Category Archives: Lola’s Rants

“Abercrombie is only interested in people with washboard stomachs who look like they’re about to jump on a surfboard.” ~ Robin Lewis, co-author of The New Rules of Retail

Mike Jeffries Abercrombie & Fitch CEO

                   

Friday leftovers . . .

This guy ↑, Michael Jeffries (CEO of Abercombrie & Fitch), needs to be bitch-slapped—pronto. Even though the above comments were made in a 2006 interview with Salon, Jeffries stands by them today.

Great. Let’s perpetuate the myth that to be popular you must be a certain size, look a certain way, wear certain clothes. I am so tired of this crap. So tired of a world that plants seeds of doubt in young girls and boys and then fosters those seeds with slanted, biased media infusions.

He looks like Gary Busey, for god’s sakes. On purpose—For example, ask him why he dyes his hair blond, “Dude, I’m not an old fart who wears his jeans up at his shoulders.” He’s 68. Another prime example of plastic surgery gone wrong on a man . . .

According to the Salon article,

His biggest obsession, though, is realizing his singular vision of idealized all-American youth. He wants desperately to look like his target customer (the casually flawless college kid), and in that pursuit he has aggressively transformed himself from a classically handsome man into a cartoonish physical specimen: dyed hair, perfectly white teeth, golden tan, bulging biceps, wrinkle-free face, and big, Angelina Jolie lips. But while he can’t turn back the clock, he can — and has — done the next best thing, creating a parallel universe of beauty and exclusivity where his attractions and obsessions have made him millions, shaped modern culture’s concepts of gender, masculinity and physical beauty, and made over himself and the world in his image, leaving them both just a little more bizarre than he found them.

Another source states that Jeffries “also has a discriminatory hiring policy, which has been challenged on several occasions. A company e-mail revealed the presence of a “measuring system” for employees: they were ordered to perform military-style exercises while at work so that they would stay “thin and beautiful.” If the employees failed to meet the standard, they would be “punished” with extra squats and pushups.PHOTO: Tourists outside Abercrombie & Fitch owned store

What is so perfidious about Jeffries’ marketing strategies is that not only does he perpetuate them within the company’s campus (headquarters), but he also attempts to carry these unrealistic standards from the boardroom into real life settings, like airplanes. A lawsuit was filed in 2010 by corporate jet pilot Michael Stephen Bustin, 55, who claims. “he was fired in December 2009 because of his age. In the case Jeffries, 68, is being accused of age discrimination” (ABCnews.com).

According to Bloomberg News, the toady CEO’s 47-page aircraft standards dictates the following:

  • Male flight crew members aboard the company’s Gulfstream G550 jet must wear A&F polo shirts, boxer briefs, flip-flops and a “spritz” of the A&F cologne
  • As passengers board the aircraft for return flights, the 1985 Phil Collins hit “Take Me Home” must be piped over the cabin PA
  • The executive’s three dogs – named as Ruby, Trouble and Sammy – had specific seats based on which was traveling
  • Staff must wear black gloves when handling silverware and white gloves for setting the table
  • Flight crew members are also banned from wearing coats unless the temperature falls below 50 degrees
  • Airline crew must not expose the toilet paper nor fold the end square
  • When [passengers] make a request, respond by saying ‘no problem.’ This should be used in place of phrases like, ‘Sure’ or, ‘Just a minute’

Oklahoma City Thunder cheerleader Kelsey Williams referred to as “chunky” by blogger

Someone needs to remind Jeffries that he isn’t Jay-Z or Beyonce. Personally, I still maintain that a good bitch-slap is called for . . .

Man, what kind of world do we live in, anyway? Apparently, one in which this woman → can be referred to as chunky, you know that completely tactless word used to slam a woman for not being . . . well, for not being A&F worthy, I suppose. Sheesh.

More later. Peace.

