I hope this news story of Abercrombie CEO Mike Jeffries has reached enough people to tug at least one heart string. I’m sure we’ve all heard the ironic “pot calling the kettle black” response. I mean, given what we’re up against, it’s not hard to make that argument:
It is problematic to fight fire with fire in this instance. While it is ironic that Mike Jeffries is self-proclaimed to be the one who controls who is beautiful and who is cool, attacking him for his own lack of sex appeal is even more ironic, as that would be stooping to his level, would it not?
We’ve already gone through Jeffries interview with a fine tooth comb and highlighted the weak part of his rhetoric. (ie: All of it). And it has been beaten to death by the media over the course of the past month.
Snapping under pressure, Jeffries did what any other “cool person” would do when faced with opposition: Respond via Facebook post. On May 15th, the company’s Facebook page posted the following:
I want to address some of my comments that have been circulating from a 2006 interview. While I believe this 7 year old, resurrected quote has been taken out of context, I sincerely regret that my choice of words was interpreted in a manner that has caused offense. A&F is an aspirational brand that, like most specialty apparel brands, targets its marketing at a particular segment of customers. However, we care about the broader communities in which we operate and are strongly committed to diversity and inclusion. We hire good people who share these values. We are completely opposed to any discrimination, bullying, derogatory characterizations or other anti-social behavior based on race, gender, body type or other individual characteristics.
And this response is only after the 2006 interview had resurfaced, seemingly just as an attempt to pacify violent reactions like the one that has gone viral on Youtube; #FitchtheHomeless, which has become a well known hash-tag since its inception by Greg Karber on May 13th. Jeffries felt no need to address these comments back in 2006, it seems, because he thought he could maintain his views and wait for the backlash to cool down. And it did, for around 7 years. But now that he’s on the hot seat again, Jeffries sees Karber’s new fad; donating Abercrombie products to homeless people as more threatening than his damning interview.
Which would make sense, given that Karber has accused Abercrombie and Fitch of another damning practice. An allegation that I personally find more offensive than not carrying XL clothing: burning excess goods. An allegation, mind you, that has come to be understood as baseless. While there are clothing companies, and government organizations that do participate in this practice, at least as of yet, Abercrombie and Fitch has not admitted to being one of them.
There certainly are comments made regarding rejecting poor people. A District manager for the company is quoted having said “Abercrombie and Fitch doesn’t want to create the image that just anybody, poor people, can wear their clothing. Only people of a certain stature are able to purchase and wear the company name.” But that is sans the mention of “burning.”
Regardless of allegations, true or false, reactions warranted or unwarranted, I would like to argue Jeffries as an inspiration. As I believe him to be the epitome of the American, if not SoCal specific American stereotype. And I’d like to juxtapose him with some other figures and discuss what it means to be beautiful. More simply, I’d like to work a little more with this “pot calling the kettle black” argument.
So we have Mike Jeffries, but he’s not the poster child for Abercrombie and Fitch. This is:
So, for the sake of argument, let’s say that this image displays the quintessential “cool kids” in all their over-sexualized glory. Let’s talk about sexuality for a brief moment. I won’t go so far as to say these people are unattractive, or that their choice of clothing is unflattering. I’m sure there are some people who find it appealing.
But I’m also willing to bet some people also find this appealing:
Georgina Horne, stopped me in my tracks. She discusses her origin in the about tab of her websiteFullerFigureFullerBust. So, imagine with me, for a moment, what would happen if A&F was given the opportunity to photograph Georgina Horne, or if you prefer celebrity ad attention, Christiana Hendricks, for their line. Based on their thin (and narrow) limits on what constitutes beauty, Hendricks is more than likely to be rejected. Mind blowing.
In the same sexuality vein, the only sexually posed couples for A&F are like the poster I displayed above, as in: hetero-normative (and topless). And in that hetero-normative bias, the A&F Brand misses out on cool people of different sexualities. Pretty gay couples? They aren’t that hard to find. I can even hand you a pair that would probably fit Mike Jeffries’ standards of male beauty: Neil Patrick Harris and David Burtka.
Neil Patrick Harris and David Burtka at the Vanity Fair Oscar party. This couple both fit American ideals of male beauty and act as social role models for LGBTQ activism.
There are even commercials being shot with transsexual models, like Stav Strashko in the New Toyota Auris commercial. Although Mike Jeffires and his A&F brand are not alone in their prejudice: this ad is only airing in Japan as it is banned in the US.
As you can see, we have a problem here. We have people here who fit the A&F brand’s stereotypical expectations of beauty, but would never be permitted into the “Cool Kids” Club and we have beauties whodon’t fit the beauty requirements yet who would do nothing but extend the popularity of the brand. Mike Jeffries is clearly missing vibrant opportunities.
Do you need more proof? Because I could go on for days. Take this beauty; Victoria Modesta for example. Are you really going to tell me that this lady isn’t legitimately the coolest person you have ever seen up until this point?
This designer Sofia de Oliveira Barata has an alternative limbs projects for people in need of prosthetic additions. Check out her website The Alternative Limb Project for more legit prosthetic limb art.
I mean, the coolest person until this legless US Marines veteran:
And if not having a leg didn’t get Modesta and Alex Minsky a rejection letter from the A&F brand, Minsky’s tattoos certainly would. And even further still, Modesta’s ethnicity might even get her the boot. Aside from tattoos, physical disabilities, or plus sizes, or lack of sexuality diversity there is an obvious prejudice against racial diversity. There are many racism or discrimination based lawsuits against not only A&F but Mike Jeffries specifically, dating back to 2008 and arguably prior.
Now, after I’ve listed all of these beautiful models in all their individuality and coolness, I will make my next argument. Even if A&E, or Mike Jeffries, in person requested any of these beautiful people to model for their brand, chances are they would have declined. If not for the publicity in the last month, than for any publicity they have received prior. And if not for that, than maybe just because the products they sell are as typical, unoriginal, out-dated and bland as the ideals they strive for. Ideals that can be noticed from as far away as the stench of cologne wafting from their storefronts.
I consider this resurfacing of Mike Jeffries publicity as inspiration because he has gracefully advertised what the stereotypical american ideals are. He highlights what America and American culture seeks to cover: that we have a strict overarching bias as to what constitutes as beautiful despite the lack of beauty to be found in the stereotype itself. Mike Jeffries has inspired me to pull up a few examples of what beauty is, to remind myself of what beauty is and to maybe call upon those who read this to find examples of what they find beautiful. And not because I believe everyone, everywhere will find every person that I mentioned in this post to fit their personal expectations of beauty, but that beauty is subjective. Some people find heterosexual white couples squishing their flattering fats together to be sexy, others find the same sex to be attractive, some people find tattoos sexy, and maybe some others find themselves attracted less to white people and more to people with stereotypically ethnic features.
So if beauty is subjective, if sexy is in the eye of the beholder, then can we not make beauty such a narrow, limited label? Can beauty just simply be the label we attribute to someone who makes apparent their sheer awesomeness and acceptance of themselves? Isn’t it the overwhelmingly comprehensive acceptance of who we are that attracts just the people who find our specific beauty to be attractive to us, and command the respect of those who don’t necessarily find our physicality attractive but can find us, as people, beautiful?
I would just like to thank Mike Jeffries for giving people the platform to fight against this stereotype, for giving a face to what this stereotype is. And that I appreciate his opinion of what he finds attractive and for giving people the inspiration to call out this attempt to minimize the definition of beauty (only fitting his own particular opinion) as discrimination. Thank you, Mike Jeffries, you are the inspiration for making a more accepting and beautiful world.