Popalicious

She Loves her socks!

19 years ago
41 Comments
by ck
144 Views
default

Ha

Clearly, there are a lot of people out there with waaaay too much time on their hands. The above American Apparel spoof of a spoof ad was sent to me via email and seems to be a response to this spoof ad that appeared on a number of blogs. Inspired by Dov Charney’s famous American Apparel ad featuring 150 lb. porn starlet Lauren Phoenix, this spoof is making some kind of statement I suppose. You go figure it out yourself. I have to go run and buy some powdered cholov yisroel milk. No, that’s not a euphemism for something else …

ck
Follow me
Latest posts by ck (see all)

You may also like

About the author

ck

Founder and Publisher of Jewlicious, David Abitbol lives in Jerusalem with his wife, newborn daughter and toddler son. Blogging as "ck" he's been blocked on twitter by the right and the left, so he's doing something right.

View all posts

41 Comments

  • You’re talking about actions. If the ACTIONS taken at the mosque violate the law, they should be punished. At this point, “conservatives” want the government to restrict speech. That’s wrong, and it will backfire.

  • For what it’s worth Face time, the IP address on that comment originates at the LA American Apparel factory, where dov works, so that could have been him. Also the comment about ads was in reference to an earlier comment above AND you can also use Arial Black or bold as a replacement for Helvetica.

  • RE:
    Sadly though, we blew our entire Jewish blogger advertising budget on that Jewschool guy’s site. Maybe next time though.

    – I’m not sure what you mean?
    I didn’t ask for money . . . fonts are as free as music these days, I just wanted to know the type face, so that I too, can make some fake ads like everyone else and poke fun, becuz I doubt Mr. Charney has the time or concern to bother with this web site, or any other site that isn’t affiliated with AmericanApparel.Com!

    You’re not Dov, you’re some guy probably pretending to be Dov.

    But thanks! I tried the Helvetica and it doesn’t seem to be working, oh well!

  • Hi FACE time. The font our creative department uses is Helvetica Heavy, and less bold variants of Helvetica for text and things that don’t need to be bold. I’m always glad to help my Jewlicious friends. Sadly though, we blew our entire Jewish blogger advertising budget on that Jewschool guy’s site. Maybe next time though.

  • Hey Dov! – when you have a chance, I know your busy with running a international corporation & hop skipping across the continents shooting bad pics of cute chicks [and guys these days], but when you have a minute, I’d like to find out what the name of the font is that your creative dept uses. I really like it a lot!

  • Muffti for one likes it when VIC comes ’round to fight with CK. Very rarely does Muffti see people on both sides of a localized argument do such a poor job at scraping together evidence and such a great job at missing each other’s points. What makes it more amusing is that both of you seem to be such intelligent people. Why don’t you guys just list out a set of questions and then let eachother answer them rather than throw around half baked accusations and ridiculous ad hominem attacks. Furthermore, if you set up some ground rules things would go much better. (Muffti is being mean for effect: you have both made attempts at this in the past, and Muffti thinks some headway has been made). Here’s an attempt to help out. Take it for what it is worth:

    a) Separate out questions of the retail side from the manufacturing side. If they aren’t separable, say why.

    b) Separate out questions about Dov Charney from questions about the company. if they aren’t separable, say why.

    c) Come to an agreement about whether or not it is legitimate to question a company for its practices even if it does better than other companies (especially on the manufacturing end of things).

    d) Separate questions of personal taste from what we can reasonably call offensive: this is especially vis a vis the ads. Say the ads are just a big depiction of Charney’s sex life. So what?

    e) Stop making half baked accusations and assumptions about eachother motives and affiliations. As has been well known to philosophers for quite a while, the person and the argument are two separate entities, and attacking the former does little to address the validity of the latter.

    f) Try to recognize that anecdotal evidence is worth dick all if you want to have a real discussion. CK has a friend who likes the ad, VIC has a friend who doesn’t. Give me half an hour and Muffti will find you as many different Islamic opinions as you likes on campus. It’s not hard.

    g) Try to agree for once on whether or not allegations of misconduct are evidence before the trial is finished.