Music by Esthero, “Never Gonna Let You Go” (man, I love this song, and I’ve finally found the perfect copy to accompany it)

Related articles

 

“I take such consolation from knowing that, somewhere, Tesco employees are helping to perpetuate gender stereotypes for the rest of us.” ~ Sara Marr

Still? Really? Are you even kidding me? Please excuse me while I go find a wall upon which to bang my head in dismay, disgust, and demoralized agony . . .

An Open Letter to Tesco

(An open letter to Tesco, inspired by, and in support of, this article by Let Toys Be Toys: “Since when were science toys just for boys?” (see below) Update 9.30pm BST. Since this letter is getting quite a lot of traffic I just want to be clear that I’m also with everyone who thinks it’s appalling that the kitchen is tagged for girls. My strongest voice is as a scientist, but this is really about dropping the boy/girl categories altogether.)

Dear Tesco,

I do hope you’ll excuse the impertinence of my writing to you. I have, alas, frivolously wasted time in gaining a PhD in theoretical physics, investigating the mysteries of the universe, and co-founding a biomedical charity to address the suffering caused by the diseases of aging. Regretfully, I have spent woefully little time in the kitchen. If only you had been there, in my early days, to guide me in my life choices: then, perhaps, things would have been very different.

Thank heavens you have such an effective comeback to those who complain about your labelling of toys along gender lines: “Toy signage is currently based on research and how our customers tell us they like to shop in our stores”.

I do wonder what that research shows. Perhaps you ask a group of customers about every toy, to assign gender-appropriateness to it. Surely you care more than that, though? Surely, you see it as your own role to allocate each of your toys to boys or girls? I bet your research simply asks “Do you want toys grouped by gender?” so you can selflessly keep the important responsibility of ensuring girls are kept away from that awful, boy-ridden science ‘thing’.

I take such consolation from knowing that, somewhere, Tesco employees are helping to perpetuate gender stereotypes for the rest of us. I bet it’s a crack team of sociologists and behavioural psychologists, and not just a few, bored administrators mindlessly allocating science to boys and anything pink or kitchen-related to girls.

Or perhaps I’m wrong and you’re just a simple-minded corporate behemoth without the institutional intelligence or social sensibilities to do what’s right in this situation and follow the lead of Boots, for example. But hey! I’m just a girl. What do I know?

Yours,

Sarah Marr*

BJXoWY CIAArH2i An Open Letter to Tesco

Tell the world.

*Dr Sarah Marr is a co-founder of SENS Foundation, and acted as its Executive Vice President until September 2011. She is also on the Advisory Board of the Lifeboat Foundation.
Sarah has a Bachelor’s Degree in Law, from the University of Oxford, and another in Theoretical Physics, from Imperial College London, where she also built the prototype web portal for the European grid computing network of the Large Hadron Collider.
Her postgraduate studies include a Master’s Degree in Social Anthropology from the University of Manchester, specializing in the nature of cultural misappropriation in Western subcultures and concepts of the body, the self and ‘belonging’.  She has a PhD in Theoretical Physics from Imperial College London, covering the quantum and relativistic properties of black holes in discrete spacetimes.
Her previous position was as the Head of Operations of the UK political think-tank, Demos, where she also co-authored a global survey of public service design practices.

And related:

Since when were science toys just for boys?

Every time a girl sees a shelf of science-related toys under a sign that says “boys,”she is being told that the world thinks science is not for her.

By Tricia Lowther Published 26 February 2013 9:56

We have a problem with a lack of women following STEM careers.
We have a problem with a lack of women following STEM careers. Photograph: Horia Varlan on Flickr, via Creative Commons

The major shortage of qualified science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) graduates in the UK means that the lack of women in STEM careers is an issue the government seem to take seriously. There have been several media articles about girls and science recently, but little attention has been paid to the messages children take in through toys. Play is the medium through which children learn about the world and imagine the possibilities open to them. Only 13 per cent of STEM employees are female, so why is it acceptable for science toys to be overwhelmingly marketed to boys?

