hey have I made this rant yet?

[burnunit]

If so, let me do it again: don't buy American Apparel. They fucking suck.

But whatever will we do? if you're serious about this shit, spend the extra for no sweat. (good links at bottom) Or spend about the same for alternative. If you're just looking for clothes that feel good and you don't think about that shit too much? Then I don't care. Call my wife, she'll get you a fix, cheap. But don't buy American Apparel because you think they're "doing good"; you're a dupe if you do. If you must wear them (i.e., you have a closet full or you got them on your wedding registry or from your NA sponsor or something), don't tell anybody. Tear the tags off. Hide the evidence. Don't brag that you did it, don't preach it to someone you see still wearing that shit on the train or in line at the co-op. Don't tell me about it, I won't harangue you. Don't tell anyone else. Just cover it up, hush hush, consider it a lesson learned, and move on.

Comments

[433.livejournal.com]

I know they're thin and run small, but I wouldn't say "fucking suck". I've gotten them as band or roller derby shirts, I haven't gone to an AA store. Why do you say they do?

[burnunit.livejournal.com]

Ah, yes. A fair question. In the first place, I must note that the shirts, qua shirts, do emphatically not suck. They are among the most comfortable fabrics I have ever worn. They are tough, too. I assume "run small" is a euphemism for "tight as fuck" but that's a minor detail. Here's some greater detail:

1) "Sweatshop free" is a fig leaf covering their systematic, bordering on illegal union busting tactics. They already acknowledge garment trade practices are anti-worker, so they sell the concept of their high wages to consumers as a sop for their own misdeeds.

2) Their owner is a bigger tool than I can ever aspire to be.

3) He makes no distinction between his personal proclivities and his brand, i.e., there is little distinction between his provocations (sexual hostility, misogyny,etc) and the brand. One can't simply write the CEO's comments off as publicity, they are integral to the brand itself.

4) Also, he basically thinks women are to blame for domestic violence!

5) The brand manifests outrageous cultural insensitivity

http://clamormagazine.org/issues/38/aa/straub.php
http://www.blacktable.com/graham050720.htm
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_26/b3939108_mz017.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14082498/
http://www.topix.com/afam/2007/10/american-apparel-goes-blackface-in-ad

I could amend my post, I suppose:

"What worries me is that a lot of smart, progressive people I know buy American Apparel because they think they're buying something that feels great and supports a uniquely progressive new market force. But like so many things (especially in the last twenty years or so) from the Alternative Music genre to Independent Films to Organic Foods to Expensive (http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB118859310163314946-lMyQjAxMDE3ODM4MTUzOTEzWj.html) Vodka (http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB113658243369040088-lMyQjAxMDE3MzM2MTUzODEyWj.html), these have become convenient hangers around which to build an identity or lifestyle that simultaneously assuages one's conscience and broadcasts an appropriate consumer reputation (http://books.google.com/books?id=laXKF9igGxEC&dq=Thorstein+Veblen&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fclient%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den%26q%3Dthorstein%2Bveblen%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8&sa=X&oi=print&ct=result&cd=1&cad=author-navigational), while delivering a payload that is occasionally (increasingly?) quite horrible.

Incidentally it's a template laid down and perfected by American Premium Style Beer developed in the years after World War II when mass production and cost cutting drained much of the traditional flavor out of continental lager styles in favor of adjunct-heavy brews which were marketed as "premium" products that were far from it. The cycle even repeated itself with the Microbrew Boom of the 90s, when the giants snapped up microbreweries and started turning out Premium Brands...with Nominimal Changes, We Promise!

So instead it turns out the company fucking sucks, the industry fucking sucks, and consumption fucking sucks. This positioning of brand identities in consumers' minds works, it makes shit-tons of money, and it allows consumers to feel like "it could be worse." When does "it could be worse" make things actually better? That's my key question. Why do we settle for "it could be worse" so fucking much?

I suppose today I'm just mad at American Apparel. If, after knowing a bigger picture, you continue to support it, fine that's your choice, I like to think people can be left alone even if I'm really angry about it. Just don't tell me you're doing it because of how awesome their company is and how awesome their ideas are.

If you buy them, whether you support it or not, I think you're lending capital which supports and enables behavior that fucking sucks."

[spacebug.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the rant. I like to be an informed consumer.
The girl in charge of merch for our league has a reputation of being difficult to work with, but it'd be nice if we could convince her to switch to something like NoSweat. I would bet that derby girls all over the country would prefer to show that CEO some domestic violence on their own terms.

[soylentmean.livejournal.com]

Wait? People are surprised that American Apparel is run by a fucking bastard? I would have thought after the years of articles about him, the fact that it's the textile industry, or the anorexic models, that people would have figured this out by now. That said, here is what I responded to kHz with:

Ohhhhh yeah. American Apparel's CEO is a long-time misogynistic
douchebag. I'm sure most CEOs of major corporations are dick-waving
assholes, but he is particularly over-the-top awful.

That said, American Apparel is one of the less bad in a group of
nasties. The textile industry has pretty much always been anti-union,
for a variety of reasons (beyond simple misogyny), but in large part
because the lower/middle class (the bulk of sales) can't necessarily
afford expensive clothing due to various, and stupid, economic policies
which have kind of trampled the middle and lower class over the years.

I'm all for supporting companies like No Sweat (yay!) or Jerzees, which
I find to be much better quality than AA for about the same price.
Would our customers be willing to pay an extra $5 or $10 for a one-off
t-shirt that they buy at a bout, though? With all the shirts I've
purchased, that's about $50-100 for myself over the last year or two.

But yeah, if you're buying AA because you think they're a great USA USA
USA company, well... ugh. But most people just buy them because they're
reasonably decent, cheap clothes that come in a wide variety of colors
and shapes.

actually

[burnunit.livejournal.com]

I don't believe I said anything about being surprised. This is not all that new of a rant for me. Which is to also say, yes, I agree with you.

[mrs-lovett.livejournal.com]

Basically I want to stay the hell out of this one, but there is one point to which I could speak: Jerzees 363 Heavyweight Cotton SS T-shirt costs $2.40 less per piece than the basic AA #2001 Fine Jersey T. In my job that is not considered "about the same."