    Muffti isn’t saying this because he dislikes either of you; he likes you both very much and enjoys what you guys have to say. But when a conversation has few shared data points and no ground rules for procedure, which seems to be the case here, things go all haywire. Muffti thinks there are some interesting things to say on this issue.

    Does that help at all? And VIC, grant Muffti a request: there are a few posters at Jewlicious and it is a tad rude to include them all (which, perhaps unwittingly, you do) when you accuse JEWLICIOUS of various things. As CK likes to stress, we are not a monolithic entity.

  • “A slight throbbing about the temples told me that this discussion had reached saturation point”.

    P. G. Wodehouse, RIGHT HO, JEEVES (1934)

  • Hamas and Sperm? That woulda been cool!

    But seriously – don’t you guys feel this kinda post-disengagement feeling of ennui and numbness? I mean after months of arguing and hypothesizing on the impact the disengagement would have on the survival and the very soul of Israel, everything afterwards seems kind of bland? Frankly in terms of Israel, I may need a decompression period before I can get excited again.

    As far as Dov Charney goes, like I mentioned above, the fact that his detractors use many of the same disinformation techniques employed by anti-Israel agitators helps me fix my jonesing for argumentation and discussion. Heck I am even reading “Culture Jamming” by that dude that started Adbusters!

    Anyways … I’ll try to be more multi-faceted. I did post about that yummy Herzog wineries tour though! It’s not ALL Dov Charney …

  • Michael, last night I tried to post a post called “Hamas and Sperm” three times and lost the post each time. I took it as a sign from a higher authority, but I bet that would have been more interesting than another 200 posts about Charney.

  • Does anybody else wish that instead of endless arguments over whether ck is / isn’t licking Dov Charney’s jewel-encrusted anus, and whether Dov is/isn’t a union-busting pervert / maverick, misunderstood businessman, ck and VIC could get a room and we could go back to the good ol’ days of bitching at each other over the relative merits of different streams of Judaism?


  • But anyone who’s paying attention knows that most of AA’s critics have little problem with sexy advertising per se. It’s the sexism we don’t like. And in particular the creepy way AA’s “realistic” ads suggest Dov’s sexual conquest of the young models in the frame.

    🙄

    c_ _k, you’re debating with a shill.

  • Sigh. There goes my day. VIC wrote:
    Hijabs are hijabs. Neither good nor bad in my book. But it’s extremely disingenous to assert that the makers of “Meet Jasmine” aren’t pushing some buttons here. If they wanted to avoid the potential for a misreading, they could have used a burlap sack. Same concept. But without the religious and racial provocation.

    They are definitely pushing some buttons. The fact that you view a harmless depiction of an Islamic woman as provocative is telling. Very telling indeed. It demonstrates the extent of your biases to me – your bias against Muslims and your inexhaustible and unbelievably self-righteous bias against American Apparel. You also exhibit a tremendously condescending paternalistic “I know better” attitude against people of color and Muslims. I mean if a Muslim is insulted by the imagery, let them say so themselves. Do they really need you, a presumably non-Muslim, to defend them? You are similarly dismissive of voices within AA, be they store staff or factory workers or models who have piped in and contested your one-sided depiction of the company.

    So our friends disagree. That doesn’t make the spoof any less suspect. You’re either being disingenous or quite charitable to claim that using a Muslim woman wasn’t meant to score rhetorical points by invoking cultural biases.

    I think the way it invokes cultural biases is brilliant! It seems to invoke the cultural biases of the AA critics. Pure genius!

    Yeah, one of my co-workers happens to be a white Muslim. But you’re still dodging here. Jasmine has dark skin. And then well…there’s that name…Jasmine. It’s of Persian origin. Sorry CK, but Jasmine is a person of color. An Arab.

    Hmm. You do know that Persians are not Arabs, right? Sorry VIC, you lose again. You continue to completely misunderstand the point I was making. And besides, had they used a lighter colored person then the spoofers would be accused of what? Co-opting Islam? Being culturally insensitive? I suspect you’d find offense with anything they did. So you changed your tune and now claim the ad is anti-Arab. Whatever. Your claim is still nonsense. A simple depiction of a person of color or of a person of a particular religious orientation is not prima facie objectionable.

