Its going to be pretty hard to argue that the emails are "unauthenticated" when Ryan seems to have acknowledged they that they were stolen in his email to Gawker.
@katastic: I think he meant to say something different, and the quote was edited so who knows what he really said but YEAH it would be better if he just shut up. He def fucked that up.
See what he's doing? He thinks if he says "dude" it means he couldn't possible be acting like an asshole nor making an unreasonable request. It's the modern male equivalent to the bosses on Mad Man calling the women employees "sweetheart", "baby" and "doll". How can you say no to me when I'm using a term of endearment?
I hate to be one of those people, but why does everyone have it in for this company? I know the backstory, trust me, but I still can't get it up to hate these people or their product.
@minou: Well, if the image accompanying this post doesn't convince you, then I guess nothing will, huh?
If you're okay with supporting a company run by a misogynistic douchebag who's fond of giving the bad touch just because you think the clothes are cute, then, fine, more power to you. Just fucking admit that you're refusing to seek out alternatives and enabling. And, you know, sleep easy, dude.
@minou: It's because AA tries to portray itself as a hip liberal company when the reality is somewhat different. When AA is accused of having sexist, exploitive advertising the response is something like they are celebrating female sexuality. However that celebration includes sexist, exploitive advertising. Plus the clothing is overpriced and poorly made.
@franzen: Until I see a source, I am assuming that the accompanying image is a parody.
I support a company whose clothes I like and whose owner is committed to paying a living wage to his employees who all work in the US and therefore as a result contribute positively to our economy in a number of ways. So Dov Charney is a misogynist in his personal life. That's bad,of course. It has very little to do with his company (which, it should be noted, he barely runs anymore). In fact by employing women and paying them well, American Apparel is profoundly NOT a misogynist enterprise. And if by "refusing to seek out alternatives and enabling" you mean that I buy their clothes over those made by, say, 6-year-old Filipinos for The Gap, then, yeah, guilty as charged.
American Apparel is not Dov Charney.
If you want to go on a Dov Charney witch hunt, sleep easy, dude. Guilty until proven innocent and all that. I'm sure that when you boycott his company it's Dov, and not the women who work for him in order to feed their families, suffering. Are you fucking kidding me? You really showed him, huh?
@valet_of_the_dolls: He's not the one making the clothes. He's the one employing the people who make the clothes, paying them well, and giving them benefits. Whatever our misgivings about the man himself, he's not the company. And the company is for the most part good.
On a purely subjective note, I like the clothes, but tomato/tomahto, right?
@Kitten_Witawip: The reality of every company is somewhat different. And replace "AA" with "Dov Charney" in your paragraph above -- then, it will be right on. But to conflate the two is to do a major disservice to a company that, let's face it, does a lot of positive things too. I choose to focus on those rather than on the personal life of the founder, or even his questionable aesthetic preferences.
"Overpriced" is what happens when you don't exploit your labor force. If you want a $5 t-shirt, go to Walmart and don't look at the label. As for quality, your experience may vary, but I have always found their clothes to be pretty well-made.
@VivianDarkbloom: WTF? No, but by not using sweatshop labor, paying decent living wages (to enable employees to pay for such things as decent child care), and providing good health benefits, the company -- I would say, qualifies as non-misogynist at the very least.
I'll repeat this slowly so everyone gets it. Dov Charney is a jerk. Probably even a misogynistic jerk. American Apparel is a company made up of thousands of employees, the majority of whom are women who are not exploited laborers, and therefore it is not fair to say that the company is misogynist. There's no leap in logic except for the one that you made when you took my statement completely out of context and arbitrarily replaced the words "American Apparel" with the words "Dov Charney."
@minou: I suppose you could say that legal prostitution would provide employment for women too, and hey... I'd be fine with it for a number of reasons, but I would not be fine with it being advertised like something very cool that we should all be excited about. I think that mock AA adverts make that point pretty well.
@Niko Bellic: Good point, although that wasn't really my issue here. I was just pointing out to the people who were citing that ad as evidence for their arguments against Dov Charney that it probably isn't evidence that has much weight, except as parody, which is a completely different argument (the one you're making, I might add).
@minou: I don't shop at Walmart and if I wanted to pay $5 for a t-shirt I would go to a thirft store. I've only bought a few AA pieces and was very dissappointed with the product.
If Dov is paying his workers so much and giving them benefits how come this does not improve the quality of their work?