Not long before Christmas a survey was carried out by the Let Toys Be Toys  (LTBT) campaign. Forty different UK and Ireland retail branches were visited to see how toys were being marketed. LTBT found ten times as many stores promoted toolkits to boys than to girls, construction toys were three times as likely to be promoted to boys, and twice as many stores promoted chemistry sets to boys as to girls.

One of the most gendered shops in our survey was The Entertainer, which is divided into pink  and blue sections labelled girls or boys toys. All the science toys, construction and warfare are in the boys section and the cleaning, prams, dolls, kitchens, etc are on the pink shelves. Marks and Spencer also did badly, with much of their packaging branded “Boy Stuff”. Campaigners photographed a “Boys’ Stuff” sign over shelves that included; a telescope, human skeleton, dinosaurs and globes, all of which there is no logical reason to label “boys”. This image was made into a campaign poster which went viral (see left), but has, as yet, garnered no response from M&S.

Toysellers today are sending out strongly gendered messages to an unprecedented degree. More toys are on the market than ever before and gender targeted selling is seen as profitable, but there’s a high social cost.

It’s hard to measure the extent to which toy marketing affects children, but we can be certain that it affects them. LTBT supporters have shared numerous stories of children who feel pressured not to play with the “wrong” toy. Despite this, we are often told that “boys and girls like different toys”. Children will actually play with anything that’s presented to them as exciting, but a nature/nurture debate on gender is beside the point. There’s no need to prove anything about the nature of gender to show that limiting children’s access to play opportunities is damaging.

Neuroplasticity suggests that children’s brains develop according to the toys they play with. Construction and science toys develop spatial and problem solving skills. If girls don’t play with this type of toy then they are unlikely to be as strong as boys in this area. Recent US research found toys that are not strongly gender-typed are more likely to develop a range of skills in children.

Besides the effect on brain development there is the question of  gender stereotypes. Undoubtedly, children are heavily socialised by gender, and gendered toys can send some very limiting messages. Children don’t have the reasoning powers to see through the images they’re bombarded with. The UK has banned adverts for junk food to children, yet toy adverts with heavily stereotyped images continue. Car salesrooms do not have signs that say “men”, kitchen departments do not have signs that say “Women”, so why aren’t  “Boy” and “Girl” toy signs seen as blatant discrimination? It would be unacceptable to specify toys by race, and it should be unacceptable to do so by gender.

LTBT’s critics say parents can buy toys from any shelf. That’s true, so why have them? Every time a girl sees a shelf of science related toys under a sign that says “boys”, she is being told that the world thinks science is not for her. People are guided by signs and often only look in one section, so if buying in “Girls”, they are unlikely to see any science toys, unless it’s one of the recent additions to the “girlie toy” canon; pink, sparkly and focused on attractiveness, like a perfume lab or make your own lip gloss kit. The connection between the toys children play with and the interests they later take up should be obvious.

The Let Toys be Toys campaign is petitioning retailers to organise toys by theme instead of gender. Science toys aimed at boys is a small part of the picture. We want children to feel free to play with the toys they choose, instead of being told, “that’s for girls” or “that’s a boys’ toy”. It can only be beneficial to see the toy market opened up to all children. If even one little girl finds herself with a science kit that she wouldn’t have otherwise had, it’s worth it. Who knows what she might one day discover?

This article originally appeared on The F-Word

Related articles

If only I were making this stuff up . . .

Jon Stewart Trashes Fox News For Throwing Out The Constitution: The Law Is ‘No Match For Freedom Math’

by Josh Feldman | Mediaite

Jon Stewart took on one of his favorite punching bags, Fox News, in a segment calling the network out for always praising the wisdom of the Founders in creating the Constitution, only to discard over half of the Bill of Rights when talking about the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombings. Stewart noticed every amendment seemed negotiable to people at Fox News except the second, and any legal arguments to the contrary were “no match for freedom math.”

