at the expense of the homeless. Buying A&F clothing from thrift stores and then giving them to the homeless while ignoring the causes of their situation is in my opinion a pretty goosey thing to do and only highlights his, in my opinion, vile actions at being "supposedly" insulted at this company. I disagree with any and all his methods and those who are trying to do similar things.
What are your opinions?
And please keep it respectful. Thank you.
In short, because you can find it in the link, the CEO of A&F recently commented that he wants only a specific type of person to wear it, meaning Cool kids, and that his clothes aren't for the rest of the people who don't fit his definition of "cool". This was riding on the recent controversy that A&F has a regressive minority hiring policy with keeping them in specific locations thereby "hiding" them from normal view.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/14/abercrombie-and-fitch-homeless-brand-readjustment_n_3272498.html
While I have no problems with charity for the poor I think this raises a whole another issue that is apparent to me.
Is social class really dead anywhere?
I would say no it is not. It is no longer in a structure of peasant -> noble -> king relationship but the recent 99% vs 1% highlights this divide well. Capitalism also creates its own social structure by creating a new class the "middle class" which is better off than the poor but less richer than the rich.
So if the A&F CEO says that he only wants a select group of people wearing them according to his definition, regardless of how wrong or right he is, doesn't that become his incentive to cater to whom he wishes? I am sure that there are rich, overweight people, who have through their own actions and not of their genes kept them fat thus excluding them from buying A&F clothes. Why is it such it big deal to highlight that A&F doesn't deal with people whose sizes aren't available?
This is clearly a social class issues which has raised, in my opinion, a ruckus because people cannot tolerate being considered lower than they think of themselves. Through their own violation they have became unable to afford A&F clothing or find their sizes and thus this movement is created because they want "everyone" to be equal which is clearly a dream.
As well I disagree with the "Fitch the Homeless" movement. It is not a case of being against charity, which I fully support and consider anyone doing it good, but a case of pandering to the middle class at the expense of the homeless. Buying A&F clothing from thrift stores and then giving them to the homeless while ignoring the causes of their situation is in my opinion a pretty goosey thing to do and only highlights his, in my opinion, vile actions at being "supposedly" insulted at this company. I disagree with any and all his methods and those who are trying to do similar things.
What are your opinions?
And please keep it respectful. Thank you.
0
Posts
However, it's also a privately owned company, and if they want to not only target a specific group of people for their product and even state they don't want people outside their targeted group to wear their clothing, it is 100% within their rights to do so. It's a free market economy, and if you don't like their product or how they conduct business, then don't do business with them. If you want "nice" clothes (personally, I wouldn't be caught dead wearing anything made by A&E because their clothes look ridiculous), you have plenty of other options.
What do you mean by this, can you clarify?
What makes you think this person, or others of the like are ignorant of the causes of homelessness? Also, what about his actions are 'vile'? That seems like strong language to use to describe giving clothes to homeless people. Why have you put the word supposedly in quotation in regards to him being insulted, are you suspicious of this, and if so why?
He's free to do all that and naturally he will be called out for doing it.
If the elites are as wonderful as you are constantly telling us, then there is no downside for him. Why would he care if all the non-elite people hate him?
Or did you imagine that being an elitist even entitles him to be liked by people he hates and insults for being allegedly inferior to him?
I assure you, he is in no way so entitled.
The guy giving out the clothes is also a massive douchebg for attempting to weaponize fake charity.
A meal and a shirt that probably lasts longer
This new (?) stuff just strikes me as ungraceful marketing BS. The real problems are their discriminatory hiring / work assignment practices (they are THE modern case study for this stuff in employment law classes).
Didn't read about the charity thing, but whatever. I'd rather not feed into their marketing.
But freedom of speech means that we're all allowed to call him a colossal goose.
This is a totally valid point. I mean, A&F have decided to be douchebags, the hashTard really is just raising awareness of their brand and desired consumer perception. If anything he's helping A&F. It would probably be worth making sure he isn't something akin to a gorilla marketing agent provocateur, if it wasn't certain to be found out by people with no lives and too much time on their hands like 4chan and redit.
It's pretty shitty, but it seems like the only unique thing here is that he's being pretty explicit about it.
Who are you arguing with?
What is the point of this thread? Is there something broader in scope that you'd like to address? This seems like quite a minor controversy.