@Kitten_Witawip: Well to each AA wearer her own, I guess. But I don't think that American Apparel's (NOT Dov's -- how many time do I need to repeat that?) labor practices are at all related to the quality of their product. Nor should they be -- and since when is that ever the case? AA's labor practices are not a privilege meant to buy off workers to produce better stuff. They are a right and not causally connected to the goods produced. If you're advocating that kind of labor politics, yikes. Just because you're not being exploited doesn't mean you owe anybody anything. Non-exploitative labor should be the status quo, not an incentive.
I don't see what's criminal in these emails. One dude's asking for a positive quote for a magazine article, other dude replies by basically saying "dude, I just spent 2 weeks keeping us from going bankrupt, and now I'm going home to be with my family so shut up and handle it yourself."
May not be the most tactful or professional correspondence ever, but on the other hand it seems like it could be a set of emails you'd see at probably hundreds of companies every time a holiday comes up.
@badasscat: I don't think the e-mails themselves are what's criminal. Rather, the e-mails indicate that the company has serious fiscal issues that AA may have been required to disclose. I think.
My first impression is that professionals don't communicate that way in emails. But, if you look at their public filings, American Apparel had a $50m dollar loan due that Friday if it didn't get an extension on a different $50 loan. It looks like they got the extension they needed at the 11th hour. So this guy was right. They did almost go bankrupt (or at least had $100m of loans almost come due within weeks of each other) that Friday.
Dude, it's Christmas Eve and I am elbow-deep in yayo. Some girl named Tatiana is sitting on my desk with her ankles behind her hears and I have twenty minutes to finish this report. Last week we barely had enough cash on hand to stay stocked in sparkly spandex and snortable stimulants and I've been kind of busy dealing with that. If Dov comes downstairs and these books aren't cooked, he's going to touch me in the bad place again and last time it took enough antibiotics to kill a horse before I could pee without getting dizzy. So fuck off. Have I mentioned it's Christmas Eve?
@dirtybee: What confuses me is the part talking about how men are only involved in one in a thousand instances. Is the ad insinuating that lesbians are superabusive? Or does he think that the cinemax jellofight/spanking "movies" are documentaries?
@dirtybee: The ad might be fake. Just like this email exchange. Not something that is worth more than 30 secs to research, since then I would be spending more time that was writing this post.
@Colander: Because it's fucking incorrect. "One out of a thousand" domestic abuse cases involve a man? No, asshole. Incorrect. You fucking fail. What an asshole.
@katastic: In fact, fucking 85%-95% of all domestic violence victims are women; domestic abuse is the LEADING single cause of women's non-chronic bodily injury. 5.3 million women are abused each year, and over a thousand are actually killed annually by a partner. So what the FUCK is this asshole talking about?!!!!!
@Colander: It's simple why it's annoying. It's wrong AND it's worded abhorrently. It reads like an automatic asshole to english translator you can find on the webz or something.
@katastic: Yeah, but the women deserve it, what with all the instigating and all.
Oh god, I can't joke about this after all. Someone get that man actual numbers and shit. I would say that he should volunteer at a women's shelter, but I hardly think that the women needing the shelter should be forced to deal with this asshole. Gah.
@minou: I think the way you spend your money in this country is as good as a vote in some respects. It's your little slice of influence. Collective use of it does reach the people at the top.
I, for one, wish I could give all of my cash/influence to cruelty-free farmers, municipal symphonies, and webcomics (instead of Manhattan landlords and student loans).
@Noun-Verb-7-Eleven: Well said, even if I don't agree. As recent events just showed us, it's never the people at the top who get fucked. Hopefully that's about to change. Until then, I think most boycotts hurt the wrong people. The collateral damage just isn't worth it to me.
@mathewbrooks: Or for next season's Tool Academy. Just replace 1/2 of the "dudes" with "bro", add in a some verbage like "stoked" and "chillax" and the rest writes itself!
My dad liked Gn'R. And so do I, but only when I'm piss drunk at some shitty dive karaoke bar and I want to totally piss off/annoy everyone by singing (term used lightly here) "November Rain" or "Estranged". Yeah, outside of the situation I don't need any Gn'R in my life. But, um, none of the alternatives listed here (Def Leopard?! for Christ's sake) are any better, except *maybe* Iggy Pop, and even then it's still meh-tastic. I'll stick with Rush :P
@BookishLookish: Oh, get over yourself, it's all the same. Besides "I wanna be your dog" & "Search and destroy", can anyone name other tunes that don't suck (besides you, you've had enough to say)? His best work is still his bit parts on "The adventures of Pete & Pete".