Stewart likened terrorists hating the U.S. for its freedoms to Anne Hathaway: “you hate us, only because you can’t get with this!” He ran clip after clip of Fox News hosts praising the Constitution, only to then show them throwing out the Constitution in talking about the case of the Boston Marathon bombers. On their questioning of whether or not the alive suspect should have been read his Miranda rights, Stewart pointed out he still has them even if they don’t read them, because “you don’t have to say them out loud for them to become real.”

Stewart ran the gamut from treating the suspect as an enemy combatant to calls for torture to even suggesting that the FBI should wiretap all mosques to show how amendments are just being dumped like wildfire. Stewart was particularly struck by Ann Coulter saying the dead suspect’s wife should be jailed for wearing a hijab, remarking “she wants a fashion police state.”

Of course, in the interest of fairness, Stewart showed some Fox News personalities injecting their legal perspective into the mix, but as far as the rest of the network is concerned, the law is “no match for freedom math.” Of course, Stewart noticed the only amendment not being discarded willy-nilly is the second, and wondered what would happen if terrorists decided to establish a well-regulated militia of their own.

                   

Full transcript of April 24 The Daily Show segment below:

But we begin tonight with a celebration of what makes America the home of the brave and the land of the awesome, and why our enemies don’t get it.

BRIAN KILMEADE (1/4/2013): Hey, the Constitution founded our great country.ERIC BOLLING (7/6/2011): The American Constitution, the blueprints for our way of life…

SEAN HANNITY (7/2/2012): I really worry if we have lost an understanding of our Constitution, our founding principles, an understanding of what makes us strong.

LAURA INGRAHAM (8/27/2009): They hate our freedom, they hate our way of life, they hate who we are, they hate our liberty.

It is like we are the Anne Hathaway of countries.  (audience laughter)  You hate us, but only cuz you can’t get with this!  (Jon finger snaps)

Why do you hate America?  Is it that we’re too nice, that we sing too well, or that we’re too hot?  ♫  ”I dreamed a dream….”

And that’s why how we handle Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is so important.  For the strength of our system lies in how durable it is, even for our most heinous citizens.

SEAN HANNITY (4/22/2013): I’m a little bit concerned because now he’s, you know, he’s got his Miranda rights, the right to remain silent.ERIC BOLLING (4/24/2013): Miranda.  Mirandize the guy or not?

GREG GUTFIELD (4/24/2013): I don’t understand the point.

BRIAN KILMEADE (4/23/2013): First thing you gotta tell him is, you have the right to remain silent.  Fantastic.  So the bombs that could be exploding and the plots that could be unfolding, we can’t ask him.

OK, first of all, not reading someone their Miranda rights doesn’t mean they don’t have their Miranda rights.  (audience laughter)  You have Miranda rights under the Constitution.  You don’t have to say them out loud for them to become real.  You’re thinking of Beetlejuice.  (audience laughter and applause)

Now the only reason you have to read them is so that whatever the suspect has done or did, whatever they do say, is admissible at their trial.  It’s another hallmark of our constitutionally guaranteed right to due process.

4/22/2013:SEAN HANNITY: I think it’s a mistake not to treat him as an enemy combatant.

ANN COULTER: We ought to look at him as an enemy combatant, and moving him toward a military tribunal.

Yes, civilian trial for a terrorist, not gonna work!  It’s why Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski, Ramzi Yousef, and the Blind Sheikh roam our fair country in a bus, going city to city singing medleys of original hits and….  (listens to earpiece)  What’s that?  Really?  They’re dead or in prison, huh?  Well, who am I thinking of?  Is it… oh, the Muppets.  Oh, all right.  I get it.  Well, to be fair, they both tried to take Manhattan.

So in the wake of an assault on our freedom and way of life, we have quickly jettisoned the Sixth Amendment’s right to a fair trial and speedy trial, and the Fifth Amendment’s right against self-incrimination!  What’s next?

