In response to Mike Jeffries AF

s-aries8990 · May 2013

So I stumbled across this video on my facebook newsfeed today :http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2013/05/14/abercrombieandfitchhomelessbrandreadjustment_n_3272498.html

I've never purchased that brand if clothing and their CEO's exclusionary statement made my eyes roll super hardcore.

Thoughts on this mission for readjusting the public view on this brand? I think it's doing something totally awesome for the community while "sticking it to him."

WinstonsGirl · May 2013

I wonder if only skinny homelss people are being given the clothing?? *eyeroll* This just seems like such a publicity stunt. If they wanted to give clothing away, why not just give them to an organization/shelter that works with homelss people.

lisabeats · May 2013

I get the gist of it and think AF's policies are out of whack (though they're a private company so my opinion doesn't matter). However, I think that this whole idea is somewhat taking advantage of or making fun of the homeless population. It's kind of like saying "You think you're too good for full figured people?? Well how do you feel now that HOMELESS PEOPLE are wearing your clothes?!? That is SO much worse!"

It's unlikely that these people even know about the CEO's statements, nor that their being used as an anti-publicity stunt. I'm all for donating things, but when it's to your own agenda's advantage, it seems a little off.

Peledreamsofrain · May 2013

This whole thing is such a clusterfluck. The worst part is that I've seen a shocking number of people who agree with the original statement to 'exclude fat people'. Hello? Marylin Monroe was 'too fat' to shop at your heroine chic store.

lisabeats · May 2013

In Response to Re: In response to Mike Jeffries AF:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: In response to Mike Jeffries AF : And see, that's my issue with it. Homeless people being used as a source of humor.
Posted by StageManager14[/QUOTE]

This is the concise version of what I was attempting to say. Grazie.

AddieCake · May 2013

I'm not sure how I feel about the whole AF thing, but I did see someone make an interesting point the other day about it. She said:Stores like Lane Bryant are for larger women only. Why is it ok to sell only to a larger size person but not ok to only sell to a smaller sized person?

I kind of thought she had a point.

AddieCake · May 2013

In Response to Re: In response to Mike Jeffries AF:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: In response to Mike Jeffries AF : I don't think it's the petite sizing that is an issue so much as the "we only want physically attractive and social cool kids wearing our clothing" parts of his statement. There are plenty of designers and lines that market to a specific age group or body type. It's HOW they present it that makes a difference. Arizona is known for creating junior-esque clothing. I know that I have no issue with that. Arizona jeans still fit my short, pudgy butt best without exposing crack precisely BECAUSE of their cuts which are intended for younger clientel. I know that when I see ads for Arizona clothing, they're going to have cute little 15-19 year olds in them. That is totally different than the CEO of Arizona Clothing Co coming out and actively discouraging me from wearing their clothing because he or she believes that women over 30 being seen in their brand HURT their business.
Posted by StageManager14[/QUOTE]
Ahhh, ok. And thanks, Linger, for your explanation as well. I can see that, then. I confess I really haven't followed the story, so I didn't know exactly how he was phrasing things.

Peledreamsofrain · May 2013

In Response to Re:In response to Mike Jeffries AF:[QUOTE]In Response to Re: In response to Mike Jeffries AF:In Response to Re: In response to Mike Jeffries AF : I don't think it's the petite sizing that is an issue so much as the "we only want physically attractive and social cool kids wearing our clothing" parts of his statement. nbsp;There are plenty of designers and lines that market to a specific age group or body type. nbsp;It's HOW they present it that makes a difference. nbsp; Arizona is known for creating junioresque clothing. nbsp;I know that I have no issue with that. nbsp;Arizona jeans still fit my short, pudgy butt best without exposing crack precisely BECAUSE of their cuts which are intended for younger clientel. nbsp;I know that when I see ads for Arizona clothing, they're going to have cute little 1519 year olds in them. nbsp;That is totally different than the CEO of Arizona Clothing Co coming out and actively discouraging me from wearing their clothing because he or she believes that women over 30 being seen in their brand HURT their business.Posted by StageManager14Ahhh, ok. And thanks, Linger, for your explanation as well. nbsp;I can see that, then. I confess I really haven't followed the story, so I didn't know exactly how he was phrasing things.nbsp; Posted by AddieL73[/QUOTE] It was pretty bad. It was essentially "Why the eff would we allow fatties in our store anyway? They ugly up the place." And actually some non plus sized women do shop at Lane Bryant. Their bras come in sizes that are hard to find anywhere else. If someone's been cursed/blessed with huge tatas, thats a lifesaver. Nobody chases them out with pitchforks because they don't fit the pants.

monkeysip · May 2013

Meh, I don't see it as laughing at homeless people's expense. I laughed at the guy making fun of AF (clothes of a "narcisistic date rapist"), not at the homeless people. It's just a silly, and probably immature, way to try and piss AF off, not say anything negative about homeless people. Although I'm sure the AF guy (or "old Bif" HA) is crying really hard in his bed made of 100 dollar bills.

In response to Mike Jeffries AF

Re: In response to Mike Jeffries AF

Choose Another Board

Search Boards