@R.J. Zavala: Oh, R.J., don't be like that, honey. Let me school you a bit. It is not the same at all. Like, the Stooges are one group with one set of musicians, and Iggy Pop's solo stuff is another set of musicians. Get my point?
01/28/09
01/27/09
01/27/09
[www.mcgilldaily.com]
01/27/09
01/27/09
01/28/09
01/27/09
01/27/09
If you're okay with supporting a company run by a misogynistic douchebag who's fond of giving the bad touch just because you think the clothes are cute, then, fine, more power to you. Just fucking admit that you're refusing to seek out alternatives and enabling. And, you know, sleep easy, dude.
01/27/09
01/27/09
01/27/09
I support a company whose clothes I like and whose owner is committed to paying a living wage to his employees who all work in the US and therefore as a result contribute positively to our economy in a number of ways. So Dov Charney is a misogynist in his personal life. That's bad,of course. It has very little to do with his company (which, it should be noted, he barely runs anymore). In fact by employing women and paying them well, American Apparel is profoundly NOT a misogynist enterprise. And if by "refusing to seek out alternatives and enabling" you mean that I buy their clothes over those made by, say, 6-year-old Filipinos for The Gap, then, yeah, guilty as charged.
American Apparel is not Dov Charney.
If you want to go on a Dov Charney witch hunt, sleep easy, dude. Guilty until proven innocent and all that. I'm sure that when you boycott his company it's Dov, and not the women who work for him in order to feed their families, suffering. Are you fucking kidding me? You really showed him, huh?
01/27/09
On a purely subjective note, I like the clothes, but tomato/tomahto, right?
01/27/09
"Overpriced" is what happens when you don't exploit your labor force. If you want a $5 t-shirt, go to Walmart and don't look at the label. As for quality, your experience may vary, but I have always found their clothes to be pretty well-made.
01/27/09
01/27/09
Oh, I see, you're still living in the 19th century.
You don't stop being misogynist because you hire women. What a ridiculous leap in logic.
01/27/09
I'll repeat this slowly so everyone gets it. Dov Charney is a jerk. Probably even a misogynistic jerk. American Apparel is a company made up of thousands of employees, the majority of whom are women who are not exploited laborers, and therefore it is not fair to say that the company is misogynist. There's no leap in logic except for the one that you made when you took my statement completely out of context and arbitrarily replaced the words "American Apparel" with the words "Dov Charney."
Also, the ad is a fake.
01/27/09
01/27/09
01/27/09
01/27/09
I don't shop at Walmart and if I wanted to pay $5 for a t-shirt I would go to a thirft store. I've only bought a few AA pieces and was very dissappointed with the product.
If Dov is paying his workers so much and giving them benefits how come this does not improve the quality of their work?
01/27/09
01/27/09
May not be the most tactful or professional correspondence ever, but on the other hand it seems like it could be a set of emails you'd see at probably hundreds of companies every time a holiday comes up.
01/27/09
01/27/09
01/27/09
01/27/09
01/27/09
01/27/09
01/27/09
01/27/09
01/27/09
So this guy was right. They did almost go bankrupt (or at least had $100m of loans almost come due within weeks of each other) that Friday.
01/27/09
01/27/09
01/27/09
01/27/09
01/27/09
01/27/09
01/27/09
01/27/09
01/27/09
01/27/09
01/27/09
What an asshole.
01/27/09
and because the quoted source has, in fact, made a living out of glamorizing the "victim culture" of women?
01/27/09
01/27/09
01/27/09
So what the FUCK is this asshole talking about?!!!!!
01/27/09
It's wrong AND it's worded abhorrently. It reads like an automatic asshole to english translator you can find on the webz or something.
01/27/09
01/27/09
01/27/09
01/27/09
01/27/09
01/27/09
Oh god, I can't joke about this after all. Someone get that man actual numbers and shit. I would say that he should volunteer at a women's shelter, but I hardly think that the women needing the shelter should be forced to deal with this asshole. Gah.
01/27/09
01/27/09
01/27/09
01/27/09
It's nice to know you can take money out of an asshole's pocket that easily.
01/27/09
01/27/09
I, for one, wish I could give all of my cash/influence to cruelty-free farmers, municipal symphonies, and webcomics (instead of Manhattan landlords and student loans).
01/27/09
01/27/09
01/27/09
01/27/09
01/27/09
01/27/09
01/27/09
12/16/08
12/16/08
12/17/08
12/17/08
12/16/08