    But of course you know that this facet of Islam is not “PC” in the eyes of most feminists. This is why the image is intended to tweak critics of AA’s ads.

    And in that respect the spoofers succeeded. Nothing wrong with that.

    The ad is a caricature CK. Both of feminist critiques of advertising and of Muslim women. You’re spinning here. Dizzy much?

    It’s a caricature of stupid feminist critiques of advertising. I see nothing here that insults Muslim women. In fact your offense at the simple portrayal of a woman wearing a Hijab is what I find most offensive.

    And a man with no free time doesn’t obsessively mine his referrer logs or take tours of corporate offices just to research a blog post.

    I have a responsibility to give my audience what it wants. My referer logs tell me that there is a tremendous interest in Dov Charney. Also, I have friends that work there and so I happen to have good access – why not take advantage of that? I also write about loads of other issues (which you’d know about if you read the rest of the blog). There’s nothing suspect about my behavior. Yours however is seriously a little whacked. I mean do you spend the same amount of time knocking the other advertisers who promote far more problematic images? Who make use of 3rd world sweatshop labor? Who don’t have issues with unionization because they manufacture overseas? Maybe you do, I don’t know – but I sure haven’t ever seen it. Is it any wonder I can’t take your sincerity seriously?

    And again, I never said you worked for Allred. However, you are not the only anti-AA voice out there. It’s possible that some of the others had a direct pecuniary interest in maligning AA. It’s possible. I never said that that was in fact the case. Just speculating. Also, Allred’s clients are not the only ones with an anti-AA interest here. Fink’s client has one, as does anyone contemplating a future law-suit and anyone working for the Union. This is after all a high profile story – there is great interest in manipulating the facts.

    And what do you make of the article in which Dov demotes the NYC retail staff “for not being attractive enough?” Did the journalist make that up?

    I never said that. But I have in the past stated that a store owner is well within her rights to demand that employees respect a certain standard of appearance. The article never stated that the employees in question were not thin enough!

    I coulda sworn we were talking about a socially-responsible clothing company that didn’t exploit its workers.

    We were. You thought the porn star model was relevant and you brought that up. I think the company is to a large measure very socially responsible. Anything a union would bring to the factory workers they already have and more. The models used in the ads are REAL women with looks that are realistically attainable. The porn star you took umbrage with earlier weighs over 150 pounds! Please show me any other fashion company that uses 150 pound women in their ads and presents them as sensuous and attractive? AA also has a fleet of bicycles that it offers to its employees for free to be used as transporation to and from the factory. Given issues we have with the burning of fossil fuels, that’s amazing! I could go on and on, but I think if the AA business model were followed at more companies, we’d be better off. They may not be perfect, but they’re doing a pretty good job I would say. And again, there are other companies far more deserving of criticism and critical attention.

    Well, I didn’t come hear to discuss the Middle East, Palestinian statehood or Zionism. And from the sound of things, my opinions probably wouldn’t be too welcome. But I’m really not sure what you’re getting at. If you’re calling me an anti-Semite, just come out and say it. Otherwise, could you please leave the baggage from that other, more weighty political debate behind?

    I’m not talking about the Palestinian situation. I am talking about disengenuous propaganda techniques used by anti-Israel agitators. Your opinion on the Middle East conflict is always welcome – Jewlicious is not a monolithic entity. But if you’re going to spout unenlightened, self-interested stuff, regardless of the subject matter, be prepared to be pounced upon.

    So no, I never said or implied that you were anti-semitic. For all I know you’re Jewish. All I said was that you used techniques that I am very familiar with, similiar to those used by the lunatic left when dealing with Israel and Zionism. I could not help but see the similiarities in technique and that’s what set me off about the whole anti-Dov Charney thing – too much bullshit and not enough reliance on facts. So do you understand now? I am not saying you are anti-semitic. I’m not even saying that any criticism of Israel is anti-semitic. I’m just taking umbrage with your techniques.

  • Damn.

    That was supposed to read “AFAIK ‘hijab’ refers to a head covering (which has only been around since the ’70s; IIRC, some Shi’ite guy came up with it as a way of identifying its wearers as Shi’ites so they wouldn’t get shot/raped by the various warring factions in the Lebanese civil war). The full body coverning is usually referred to as a burqa in the Western press.”