SEAN HANNITY (4/22/2013): This guy ought to be, right now, being interrogated in a very intense way. … I’d waterboard him.  I don’t believe enhanced interrogation is torture.  I don’t.

You don’t believe enhanced interrogation is torture?  Because torture, like Tinkerbell, depends on if we believe?  So there goes the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.  Any freedom lovers want to take a crack at some of the lower ones, your Thirds, your Fourths?

4/22/2013:ERIC BOLLING: Should the FBI be allowed to now go into mosques and wiretap and surveil? … I think this is a great case for opening up that.

BRIAN KILMEADE: I think that we should be able to put in listening devices in there.

Sure, illegal search and seizure, done!  The freedom lovers at Fox are jettisoning Amendments like Han Solo dumping cargo to make the jump to light speed at the first sign of Imperial Cruisers, right Chewie?

But you know what?  Anybody can toss away the lesser-known Amendments.  Only a true patriot can set a course straight for the First.

BOB BECKEL (4/23/2013): We really have to consider, that given the fact so many people hate us, that we’re going to have to cut off Muslim students from coming to this country for some period of time.

Yes, a religious litmus test for school enrollment!, says Fox’s most prominent liberal voice.  Holy shit, what’s left?  A prohibition on the unmentioned personal rights in the Constitution that are designated to the people?

ANN COULTER (4/22/2013): I want to know about this wife as well. … I don’t care if she knew about this.  She ought to be in prison for wearing a hijab.

(shocked and disgusted audience response)

AND DOWN GOES THE NINTH AMENDMENT!!!  DOWN GOES THE NINTH AMENDMENT!!!

Ann Coulter doesn’t just want a police state, she wants a fashion police state!

Now of course, to their credit, any of the Fox contributors or anchors who have studied law, have a somewhat different take on this subject.

ANDREW NAPOLITANO (4/23/2013): To try him as an enemy combatant … the government can’t just willy-nilly do that.MEGYN KELLY (4/23/2013): I think now you’re getting into a dangerous place.

4/22/2013:BRIAN KILMEADE: Is that possible?

PETER JOHNSON, JR.: No.

But of course, these types of legal arguments are no match for freedom math.

ERIC BOLLING (4/23/2013): How many Muslims in the world, anybody? … 1.57 billion … Let’s just say 10% dislike us or hate us. … That means 157 million Muslims hate us.  If 5%, 10%, 1% are radicalized and would kill us, you know how much that is?  That’s one and a half million people who are radicalized to the point where they would want to kill you, kill us Americans.

Wow, that’s interesting.  Can I see a footnote citation for those figures?

Oh, that’s where he got them.  All right, I wasn’t sure.  (wild audience cheering and applause)

Well, hey, I have an idea.  Since we’re just throwing Amendments away willy-nilly, what if we wanted to, I dunno, track the weapons that any of these America-haters bought, or maybe do a background check, if any of them tried to purchase weapons here in America?  (audience applause)

ERIC BOLLING (7/19/2011): The right to bear arms is protected in the Constitution.SEAN HANNITY (6/28/2010): There’s no ambiguity here.  The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Oh, no ambiguity there.  You know, since, in the last few decades, there’s been 3,400 deaths from terrorism, Islamic and otherwise, and in that same period, we’ve had nearly, I dunno, a million deaths from gun violence, 30 to 40,000 a year, every year, is there anything we can do about that?

BRIAN KILMEADE (1/10/2013: What Constitution?  Vice President Joe Biden says the President may crack down on guns by executive order.ERIC BOLLING (4/3/2013): a.k.a., taking our right to bear arms away.

Yes, it turns out there’s only one Amendment in our Constitution’s pantheon that is exempt from statistical analysis or emotional freak-out-itude.  And it is the Second.  So God help us if the Muslims ever decide to form a well-regulated militia.

We’ll have no way to stop them.  We’ll be right back.

Related articles