I wish people would stop using the word "retard" as an insult. There are plenty of other words to use that don't regard mentally disabled people with disdain.
I wish people wouldn't get offended at silly nonsense like internet insults. But you know... life.
The guy actually got all the clothes from a thrift store so I doubt any of it was particularly expensive.
You don't know what capitalism is.
Yep. I mean, ethically I think what they're doing is bad because it's contributing to the self-image problem in general society, but if it were my business or I were an investor and it's a successful strategy (which it generally is, besides them being too rigid during the recession) then I'd want them to continue doing it. It's the same reason we laugh at the People of Walmart blog and A&F (and most other clothing stores) are taking it to an extreme.
It was absolutely idiotic for him to say it publicly though.
Because fuck sakes, can't have our cars seen driven around in fucking slums.
As for A&F, meh. Good marketing is marketing that sells. I think a lot of brands rely on a sort of "silent" coolness; "Oh yeah, our product is more expensive only because we want to milk the social dynamic where the size of the expenditure - rather than the quality of the product - enhances social status" might be awfully true, but its not the kind of thing you say.
Because only people without actual class feel the need to point out how cool the clothes they're wearing really are.
He's entitled to run his business any way he wants. And we are entitled to fuck it up for him any way we want. Provided of course that, in both cases, the "any way" are legal ways. As you said, we're in a capitalist system, and he's the business owner, but we are the consumers and we have final say on whether his business succeeds or fails. And a large swat of consumers have decided they want it to fail.
The problem is the social impact. You have a major company that caters to teenagers saying "looking like this is cool, looking like that is uncool and we don't want you in our stores". In a country that's already plagued by all kinds of eating disorders and a body-image obsession, this attitude can be seen, at best, as praying on the sick, and at worst as actively making the problem worse for profit. In either cases it's completely unacceptable to have a company behaving like this. Capitalism is not a license to act in a socially irresponsible or damaging way for short-term profit.
Pretty much, yeah.
But on the plus side, he's literally clothing the homeless. He's doing it for all the wrong reasons, but it is having a small positive impact. Doesn't that count for something?
People keep saying this, and its partially true... but the only reason the interview resurfaced is because the company very recently reaffirmed their position that fatties can't wear their clothing because fat people aren't cool.
Hence, why they dragged that interview out; because recent statements made it relevant again. This is a company that hasn't changed their ways and does not seem interested in doing so.
That said, I am a total hypocrite. I think they are bullshit, but I still am wearing my shorts from them because they are comfortable and well fitted to me.
Also, they are far from the only brand that makes clothes specific to a body type; and they would have been fine to say stuff like "our designs aren't tailored for body types like that," as opposed to "fat people aren't cool."
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Meh.
I normally don't judge people's motivations when they are doing a net good. After all, if you nitpick enough, you find that just about everyone is helping charity for some selfish reason - the tax write-off, feel good about themselves / their own consumption, other societal benefits (being seen as a good person, etc).
He could have done more good, but he apparently believed that he had a worthwhile cause (which is not something I give a shit about, but ok) and managed to do some small good in the process.
Everyone could do more, don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
His actions, while technically providing aid to a small number of homeless, reinforces the idea that the homeless are something less than fully human and equal. He's pretty much saying A&F should be ashamed that homeless people are wearing their clothing, because things are wrong with the homeless and they are socially unacceptable.
It's less about perfect being the enemy of good, and more about the guy being a disrespectful self-righteous shitheel.
If it was a company giving out clothes to the homeless to serve as walking billboards, would you not be offended? The only difference between that and this is scale.
Yeah, fuck that guy. He have the homeless clothes, but didn't get them a job and place to live. What an asshole.
Called out for being rude and degrading other people.
I fail to see the problem.
The whole thing boils down to TNC being offended that some activist is getting uppity.
Rudeness is only a sin if you're being rude to your betters etc etc etc.
Same old noise different thread.
It's not a silly internet insult. It happens in the real world all the time.
Karl Lagerfield and his spat with H&M comes to mind.
Yeah, fuck that guy. I'm sure the homeless people threw these shirts back at him and yelled "give us a cotton plantation and a manufacturing plant, you short-term-result-oriented asshole!" Then they went to picket the nearby soup kitchen in protest of them giving food instead of arable land ready for sowing and livestock ready for breeding. Poor people's lives are sure made hard by all these jerks catering to their immediate needs.