  • AFAIKcourse the ad is offensive. It was obviously meant to be.

    That’s usually the case with parodies.

  • “Uh… how about this interpretation: The hijab was used as an undeniably modest depiction of the female form – one that no one could take offense to for its sexual content. What made it funny is the implied statement that this is the extreme that AA marketers have to go to in order to satisfy critics who claim their ads are pervy. No one seems to be repressing Jasmine, unless you consider hijab wearing prima facie proof of repression. If so then you’re the one with the issues, not the authors of this spoof. So like I said, which is it? Hijabs are bad? Hijabs are good? Well?”

    Hijabs are hijabs. Neither good nor bad in my book. But it’s extremely disingenous to assert that the makers of “Meet Jasmine” aren’t pushing some buttons here. If they wanted to avoid the potential for a misreading, they could have used a burlap sack. Same concept. But without the religious and racial provocation.

    “Another Muslim I showed it to found it quite funny. If your Muslim friend found it insulting, that’s more an indictment against the general media atmosphere that renders negative all things Muslim. An otherwise harmless depiction of someone Muslim should not be automatically assumed to be defamatory.”

    So our friends disagree. That doesn’t make the spoof any less suspect. You’re either being disingenous or quite charitable to claim that using a Muslim woman wasn’t meant to score rhetorical points by invoking cultural biases.

    “It’s also definitely not RACIST. Islam is a religion, not a race – please use your stock terminology correctly. Saying that Muslims represent a race is insulting and grossly ignorant.”

    Yeah, one of my co-workers happens to be a white Muslim. But you’re still dodging here. Jasmine has dark skin. And then well…there’s that name…Jasmine. It’s of Persian origin. Sorry CK, but Jasmine is a person of color. An Arab.

    “Uh no. The Hijab is simply a modest garment. It’s extremely modest but the ad has nothing to do with the repression of Muslim women and everything to do with extremely politically correct depictions of Women.”

    But of course you know that this facet of Islam is not “PC” in the eyes of most feminists. This is why the image is intended to tweak critics of AA’s ads.

    “Making Baba Ganouj is now racist?? See note above for the incorrect use of the term “racist.” This spoof is miles and miles away from a racist depiction of a Mammy. For the record, an image of a hook nosed Jewish Woman serving serving up gefilte fish is not prima facie anti-semitic. It would depend on the context and in the case of the “Meet Jasmine” spoof, the context says nothing about Islam and everything about your biases.”

    The ad is a caricature CK. Both of feminist critiques of advertising and of Muslim women. You’re spinning here. Dizzy much?

    “I simply don’t have the same amount of free time you have.”

    I haven’t bothered to count the number of words you’ve written in Charney’s defense, but I daresay it rivals my own tally. And a man with no free time doesn’t obsessively mine his referrer logs or take tours of corporate offices just to research a blog post.

    “I just can’t provide you with a detailed fisking of everything you write. Also, for the record, I have never accused you of working for Gloria Allred – that would be a grievous insult indeed.”

    I’m no great fan of Allred either, but you did make the insinuation on Pinko Feminist Hellcat’s blog.

    Here’s the link.

    And your exact words:

    “Vertically Integrated Culture Jamming was responsible for nearly 10% of all the comments. And these were not some off the cuff comments. They were well written, well researched, well crafted comments. All unremitingly anti-Charney. Really quite a remarkable effort, for you know, someone who has a non-pecuniary interest in the whole affair. Now given all that, if I were mean spirited, or less concerned about the possibility that Fink and Allred would sue me, I would say that the shills have been in on this game early. But they were not pro-Charney shills, they were anti-Charney shills. But hey what do I know?”

    You’d call me a shill, but you’re afraid Allred would sue you. Sounds like an accusation to me.

    “What my gut told me was simply not borne out by the facts. Really, it’s that simple. His stores are staffed by all kinds of people – men, not at all “impossibly thin” women – I’ve been to stores in Montreal, New York and Los Angeles and in each store I visited I saw curvy, ordinary and or heavy women working there.”

    And what do you make of the article in which Dov demotes the NYC retail staff “for not being attractive enough?” Did the journalist make that up?

    “You just go on and on and on with your presumptions, innaccuracies and conjecture – it’s a veritable avalanche! His ads feature porn stars? So what? Are the porn stars in question inserting things in their butts? Will you not eat at 2nd Ave. deli because Al Goldstein works there as a host? Will you not see any normal TV show or movie that features Ron Jeremy? Does a lawsuit imply automatic guilt?”

    I’ve got no beef with Ron Jeremy, Al Goldstein or anal porn for that matter. But if those are our yardsticks for American Apparel’s public image and corporate culture, let’s be honest about them. I coulda sworn we were talking about a socially-responsible clothing company that didn’t exploit its workers.

    “I’ll tell you what really sets me off by this whole thing. The tactics and techniques you use remind me of the tactics and techniques used by anti-Israel agitators. They use hot button terms like Apartheid and racism more for there incendiary value and less for how well they factually depict the situation. They focus on Israel and claim to be motivated by human rights when there are far more grievous violators out there. They too have an agenda, or a bone to pick, but very little of it has to do with their humanitarian sensibilities being offended and everything to do with their hatred of a Jewish state. They try to make their distorted message more palatable by using the aforementioned terminology. You and your ilk seem to be cut from the same cloth.”

    Well, I didn’t come hear to discuss the Middle East, Palestinian statehood or Zionism. And from the sound of things, my opinions probably wouldn’t be too welcome. But I’m really not sure what you’re getting at. If you’re calling me an anti-Semite, just come out and say it. Otherwise, could you please leave the baggage from that other, more weighty political debate behind?

  • Oy vic…
    I’m interpreting the spoof, CK. Any reasonable reading of the spoof equates wearing the hajib with the repression of women. I don’t automatically assume all women who wear the hajib are disempowered. But the spoof (which you say you find funny) is based on this premise, no?

    Uh… how about this interpretation: The hijab was used as an undeniably modest depiction of the female form – one that no one could take offense to for its sexual content. What made it funny is the implied statement that this is the extreme that AA marketers have to go to in order to satisfy critics who claim their ads are pervy. No one seems to be repressing Jasmine, unless you consider hijab wearing prima facie proof of repression. If so then you’re the one with the issues, not the authors of this spoof. So like I said, which is it? Hijabs are bad? Hijabs are good? Well?

    One Muslim I showed the “Meet Jasmine” spoof to sighed and asked me “why do they always pick on us?” I guess he wasn’t being “reasonable.”

    Another Muslim I showed it to found it quite funny. If your Muslim friend found it insulting, that’s more an indictment against the general media atmosphere that renders negative all things Muslim. An otherwise harmless depiction of someone Muslim should not be automatically assumed to be defamatory. It’s also definitely not RACIST. Islam is a religion, not a race – please use your stock terminology correctly. Saying that Muslims represent a race is insulting and grossly ignorant.

    Hmmm. Cause to “read” the meaning of the ad, we must accept the premise that the hajib is a repressive symbol.

    Uh no. The Hijab is simply a modest garment. It’s extremely modest but the ad has nothing to do with the repression of Muslim women and everything to do with extremely politically correct depictions of Women.

    As for racist caricature, I think the phrase “she does make a mean babba ghanouj” is pretty choice. Maybe if she were a hook nosed Jewish women serving up gefilte fish or a big-lipped mammy with a plate of fried chicken, you’d be able to deduce why the ad *could* be offensive to some.

    Making Baba Ganouj is now racist?? See note above for the incorrect use of the term “racist.” This spoof is miles and miles away from a racist depiction of a Mammy. For the record, an image of a hook nosed Jewish Woman serving serving up gefilte fish is not prima facie anti-semitic. It would depend on the context and in the case of the “Meet Jasmine” spoof, the context says nothing about Islam and everything about your biases.

    you’ve been very savvy to ignore the questions you can’t answer, change the subject as it suits you or act as if I never posed an argument in the first place. And when all else fails, accuse me of working for Gloria Allred.

    I simply don’t have the same amount of free time you have. I just can’t provide you with a detailed fisking of everything you write. Also, for the record, I have never accused you of working for Gloria Allred – that would be a grievous insult indeed.

    One year later, this same CEO is under fire from three sex harass suits, his ads feature porn stars and his stores are staffed by impossibly-thin young girls in skimpy clothes. And now you tell us you’ve changed your mind, CK. You may be one of the only people left on the internet (pro or con) who claims that Charney isn’t a sleazy exhibitionist. Forgive me if I have a hard time swallowing your change of heart.

    What my gut told me was simply not borne out by the facts. Really, it’s that simple. His stores are staffed by all kinds of people – men, not at all “impossibly thin” women – I’ve been to stores in Montreal, New York and Los Angeles and in each store I visited I saw curvy, ordinary and or heavy women working there. You just go on and on and on with your presumptions, innaccuracies and conjecture – it’s a veritable avalanche! His ads feature porn stars? So what? Are the porn stars in question inserting things in their butts? Will you not eat at 2nd Ave. deli because Al Goldstein works there as a host? Will you not see any normal TV show or movie that features Ron Jeremy? Does a lawsuit imply automatic guilt?

    I’ll tell you what really sets me off by this whole thing. The tactics and techniques you use remind me of the tactics and techniques used by anti-Israel agitators. They use hot button terms like Apartheid and racism more for there incendiary value and less for how well they factually depict the situation. They focus on Israel and claim to be motivated by human rights when there are far more grievous violators out there. They too have an agenda, or a bone to pick, but very little of it has to do with their humanitarian sensibilities being offended and everything to do with their hatred of a Jewish state. They try to make their distorted message more palatable by using the aforementioned terminology. You and your ilk seem to be cut from the same cloth.

    Now can you swallow my change of heart?

  • “Hey VIC! I knew that the moment Jewlicious would reappear at the top of Google results for Dov Charney, you’d be back! So… how was your weekend?”

    My weekend was fine. I didn’t notice that you’d climbed the Google search ranks again. Must have been that “American Mensch” post alleging a pro-Charney trend in the media. Man for a guy whose blog launched a thousand arguments about Dov Charney, you’ve sure been working overtime to mend the guy’s image!

    “So let me see if I understand you correctly – male control of female sexuality is bad, but using a hijab in a spoof may be an insult to muslims. You can’t have it both ways VIC. Which is it?”

    I’m interpreting the spoof, CK. Any reasonable reading of the spoof equates wearing the hajib with the repression of women. I don’t automatically assume all women who wear the hajib are disempowered. But the spoof (which you say you find funny) is based on this premise, no?

    “For my part I have come out in favor of the use of Sharia law in civil adjudications in Canada and in opposition to the banning of hijabs in schools (or anywhere for that matter). Any reasonable Muslim observer knows I have nothing against Islam.”

    One Muslim I showed the “Meet Jasmine” spoof to sighed and asked me “why do they always pick on us?” I guess he wasn’t being “reasonable.”

    “So, can you explain to me how a simple depiction of a woman in a hijab is prima facie a racist caricature?”

    Hmmm. Cause to “read” the meaning of the ad, we must accept the premise that the hajib is a repressive symbol. As for racist caricature, I think the phrase “she does make a mean babba ghanouj” is pretty choice. Maybe if she were a hook nosed Jewish women serving up gefilte fish or a big-lipped mammy with a plate of fried chicken, you’d be able to deduce why the ad *could* be offensive to some.

    “Isn’t the presumption that all hijab wearing Muslim women do so only because their husbands force them to somewhat insulting to those intelligent religious hijab wearing women?”

    Sure is. I hope you wrote to this ad’s creators and chastised them for their bias.

    “But you have never had a problem speaking for others because you know what’s best! You know what’s best for people employed at the AA factory who don’t want to unionize, you know what’s best for women who model for American Apparel, you know what’s best for women who work for Dov Charney – you’re just an all around omipotent and omniscient being and the rest of us are just, you know, dummies.”

    I don’t think you’re dumb, CK. I think you’re disingenuous. In fact, you’ve been very savvy to ignore the questions you can’t answer, change the subject as it suits you or act as if I never posed an argument in the first place. And when all else fails, accuse me of working for Gloria Allred.

    But the fact remains, you once read a Jane magazine profile of a sleazy CEO, who entertained questions about his business model while getting a hummer from an employee. Your gut told you that the guy might be creepy, so you wrote a now infamous blog post about him. One year later, this same CEO is under fire from three sex harass suits, his ads feature porn stars and his stores are staffed by impossibly-thin young girls in skimpy clothes. And now you tell us you’ve changed your mind, CK. You may be one of the only people left on the internet (pro or con) who claims that Charney isn’t a sleazy exhibitionist. Forgive me if I have a hard time swallowing your change of heart.

  • Hey VIC! I knew that the moment Jewlicious would reappear at the top of Google results for Dov Charney, you’d be back! So… how was your weekend?

    So let me see if I understand you correctly – male control of female sexuality is bad, but using a hijab in a spoof may be an insult to muslims. You can’t have it both ways VIC. Which is it?

    For my part I have come out in favor of the use of Sharia law in civil adjudications in Canada and in opposition to the banning of hijabs in schools (or anywhere for that matter). Any reasonable Muslim observer knows I have nothing against Islam.

    So, can you explain to me how a simple depiction of a woman in a hijab is prima facie a racist caricature? Isn’t the presumption that all hijab wearing Muslim women do so only because their husbands force them to somewhat insulting to those intelligent religious hijab wearing women?

    But you have never had a problem speaking for others because you know what’s best! You know what’s best for people employed at the AA factory who don’t want to unionize, you know what’s best for women who model for American Apparel, you know what’s best for women who work for Dov Charney – you’re just an all around omipotent and omniscient being and the rest of us are just, you know, dummies.

    Commentary from VIC. What an awesome way to start the week!

  • Gotta hand it to American Apparel and its surrogates, at least they know which websites to leak their press releases to! Jewlicious is always ready to dish out fresh propaganda for Dov Charney.

    Now admittedly this ad spoof is more imaginative than those boring fake blogs they’ve since abandoned. It’s also a sign that they’ve been paying attention to the crticism, if not the critique. And as you’ve pointed out CK, they certainly seem to have waaay to much time on their hands. More than me, even! This thing was posed, designed and executed even more convincingly than my wet t-shirt spoof. One wonders if “Meet Jasmine” is the work of an “interested party” or not. (I prefer to imagine some rogue AA marketing folks putting this together over bongloads after hours.)

    Of course, equating feminism with repressive fundamentalism is a favorite rhetorical tactic…of right wingers. Ever since Rush Limbaugh coined the term “feminazi” in fact. But anyone who’s paying attention knows that most of AA’s critics have little problem with sexy advertising per se. It’s the sexism we don’t like. And in particular the creepy way AA’s “realistic” ads suggest Dov’s sexual conquest of the young models in the frame.

    And since this ad spoof specifically invokes a caricature of women whose dress and appearance is dictated by men, it’s worth asking where Dov falls on that continuum, with his nitpicky rules against underwire bras, makeup and plucked eyebrows.

    In the latest fawning profile of Charney, we find more evidence of this tendency. He recently demoted some New York retail staff to stockroom and janitorial duties, because they *weren’t attractive enough* to sell his sweatshop-free threads!

    Read it here, if you don’t believe me:
    http://www.inc.com/magazine/20050901/american-apparel.html

    Is Dov’s insistence on squeezing every last barely legal retail staffer into a pair of teeny terrycloth shorts any less controlling than a Muslim man requiring his wife to wear the hajib?

    Whether it’s Dov Charney controlling the look of his retail staff to the nth degree or a Muslim man making his spouse hide her body from public view, you can count me in opposition to male control of female sexuality. Where do you stand, CK?

    So the spoof is funny, I suppose (if you’re not a Muslim whose tired of racist caricatures) but it misses its mark and boomerangs on its creators. It would be a shame if AA (or anyone affiliated with AA had made it.) And no doubt the presence of such mocking stereotypes on a Jewish blog probably won’t go unnoticed by Muslim observers.

    Jus’ sayin’

  • Well, uh, I guess American Apparel doesn’t advertise on Jewlicious because you give them free adverts.

    Jus’ sayin’.